╌>

New York 'celebrates' legalizing abortion until birth as Catholic bishops question Cuomo's faith

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  96ws6  •  5 years ago  •  371 comments

New York 'celebrates' legalizing abortion until birth as Catholic bishops question Cuomo's faith
Thomas Peters, the @AmericanPapist on Twitter, condemned Cuomo, saying he should be excommunicated for his pro-abortion actions, pointing to the One World Trade Center's pink spire."Now it looks just like the needle that is used to supply the lethal injection to the living unborn child," Peters wrote.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is under fire from  faith  leaders after he signed a bill into law that legalizes abortion up until birth in many cases. The Democratic governor directed the One World Trade Center and other landmarks to be lit in pink Tuesday to celebrate the passage of " Reproductive Health Act ."

Cuomo called it "a historic victory for New Yorkers and for our progressive values" on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States. But New York Catholic bishops slammed him for the move just days after he touted his Catholic faith during the State of the State address.

New York was the first state to legalize abortion in 1970. Cuomo directed the 408-foot spire on the One World Trade Center, the Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge, the Kosciuszko Bridge, and the Alfred E. Smith Building in Albany to be lit pink to “celebrate this achievement and shine a bright light forward for the rest of the nation to follow.”

Under the Reproductive Health Act, non-doctors are now allowed to conduct abortions and the procedure could be done until the mother's due date if the woman's health is endangered or if the fetus is not viable. The previous law only allowed abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman's life was at risk.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, along with the Catholic Bishops in the state signed a letter condemning the bill, saying "our beloved state has become a more dangerous one for women and their unborn babies."


Abortion is one of  the  safest  medical procedures  performed  in  the  United States.
— the Reproductive Health Act

"Our governor and legislative leaders hail this new abortion law as progress. This is not progress," the bishops wrote. "Progress will be achieved when our laws and our culture once again value and respect each unrepeatable gift of human life, from the first moment of creation to natural death."

Thomas Peters, the   @AmericanPapist  on Twitter, condemned Cuomo, saying he should be excommunicated for his pro-abortion actions, pointing to the One World Trade Center's pink spire.

"Now it looks just like the needle that is used to supply the lethal injection to the living unborn child," Peters wrote.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
1  seeder  96WS6    5 years ago

It looks like if I don't keep sugar coating this I will be suspended even though I did not modify the title of any articles.   If anyone else can offer advice on sugar coating murdering fully grown babies please provide links. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  96WS6 @1    5 years ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2  Gordy327  replied to  96WS6 @1    5 years ago

Start by not lying or trying to appeal to emotions! I already wrote an article yesterday about the new law, with actual facts and not  with lies, sensationalism, or hyperbole. Maybe you look and take some lessons.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
1.2.1  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2    5 years ago

A primary change in the 2019 law permits for a late-term abortion to preserve the health of the mother. Supporters say this conforms with Roe v. Wade; opponents say it wrongly expands access to late-term abortions.

The new law also shifts the abortion law from the state’s penal code to its health code — thereby removing doctors and others from the threat of prosecution, advocates say.

Further, the new law would permit physician assistants, nurse practitioners and midwives to provide nonsurgical abortion care.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
1.2.2  lady in black  replied to  96WS6 @1.2.1    5 years ago

So what, too bad, don't like NYS's law, then don't live here, and once again, not your uterus, not your business

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
1.2.3  seeder  96WS6  replied to  lady in black @1.2.2    5 years ago

When we are talking about a fully formed child that could live outside the uteris your assersions become irrelivent.  I would not stand by and be silent over a law that allowed your murder, regardless of your state of conciesness, either my friend.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
1.2.4  lady in black  replied to  96WS6 @1.2.3    5 years ago

You are so wrong it's sad...If you really think a woman in her 7th to 9th month wakes up one day and says I think I'll get an abortion, you are truly misinformed

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  96WS6 @1.2.1    5 years ago
A primary change in the 2019 law permits for a late-term abortion to preserve the health of the mother.

So? That's a good thing. The woman health is a primary concern.

Supporters say this conforms with Roe v. Wade; opponents say it wrongly expands access to late-term abortions.

And opponents are wrong!

The new law also shifts the abortion law from the state’s penal code to its health code — thereby removing doctors and others from the threat of prosecution, advocates say.

Again, so what?

Further, the new law would permit physician assistants, nurse practitioners and midwives to provide nonsurgical abortion care.

As long as they're certified and it falls within their scope of practice, what's the problem?

When we are talking about a fully formed child that could live outside the uteris your assersions become irrelivent.

Not even a little. Lady happens to be correct!

I would not stand by and be silent over a law that allowed your murder, regardless of your state of conciesness, either my friend.

Abortion isn't murder and it's none of your business! So spare us the sanctimony!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.3  epistte  replied to  96WS6 @1    5 years ago
It looks like if I don't keep sugar coating this I will be suspended even though I did not modify the title of any articles.   If anyone else can offer advice on sugar coating murdering fully grown babies please provide links. 

When will you bother to take the time and read the legislation before you reply? Elective abortion ends at 24 weeks of gestation. Abortion after that cutoff point is only possible when the fetus isn't viable (it's not really an abortion at that point but more of a miscarriage because the fetus wont be born alive/D&C) or when the lfe of the mother is is an imminent medical danger. 

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
1.3.1  seeder  96WS6  replied to  epistte @1.3    5 years ago

You should follow your own advice dear, read the law, and understand how the law has changed.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.3.2  epistte  replied to  96WS6 @1.3.1    5 years ago
You should follow your own advice dear, read the law, and understand how the law has changed.

 The current reading of Roe' is that elective abortion ends when a healthy fetus would be viable outside of the womb without heroic medical measures not long after 24 weeks gestation. A state law cannot overrule federal law because of the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause. 

This is from the NY state government, Elective abortion ends at 24 weeks.

Not only will the law preserve access to abortions, it also removes abortion from the state’s criminal code. This would protect doctors or medical professionals who perform abortions from criminal prosecution. The law also now allows medical professionals who are not doctors to perform abortions in New York.

“The old law had criminal penalties. It was written that the doctor or professional could be held criminally liable,” Cuomo said during an interview on WNYC Wednesday.

The law also addresses late-term abortions. Under New York’s Reproductive Health Act, they can be performed after 24 weeks if the fetus is not viable or when necessary to protect the life of the mother.

You should also read the press release from Planned Parenthood. This law doesn't allow late-term elective abortions, despite what some in the conservative media might be incorrectly claiming

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
1.3.3  lady in black  replied to  epistte @1.3.2    5 years ago

It's sad that people read what they want to read into the law.  

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
1.3.4  seeder  96WS6  replied to  epistte @1.3.2    5 years ago

OMG seriously?  You just posted talking points from planned parenthood insead of reading the law.  It is blazingly apparent you did not read the law for a reason so let me point out wording is important.   The important word here is HEALTH becuase it has not been in any way defined further, this wording will allow the baby to be aborted for any reason that may affect the patients "health" like "stress"  because stress if bad for your health get it, and because it is totally at the health care providers descression all they have to do is say it is my opinion (insert opinion here)  a c-section would have been to stressful or it posed a danger...all surgery oposes a danger.    Or how about mental health, the bill does not distinguish.  It is stressing her out to much mentally and is affecting her mental health IMO so it qualifies.  This is the door that has been opened.

1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI-

 FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-
IN  HIS  OR  HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN,
ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD  FAITH  PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN
TWENTY-FOUR  WEEKS  FROM  THE  COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN
ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT  THE
PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.



^^^Here is the wording and link just in case you can benefit from it.
 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
1.3.5  seeder  96WS6  replied to  lady in black @1.3.3    5 years ago

Whats's sad is when people read an Opine form planned parenthood and act like they know what is in the law that they either never bothered to read or can't comprehend.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
1.3.6  seeder  96WS6  replied to  epistte @1.3.2    5 years ago

BTW are you REALLY surprised Planned parenthood left out the one singe word that is making the whole bill so controversial?jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.3.7  epistte  replied to  96WS6 @1.3.6    5 years ago
BTW are you REALLY surprised Planned parenthood left out the one singe word that is making the whole bill so controversial?

What single word are you claiming that they left out? Did you ever consider the possibility that your preferred conservative sources are adding a word or insinuating word that isn't in the bill just to stir up controversy? 

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
1.3.8  lady in black  replied to  96WS6 @1.3.5    5 years ago

I live in NYS, I know exactly what is going on, so don't ASSUME, you know me.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.3.9  epistte  replied to  96WS6 @1.3.4    5 years ago
THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

The inclusion of the word HEALTH is not a mental health or a lifestyle exemption for late term elective abortions.   All pregnancies are stressful, so unless there is an imminent extenuating medical circumstance that word does not create a huge loophole.  Call off the boogeymen and tell them to go back under the bed or into the closet until 11:00 pm during the normal work hours.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.3.10  Dulay  replied to  96WS6 @1.3.4    5 years ago
This is the door that has been opened.

Haven't you read Sean's posts? That door has been open for 48 years. Sheesh...

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.3.11  Gordy327  replied to  96WS6 @1.3.1    5 years ago
read the law, and understand how the law has changed.

The only one who doesn't seem to understand the law here is you!

this wording will allow the baby to be aborted for any reason that may affect the patients "health" like "stress" because stress if bad for your health get it, and because it is totally at the health care providers descression all they have to do is say it is my opinion (insert opinion here) a c-section would have been to stressful or it posed a danger...all surgery oposes a danger.

You base that assertion on what exactly? Your opinion?

Whats's sad is when people read an Opine form planned parenthood and act like they know what is in the law that they either never bothered to read or can't comprehend.

See first statement.

BTW are you REALLY surprised Planned parenthood left out the one singe word that is making the whole bill so controversial?

What word would that be? 

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
1.3.12  seeder  96WS6  replied to  epistte @1.3.7    5 years ago
What single word are you claiming that they left out?

Are you kidding me?  I posted link, posted the actual verbieage. and broke out a single paragraph to make it easy for you.  I already knew you wouldn't read the law, but I thought if I made it real easy you would at least read a paragraph in efforts to actually understand what you are talking about.  I can't beleive you just got 8 thumbs up for (intentional?) lack of reading and comprehension.  Just goes to show you how pitiful the situation actually is.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.3.13  epistte  replied to  96WS6 @1.3.12    5 years ago
Are you kidding me?  I posted link, posted the actual verbieage. and broke out a single paragraph to make it easy for you.  I already knew you wouldn't read the law, but I thought if I made it real easy you would at least read a paragraph in efforts to actually understand what you are talking about.  I can't beleive you just got 8 thumbs up for (intentional?) lack of reading and comprehension.  Just goes to show you how pitiful the situation actually is.

You are reading something that isn't there because someone has convinced you of it, despite the facts to the contrary. The health protection that is included is to allow a woman to have an abortion past 24 the week elective limit in a medical situation that wouldn't kill her but it would cause long term physical harm or disable her.  This isn't about depression, anxiety, lifestyle or a C-section scar.  *************************************************************!

Why do you think that your religious or political views get to make the reproductive decisions of others? 

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
1.3.14  seeder  96WS6  replied to  epistte @1.3.13    5 years ago

 but it would cause long term physical harm or disable her.

Under the new law that is FALSE.  it does not have to be "disableing" and the pain dos NOT have to be "long term" becuse the law ais intentionally vaugue.  The law specifically says  :

OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT  THE
PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

You are reading PROTECTIONS into the law that are not there just asmuch as you accuse me of reading into loopholes being exploited.  The difference is that the protections you claim are COMPLETELY ABSCENT and history dictates loopholes are ALWAYS exploited.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.3.15  Gordy327  replied to  96WS6 @1.3.14    5 years ago
Under the new law that is FALSE.  it does not have to be "disableing" and the pain doe not have to be "long term" becuse the law ais intentionally vaugue. 

That's nice. prove it!

You are reading into the law just asmuch as you accuse me of

No, you're up to making things up now.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.4  cjcold  replied to  96WS6 @1    5 years ago

Too many folk as it is. The planet is being destroyed by overpopulation and greed.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
1.4.1  charger 383  replied to  cjcold @1.4    5 years ago

Overpopulation is the biggest problem but they want to complain about abortion.  Few are willing to see this

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.4.2  epistte  replied to  charger 383 @1.4.1    5 years ago
Overpopulation is the biggest problem but they want to complain about abortion.  Few are willing to see this

The same people complain who oppose abortion about the cost of food stamps, welfare, Medicaid and public schools, but they want to force women to have children that they don't want and can't afford.  Apparently, they want to punish both the children and women, despite their claims of being pro-life and Christian.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.3  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @1.4.2    5 years ago

Complaining is all they seem able to do. Maybe if they formulated a rational argument rather than emotional appeals or misinformation, they might be taken more seriously. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
1.4.4  charger 383  replied to  epistte @1.4.2    5 years ago

cost effective is lost on them, and they don't want to spend the money to back up their opposition to abortion and family planning 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.4.5  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.3    5 years ago
Complaining is all they seem able to do. Maybe if they formulated a rational argument rather than emotional appeals or misinformation, they might be taken more seriously. 

I'm likely going to get in trouble for this reply, but if these same people could formulate a rational argument or put forth a pragmatic solution then they wouldn't be either a conservative Christian or Republican. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.7  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.6    5 years ago
Tell me Gordy, would Cuomo answer the question in the same manner as the Virginia governor.

What question? And why ask me? I don't speak for Gov. Cuomo. Perhaps you should ask him.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.9  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.8    5 years ago
if after 24 weeks up to delivery and a baby is born or survives an abortion and is viable, does the mother have the right to terminate, if she fears her mental health is at risk?  

Here is what the law itself says:

Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person [or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks] under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, OR criminally
negligent homicide[, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in the first degree]…."Person," when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.

Does that answer your question?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.4.10  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.8    5 years ago

In NYS, if you deliver a live viable baby, the baby must be saved or evaluated by the hospital staff. When I delivered my girls who were premies, there was one such baby that the mother didn't want and was being taken care of and was now a ward of the state and up for adoption.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.4.11  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.4.10    5 years ago

Based on the 14th Amendment, I think that's true in every state. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.4.13  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.12    5 years ago
which I believe it does.

What wording in the bill lead you to that conclusion? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.14  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.12    5 years ago
No.........you have to look at the definition of "born alive" in relations to revised Reproductive Health Act and if it changes any language in the criminal code, which I believe it does.

You're trying to move the goalposts. I cited the NY Reproductive Health Act (now law) directly. What the law does with regard to criminal code is remove abortion from the criminal code and places it within the realm of public health law. But if a fetus is born alive, it cannot be terminated. That is unlawful. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.17  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.16    5 years ago
What happens if at 31 weeks, the fetus is perfectly viable, but the abortion takes place do to the mental health of the mother?

Except that would not happen. Your "what if" scenario is quite amusing. Not to mention clearly grasping at straws.

I am trying to find out if the NY bill has been mirrored by Virginia, because what the Governor of Virginia said is quite disturbing.

The focus of the article is on the NY law, which has been thoroughly explained by now. Not Virginia.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.4.18  epistte  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.16    5 years ago
What happens if at 31 weeks, the fetus is perfectly viable, but the abortion takes place do to the mental health of the mother?

Why would they perform an abortion because of the mother's mental health? Depression and anxiety can be treated very effectively. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
1.4.19  charger 383  replied to  epistte @1.4.18    5 years ago

should someone with mental problems have a child?  might be making more problems

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.4.20  epistte  replied to  charger 383 @1.4.19    5 years ago

Are you referring to people who have relationships with imaginary people or is that referring to people who have mental health conditions that can be controlled with medication?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
1.4.22  charger 383  replied to  epistte @1.4.20    5 years ago

either is a good enough reason and both can be problems,  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
1.4.23  charger 383  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.21    5 years ago

 "Is the Mental Health of the mother a reason to receive an abortion after 24 weeks, that's a Yes or No question.  YES

"Is the viability of the fetus a reason to deny an abortion, that is a Yes or No question"  NO

Now Here is another question?   What reason is there to have laws on abortion?

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.4.26  epistte  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.24    5 years ago

That information doesn't support your claim. You should have read that the previous argument, which was whether the period for elective abortions should end at the time of viability(24 weeks) or instead be banned at 20 weeks.

If you sincerely want to cut down on the number of abortions performed then you should be supporting free and open access to all effective forms of artifical birth control, plus the morning after pill, but conservatives don't want to do that either.   It is easier in your mind just to blame women for having sex. You also don't want to take social responsibility for the babies that you will forced to be born or to support the mothers that will be forced to raise them because abortion is banned.  You instead want simplistic and regressive solutions to complex problems.  We aren't your sex toys, you don't own, we are absolutely equal to any man, and we certainly not subordinate to a biological parasite.  Conservatives need to learn to keep your hands, your religious beliefs and your political party out of our panties. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.4.27  Dulay  replied to  epistte @1.4.26    5 years ago
That information doesn't support your claim.

It actually disproves his position. Sad. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.28  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.21    5 years ago
What's amusing about it?  

Perhaps "amusing" is the wrong term. "Stupid" fits better.

Is the Mental Health of the mother a reason to receive an abortion after 24 weeks, that's a Yes or No question.

That's a matter for the woman and doctor to determine. Not you nor anyone else!

Is the viability of the fetus a reason to deny an abortion, that is a Yes or No question.

No.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.32  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.30    5 years ago
Because you know the answer and don't want to admit what that means.

No, I don't. Why don't you elucidate for me!

Here is my claim, after 24 weeks up until the time of delivery can a women claim a metal health issue and receive an abortion regardless of the viability of the fetus.

Now all you have to do is provide evidence to substantiate or validate that claim.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.4.33  epistte  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.29    5 years ago
What claim do you think I am making?  Here is my claim, after 24 weeks up until the time of delivery can a women claim a metal health issue and receive an abortion regardless of the viability of the fetus. 

You have yet to prove that claim.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.4.34  cjcold  replied to  charger 383 @1.4.4    5 years ago

Used to date a lady that worked for PPA. She would ravish me nightly and neither of us even considered pregnancy. Until she got pregnant when her birth control device failed.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.4.35  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.31    5 years ago
What exactly is disproven?

Well first of all, your scenario is a 31 week pregnancy and the study is about abortions after 20 weeks and the average was @ 22 weeks. So it DOES NOT SUPPORT your posit. 

Secondly, there isn't ONE example of an abortion performed purely because of a woman's mental health. The data in the study shows that only 19% of the women who had late term abortions had ANY history of depression. Women who had first trimester abortions had a 27% history of depression. That is NOT to say that depression was the PRIMARY reason for the abortion. If you had READ the study, you'd know that. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.37  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.36    5 years ago
Health of the women is not defined as "medical condition that could end your life"

There are many health risks associated with pregnancy. The risk to a woman's health, including life threatening health complications, is for a physician to determine. So you have not proven your claim that a woman can "claim a metal health issue and receive an abortion regardless of the viability of the fetus."

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.4.40  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.38    5 years ago
The narrative of women only having late term abortions because of serious health condidtion was not proven in this study.

The question you were supposed to be answering by posting the link to that study was about mental health being a reason for late term abortions. You didn't answer it. 

BTW, I have yet to see even ONE person that claimed that women ONLY have late term abortions because of 'serious health conditions'. Care to support that claim? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.4.41  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.39    5 years ago
Show me in the law where it "excludes" mental health?

Since you conveniently truncated your claim, I'll follow suit.

Show me where in the law where it states 'regardless of the viability of the fetus.' 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.4.44  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.43    5 years ago
It doesn't?

The what lead you to make that assertion? 

Ever wonder why they took abortion out of the criminal code and put it into the health and human services.

No. I understand that an abortion is a medical procedure, not a criminal act. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.4.45  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.42    5 years ago
Is mental health "ever" a reason, if so then it would be included in late term abortion.

And? 

If the "only" reason for a late term abortion was to save the life of the mother, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

Again, I haven't seen anyone claiming that the ONLY reason is to save the life of the mother. It's a strawman. 

There's nothing to support, it's not an issue.

Citing 'narratives' that don't exist anywhere in the seed or it's threads is an issue. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.47  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.39    5 years ago
Show me in the law where it "excludes" mental health?

Nice attempt to twist things around. I'll take that to mean you can't back up your claim!

Is mental health "ever" a reason, if so then it would be included in late term abortion.

That's really for a physician to decide, now isn't it?

If the "only" reason for a late term abortion was to save the life of the mother, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Why should that be the only reason? As I said, there are many health risks and complications that can occur during pregnancy, some of which can become life threatening.

Ever wonder why they took abortion out of the criminal code and put it into the health and human services.

Because abortion is a medical procedure, not a criminal act.

do you think I make this stuff up.

I'm beginning to think you do. Especially since you can't seem to substantiate your claims.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.4.48  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.46    5 years ago
OMG, do you think I make this stuff up.

The comment you quoted NOT a:

narrative of women only having late term abortions because of serious health condidtion

It looks to me like you intentionally misrepresent what's been said.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.4.50  cjcold  replied to  epistte @1.4.20    5 years ago

He might have been referring to post partum depression. Used to be a paramedic and have been to a few calls where recent mothers experienced hormone imbalances and went homicidal. Glad I'm a guy. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.51  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.49    5 years ago
the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.

That sounds perfectly reasonable.

I believe protecting the "patient's life" pretty much covers anything, why "Health".

Let me know when you have facts rather than beliefs. Health also includes a patient's life. Not to mention there are many potential health complications and risks which can arise during a pregnancy.

I don't know maybe you should ask Kermit Gosnell.

Except he was clearly violating the law and was convicted as a result. Apples and oranges there.

You should ask the person that prosecuted Kermit Gosnell.

See previous statement.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.4.52  epistte  replied to  cjcold @1.4.50    5 years ago
He might have been referring to post partum depression. Used to be a paramedic and have been to a few calls where recent mothers experienced hormone imbalances and went homicidal. Glad I'm a guy. 

I am well aware of hormonal mood swings. I could go from being Martha Stewart to Carrie Nation ever month for a few days. That's one of the reasons I take BCPs

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.4.53  epistte  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.46    5 years ago
OMG, do you think I make this stuff up.

Depression or anxiety are not valid reasons for abortion after 24 weeks. You have no proof that it is.

 Some conservative wackadoodle told you that the NY legislation could be abused that way because of the inclusion of the word health and now you are convinced that it is true, despite the lack of evidence to support their claim. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.4.56  Split Personality  replied to  epistte @1.4.53    5 years ago

Anyone trying to use such a flimsy excuse will be introduced to the hospital's perinatal social workers

who will have adoption papers in his/her back pocket, pronto.

Hospitals and medical professionals will always deliver and keep alive a healthy viable infant and if the parents won't accept responsibility

the state will step in and make said children, wards of the state.

Once delivered no court would allow or condone anything less,

regardless of the myriad of "what ifs" the nay-sayers can imagine.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.4.57  epistte  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.55    5 years ago
No, I want to be proven wrong, I can't imagine it actually happening, but show me in the law where it excludes Mental Health.

Logically, I cannot prove a negative. Can you prove that it has happened or would be permitted to happen, since you are making the claim of it being a possibility? 

The first act would be a 72-hour mental health hold for observation and medication.

A fetus is viable living independently of the mother's body after 30-32 weeks so they would not perform an abortion. They would artificially induce labor and the infant would be born if it was an emergency.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.58  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.54    5 years ago
So your saying Mental Health is "not" included?

Is it?

but show me in the law where it excludes Mental Health.

Show us where it is, or where such an excuse is being utilized, much less directly leading to an abortion! You're the one implying it would happen.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
1.4.59  Studiusbagus  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.54    5 years ago
So your saying Mental Health is "not" included?

Damn! You do like to split hairs, don't you?

But I'll take a crack at this...

"Mental" health doesn't come to play in an abortion. It would be low on the list. How it would come in to play would be having mental health issues and demanding an abortion at 30 weeks.

Without a physical issue known of either client or baby she would be referred to an appropriate Mental health professional. But regardless, without evidence of permanent damage, it won't happen. 

It won't happen because the doctor could lose his license and be sued to his shorts if he performed an abortion for a crazy person and she suddenly goes back on her meds and starts wanting to know where her kid is.

Or, she has the abortion and develops an infection..now they're caring for her health.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.4.62  epistte  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.60    5 years ago
There is nothing in the New York statute that makes reference to the life, health or viability of the fetus after 24 weeks, only the mother.

Why are you trying to discuss a topic that you apparently know nothing about? You can no more discuss abortion without having a basic understanding of fetal viability than you can intelligently discuss evolution without some knowledge of genetics!

The legal limit of elective abortions at 24 weeks is because the fetus is soon to be viable a few weeks after that with extreme medical measures. 

Viability , as the word has been used in United States constitutional law since Roe v. Wade , is the potential of the fetus to survive outside the uterus after birth, natural or induced, when supported by up-to-date medicine. Fetal viability depends largely on the fetal organ maturity, and environmental conditions. [2] Another definition for viability , as used in the medical phrase limit of viability , is the expectation that a fetus has an equal chance of surviving and not surviving outside his or her mother's womb.
 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
1.4.64  epistte  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.63    5 years ago
Well epistte, if that is the case how did Dr. Kermit Gosnell ever exist? 

What he did was not legal. That is why he was convicted of multiple crimes.

.......abortion provider who was convicted of murdering three infants who were born alive during attempted abortion procedures; he was also convicted of involuntary manslaughter of one woman during an abortion procedure.
 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
1.4.65  charger 383  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.63    5 years ago
how did Dr. Kermit Gosnell ever exist? 

supply and demand.  They wanted an abortion and a safer one was not easy to get so they went to him.  He was sort of like a drug dealer. there is demand for something so somebody will supply it legal or not, safe or not.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.4.66  Split Personality  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.63    5 years ago
if that is the case how did Dr. Kermit Gosnell ever exist? 

How did "el Chapo" exist?

How did Bernie Madoff exist?

There will always be smart people, using their incredible talents, to fool people who aren't as smart.

They don't care about, or respect the law. They  are usually only focused on themselves and money.

And because of the whole spectrum of similar people of various degrees, we have a government of law creation and enforcement and punishment.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.67  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.61    5 years ago

So in other words, you have nothing but pure conjecture.  Got it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.68  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.60    5 years ago

Yes, so? Is that a problem? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.69  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.63    5 years ago

What Dr. Gosnell did was illegal. That's why he was convicted and imprisioned. It's also a Strawman argument. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.4.70  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.69    5 years ago

What Dr. Gosnell did was illegal. 

As Nick Searcy wrote:

He was convicted of killing breathing infants that had already been born. It is now legal in New York to kill an infant that survives an abortion .

He was convicted of allowing untrained and unlicensed non-medical personnel to perform abortions. It is now legal in New York for non-physicians or any “health professionals” (undefined) to perform abortions.

He was convicted of performing at least 21 late-term abortions past the legal limit of 24 weeks. It is now legal in New York to terminate a pregnancy up until the due date. In New York, there is no longer any such thing as a “late-term” abortion.
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.71  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.4.70    5 years ago

If you read the law, it states abortions can be provided by trained and certified practioners. And in New York, abortions after viability is  performed when the woman's health/life is at risk. So it is not legal to terminate a pregnancy otherwise.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.73  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.72    5 years ago
Abortion after "Viability" if the fetus is out of the mother, how can it effect her health?

You mean birth? A woman can still experience many issues after birth.

If the fetus is viable as you state, it can survive outside of the womb, why kill it. 

It's not. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.4.75  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.4.74    5 years ago
What issues "after" birth could she experience that would necessitate the termination of a viable fetus after it has been removed from the mother?

I didn't say anything about the termination of a fetus post birth. I said "A woman can still experience many issues after birth."

Then what do you mean when you say " And in New York, abortions after viability". Viability of what?

The point of viability during gestation. Of course, just because that point is reached doesn't mean a fetus will be or is capable of remaining viable. And a woman may still experience significant health issues after that point.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  Tessylo    5 years ago

."Now it looks just like the needle that is used to supply the lethal injection to the living unborn child," Peters wrote.

Oh please.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3  Sean Treacy    5 years ago

You know the pro abortionists are actually ashamed of what they believe because they hide behind weasel words and rely on emotionally based rhetoric to intentionally mislead the casual observer. For instance, they'll tell you you can abort a fully developed viable child only if the mother's health is at stake. Of course, the fact that the current law already specifically  allowed abortion at all times to save the life of the mother isn't mentioned for fear of the obvious inference that creates.  

They certainly won't tell you that the mother's "health" exception is so broad as to be meaningless.  They need to pretend it's for when the woman has actual health risk.  "The truth is a woman in New York can go into a abortion mill and have an abortion performed on her due date, she need merely claim the thought of a baby and the responsibility it entails is causing her "stress."  So now the fully formed child can be killed and it it's legal because her "emotional health" was in danger. 

IT would be refreshing to see the pro abortionists crowd  admit in public to what they argue in Court.  It's obvious why they lie, they can' admit to the horror of what they practice.   

They fight tooth and nail to take human life up until the moment of birth, but won't admit to it.   Plus, with this law, they can now kill babies who survive the abortion process without legal risk.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    5 years ago

Sean,

People are not pro-abortion. They are pro-choice. That means you get to do what you think is right and they get to do what they think is right. Pro-life, forces people who don't share those beliefs into living by someone else's rules. 

Doctors take an oath to do no harm. That applies to this also.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    5 years ago

People are not pro-abortion

That's false. Some people are very publicly pro abortion. 

ro-life, forces people who don't share those beliefs into living by someone else's rules. 

Yes. We live in a civil society where we all have to live by someone's else's rules. Protecting innocent life is one of those rules decent people live by.

ctors take an oath to do no harm. That applies to this also.

Which version? The idea that a changeable oath that flips and flops on the issue has some value is sorta silly. The contents are dictated by politics. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.1.3  Veronica  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.1    5 years ago

Wife or fetus? Which would you choose?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.1    5 years ago
That's false. Some people are very publicly pro abortion. 

They are a minority. Most people are pro choice and you know that. I am pro choice, not pro abortion.

Yes. We live in a civil society where we all have to live by someone's else's rules. Protecting innocent life is one of those rules decent people live by.

Agreed, but as in the case I gave you, the civil thing to do is to save the mother first and then try to save the baby. This is not always possible, although usually, it is. 

The idea that a changeable oath that flips and flops on the issue has some value is sorta silly. The contents are dictated by politics. 

How is it a flip flop? Do no harm means just that. No doctor is going to kill a 9 month old fetus unless it is absolutely necessary. For goodness sakes, in NY, if you shot a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, you get charged with murder. Are you aware of that?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Release The Kraken @3.1.2    5 years ago

Come on BF. Those are extremists. You can find any craziness on the internet. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.4    5 years ago
I am pro choice, not pro abortion.

Me as well.   I think most people are closer to this way of thinking than the far left or right extremes.    But when it comes to the sanctity of life it is not an easy place to be .... not for me at least, not at all ...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Veronica @3.1.3    5 years ago
Wife or fetus? Which would you choose

Abortion when the woman's life on the line is not the  issue. That's for the mother to decide.

That's my point, when we are talking about a law that allows abortion on demand of viable babies, pro choicers always want to switch to "it's a question of the mother's life." It's not. That issue was decided in New York even before Roe. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.7    5 years ago
a law that allows abortion on demand of viable babies

You're not paying attention! That law does not allow abortions for viable fetuses!

I can't decide I don't want to be pregnant any more when I'm 32 weeks along and try and get an abortion! It doesn't work like that.

Why don't you try reading the article and speak from a place of logic instead of emotion?

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.1.9  Veronica  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.7    5 years ago

I'm sorry but it does say that in the bill  "Finally, it legalizes abortion after 24 weeks in cases where it would protect a woman's health or where a fetus is not viable. State law previously only allowed abortions after 24 weeks if the woman's life was in jeopardy."

Maybe you should read the bill itself instead of listening to the false talking points.

And how many "viable" fetuses are terminated?  Or are they just delivered?  

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.1.10  Veronica  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.8    5 years ago

Ding Ding Ding!!!!!! A winner!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.4    5 years ago
, the civil thing to do is to save the mother first and then try to save the baby. This is not always possible, although usually, it is. 

But that's not what this law is about. Nor do I disagree that what's a doctor should do, unless the mother says "save the baby first."

How is it a flip flop

Because, the Oath up until a few decades ago bound Doctor's to protect life from the moment of conception. 

 doctor is going to kill a 9 month old fetus unless it is absolutely necessary

Sure they will. Read up on Dr. Gosnell as an example.  Doctors as a group are just as venal, dishonest and ideological  as any other group of adults.  There are any number of motivations for a doctor to kill a viable human, and many can no doubt justify it as the "right thing to do."

ou shot a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, you get charged with murder. Are you aware of tha

I am. It astounds  me. A woman can go to an abortion clinic and have her child aborted and it's fine. But if she changes her mind at the last second and is shot walking out of the clinic and the baby dies, suddenly it's murder.  The same baby can be killed without penalty or put someone in jail for life, all depending how someone feels at the moment.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  Veronica @3.1.10    5 years ago

We both tried but I don't think we got thru

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.13  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.6    5 years ago

I have always taken a very scientific perspective to this. Since I believe do no harm, for most abortions I do not feel that they should be performed after the nervous system is fully engaged, since then the fetus can feel pain. But that is me. I would only have an abortion after that point if my life was in danger. The major causes of that are Eclampsia and DIC. With eclampsia, a call has to be made about whether or not a mother can withstand a delivery without having a heart attack or stroke. With DIC , normal and C section delivery is impossible since the mother will bleed out and die. 

People have to understand medicine to understand why sometimes awful decisions are made. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Veronica @3.1.9    5 years ago
uld read the bill itself instead of listening to the false talking points

Maybe you should try and understand what's going on.

The bill's "exception" is so broad as to make the prohibition meaningless.  All a mother needs to do to have an abortion is claim the baby will upset her emotional health. The bill is written so gullible people think it prohibits abortion of viable fetuses except in dire circumstances, when it in face legalizes them by simply checking a box.

Don't be mad at me because you don't understand what's happening. . 

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.1.15  Veronica  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.14    5 years ago

So post the exemption from the bill here to prove your point.  Show me in the bill where it says a woman can walk into a doctors office at 39 weeks and say my life is in danger, give me an abortion.  Show me in that bill where it says that can happen.  If it is the doctor's discretion to decide whether or not the woman's life is in danger who are you to question him?

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.1.16  Veronica  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.14    5 years ago

I think I understand what is going on in this bill, with women's health, pregnancy and termination than you will ever understand as a man.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.8    5 years ago
hat law does not allow abortions for viable fetuses!

Are you kidding me?  Now that's funny. It's almost like you have no idea how the Supreme Court handles abortion cases.

IF you think it depends on trimesters or viability , you really have no business discussing the topic.

on't want to be pregnant any more when I'm 32 weeks along and try and get an abortion!

Of ocurse you can. Did you read the law? Do you  understand how broad the health "exception" is?  You want an abortion at 32 weeks, tell the nurse you are stressed out about having a baby, and the "emotional health" box is checked and it's go time! 

ing the article and speak from a place of logic instead of emotion?

I'm actually speaking from a place of understanding the reality of what the law means. You seem to be parroting simplistic talking points and really not have a clue about when a state can ban abortions. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.1.18  Veronica  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.17    5 years ago
Do you  understand how broad the health "exception" is? 

So post the "broad" exemption in this bill.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  Veronica @3.1.15    5 years ago
If it is the doctor's discretion to decide whether or not the woman's life is in danger who are you to question him?

Yeah it's the doctors or nurse at the abortion factories discretion. The person whose income is derived from performing abortions "discretion."  

did you read the bill? the mother's life has nothing to do with it.  Any old issue with the mothers mental, physical, or emotional health will do. Stress works. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.8    5 years ago
hat law does not allow abortions for viable fetuses!

C'mon. Fetuses are viable at 24 weeks.  Talk about arguing from  a place of emotion! 

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.1.21  Veronica  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.19    5 years ago

So you have nothing.  Gotcha.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.1.22  Veronica  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.19    5 years ago
Any old issue with the mothers mental, physical, or emotional health will do. Stress works. 

Prove it - post that part of the bill.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.23  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.20    5 years ago

Really? How many fetuses have you seen birthed at 24 weeks that don't require weeks if not months of care in a NICU?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  Veronica @3.1.22    5 years ago
post that part of the bill.

You don't seem to grasp how this works. 

Read Doe v Bolton. 

It's really amazing how ignorant people are of how our legal system works and in particular how Roe v Wade was applied. People still think trimesters matter for abortion regulations.   I'll make this as simple as I can. 

Doe, decided in tandem with Roe, defines what the health exception for abortion means legally.  In other words, a state can't restrict abortion without the Doe health exception. The Doe exception is massive, not just for the "live of the mother," and there is no time limit when it applies.    

Pretty much everything people think they know about the legal regime governing abortion is wrong. Trimesters don't matter. States don't have the right to ban abortion after the second trimester etc...

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.1.25  Veronica  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.24    5 years ago

No, post the part that says a woman can walk in get an abortion after 24 weeks along for stress.

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
3.1.26  bccrane  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.4    5 years ago
 if you shot a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, you get charged with murder.

Not anymore in NY, the law struck abortion out of the definition of homicide, even if the fetus died from the death due to
homicide of the mother or abuse of the mother.

HOMICIDE[, ABORTION] AND RELATED OFFENSES 5 § 6. Section 125.00 of the penal law is amended to read as follows: 6 § 125.00 Homicide defined. 7 Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person [or an 8 unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twen- 9 ty-four weeks]
 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
3.1.27  bccrane  replied to  bccrane @3.1.26    5 years ago

Well that didn't come out  right, the bold part of the law is what has been struck out as the definition of homicide.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.28  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.24    5 years ago
You don't seem to grasp how this works. 

Actually, the way this works is that when you make a claim about a piece of NY legislation, you prove your claim by citing the relevant part of THAT NY legislation. 

Posting a 45 year old SCOTUS ruling is just deflection. 

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.1.30  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Release The Kraken @3.1.2    5 years ago

Hey be careful you could get suspended if you seed that.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.31  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.24    5 years ago

Doe v. Bolton is irrelevant because that was overturned by Roe. Doe limited abortion in George only when rape, incest, or the life of the mother was in danger. The Roe decision overruled that and allowed women to have an elective abortion. 

Doe v. Bolton was decided the same day at the Roe decision.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.32  epistte  replied to  bccrane @3.1.27    5 years ago
Well that didn't come out  right, the bold part of the law is what has been struck out as the definition of homicide.

Only the mother has the right/power to terminate a pregnancy. If anyone else acts in a way that the fetus dies, it is homicide. The NY law doesn't change the legal concept.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.33  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @3.1.28    5 years ago
this works is that when you make a claim about a piece of NY legislation, you prove your claim by citing the relevant part of THAT NY legislation. 

You must not be familiar with how the law works and is interpreted.  

By all means, please construct an argument that Courts will interpret New York's health exception more narrowly then the Supreme Court mandated definition in Doe. 

Where in the law did the NY legislature declare the Supreme Court's definition too broad? Where did it create a new definition of health that is narrower than what it Constitutionally required?  Do you believe New York's legislature overturned Doe by magic?  I mean. if the New York legislature doesn't want to be bound by Doe, they'd have to spell that out. Where did they? 

Who knew the Democratic legislature of New York was trying to restrict legal abortion? Apparenlty you. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.1.34  Veronica  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.24    5 years ago
She was a 22-year-old Georgia citizen, married, and nine weeks pregnant. She had three living children. The two older ones had been placed in a foster home because of Doe's poverty and inability to care for them. The youngest, born July 19, 1969, had been placed for adoption. Her husband had recently abandoned her and she was forced to live with her indigent parents and their eight children. She and her husband, however, had become reconciled. He was a construction worker employed only sporadically. She had been a mental patient at the State Hospital. She had been advised that an abortion could be performed on her with less danger to her health than if she gave birth to the child she was carrying. She would be unable to care for or support the new child.

Not anywhere near 24 weeks.... sorry try again - somewhere in this bill that states a woman can walk into a clinic after 24 weeks and ask for an abortion & get it because of stress.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.35  Sean Treacy  replied to  epistte @3.1.31    5 years ago
Doe v. Bolton is irrelevant because that was overturned by Roe.

Smacking my head...

oe v. Bolton was decided the same day at the Roe decision

No shit. That's why Blackmun specifically said they should be read together. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.1.36  Veronica  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.33    5 years ago
By all means, please construct an argument that Courts will interpret New York's health exception more narrowly then the Supreme Court mandated definition in Doe. 

By all means, please show us where a woman walks into an abortion clinic after 24 weeks, asks for and gets an abortion due to stress.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.1.37  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Veronica @3.1.9    5 years ago

The bill changes the language of late term abortion so that murdering the child is completely at the discression of the "health care providor"  and the mother, it also goes on to say anyone the patient chooses including Midwives and the like that have no formal degree or certification are included as "healthcare providors".   What could go wrong?/s  

  I can't find an article that actually deals with the new language that won't get me suspended (we are talking about a gruesome and emotional subject after all) so you will have to look on your own, but it wasn't that hard to find it.  Just change your search to something like "new ny abortion law legalizes murder"jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.38  Sean Treacy  replied to  Veronica @3.1.34    5 years ago

Not anywhere near 24 weeks.... sorry try again -

I'm sorry, you don't understand what's going on. 

Doe is important because it defines the health exception. It's the principle it established that matters, not the mother's life story. 

Try and find the part where Blackmun describes what the health exception means. That's the part that matters. That's the part that doesn't restrict abortion based on time. 

I'll make it as simple as I can. Roe establishes the "right" to an abortion. Doe establishes an abortion can be had at any time, so long as the mother's mental, physical, physiological  health is impacted. Hell even if her familial situation changes, it's comes in under the health exception. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.1.39  Veronica  replied to  96WS6 @3.1.37    5 years ago

What can go wrong by prohibiting legal abortion?  And your use of the incorrect term just makes your argument not worth discussing.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.1.40  Veronica  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.38    5 years ago

So again, POST the part of the bill that states a woman after 24 weeks can walk into a doctor's office ask for and get an abortion due to stress.  Show stats on how often this has happened.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.41  Sean Treacy  replied to  Veronica @3.1.36    5 years ago

where a woman walks into an abortion clinic after 24 weeks, asks for and gets an abortion due to stress.

Again. Since it's legal, there's no public record. 

By all means, find an actual example of an abortion being found illegal because it didn't fit an "health" exception.  

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.1.42  Veronica  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.41    5 years ago

So in other words you can't post it from the bill where this can be done & you have no stats that it is happened.  Enjoy your night running in circles & insulting people that want you to be honest.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.1.43  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    5 years ago
Doctors take an oath to do no harm. That applies to this also.

How come harming babies doesn't count?

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.44  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.35    5 years ago
Smacking my head...

oe v. Bolton was decided the same day at the Roe decision

No shit. That's why Blackmun specifically said they should be read together. 

Why are you trying to cite Doe when it is irrelevant because of the Roe v. Wade decision allowing elective abortions. The Doe' law prohibited elective abortions in the state of Georgia.

Do you also want to cite Dredd Scott decision as a way to claim that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional?  JFCoaS!!!!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.45  Sean Treacy  replied to  Veronica @3.1.42    5 years ago

rds you can't post it from the bill where this can be done & you have no stats that it is happened. 

I'm going to explain this one more time. I can't make it any more simple and I'm tire of trying.

The New York law has to be interpreted in conjunction with the Supreme Court. That's basic civics. I hope you are on the same page. The Supreme Court, not the New York legislature, defined what the Constitutionally acceptable  minimum health exception to any abortion restriction is.    Unless you can show that New York decided to challenge the Supreme Court and narrow the health exception,  than your point is silly.

As I've said, it's sad how little the pro choice said understands about the legal aspects of abortion.  Reality, and their perceptions of it, are completely different things.   

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.46  epistte  replied to  96WS6 @3.1.43    5 years ago
How come harming babies doesn't count?

Do you know of a rogue or sadistic pediatrician?

The definition of fetus is not the same as a baby.

fe·tus

Dictionary result for fetus

/ ˈfēdəs /
noun
noun: fetus ; plural noun: fetuses ; noun: foetus ; plural noun: foetuses
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
.vs
Infant; 1 a (1) : an extremely young child especially : infant
(2) : an extremely young animal
 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.47  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.33    5 years ago
You must not be familiar with how the law works and is interpreted. 

You just keep deflecting Sean. 

This discussion is about the NY bill. Period full stop. 

Doe v Bolton and is IRRELVANT because it was in effect BEFORE the new law was signed. 

The rest of your blather is just as IRRELVANT. 

This is what you posted:

did you read the bill? the mother's life has nothing to do with it. Any old issue with the mothers mental, physical, or emotional health will do. Stress works.

Which infers to any thinking person that the NY bill is where the 'any old issur' mandate originated. 

So, now, will you just admit that the bullshit that you posted is NOT in the bill or will you just keep tap dancing?

My bet is on tap dancing...

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
3.1.48  katrix  replied to  96WS6 @3.1.37    5 years ago
I can't find an article that actually deals with the new language that won't get me suspended

Meaning, you refuse to post a factual article, and all your whackjob sites use inflammatory titles and aren't permitted to be posted, because they're bullshit.

Got it.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
3.1.49  katrix  replied to  96WS6 @3.1.43    5 years ago
How come harming babies doesn't count?

Embryos, zygotes, and fetuses are not babies.

If you know someone who's murdering babies, please call your local police station and report them.

Otherwise learn some basic biology.

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
3.1.50  bccrane  replied to  epistte @3.1.32    5 years ago

I'm not sure what you are reading, but in that law everything that is in brackets [-] have been omitted or struck out of the penal code.  

And also this paragraph 

Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to prevent the enforce-
    21  ment of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a  legitimate
    22  state  interest  in  protecting  a  woman's  health that burden abortion
    23  access.

Well according to that paragraph being charged with murder would be a burden to abortion access.
 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.51  epistte  replied to  bccrane @3.1.50    5 years ago
I'm not sure what you are reading, but in that law everything that is in brackets [-] have been omitted or struck out of the penal code.   And also this paragraph 

Where does this law change the previous legal concept that only the mother has the legal right to choose to terminate a pregnancy? Why would a law designed to protect women's reproductive choices change that idea?  Changing that legal concept would hurt woman instead of helping or protecting them. 

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
3.1.52  bccrane  replied to  epistte @3.1.51    5 years ago
EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                      [ ] is old law to be omitted.


                HOMICIDE[, ABORTION] AND RELATED OFFENSES
  § 6. Section 125.00 of the penal law is amended to read as follows:
§ 125.00 Homicide defined.
  Homicide  means  conduct  which  causes  the  death of a person [or an
unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more  than  twen-
ty-four  weeks] under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in
the first degree, manslaughter  in  the  second  degree,  OR  criminally
negligent  homicide[,  abortion  in the first degree or self-abortion in
the first degree].

This is from the law which is linked in the article.


 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.1.53  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Veronica @3.1.3    5 years ago
Wife or fetus? Which would you choose?

You are kidding right?  That is the whole point.  Those rules don't apply anymore.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.1.54  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Veronica @3.1.25    5 years ago
No, post the part that says a woman can walk in get an abortion after 24 weeks along for stress.

LMFAO that's funny.  Laws are not written like that and i think you are smart enough to know it.  The problem is the law now says if the mother's "Health" not "life" are at risk and does not in any way define "health".   Therefore mental and physical health apply and there arerisks to everything so a  c-section could affect the mother's thealth.  Stress could affect her mental health.    Understand the can of worms?  The other problem is it is left completely to the caregiver's descresion.  So "in my option the baby would be too much mental stress"  would hold up in court.  It also allows nurses, Dulas,  and mid wifes to make these decisions.   Any lawyer will tell you that if a law has loopholes they will be exploited.

see 1.3.4 for a link to the law and verbiage.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.55  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.1    5 years ago
That's false. Some people are very publicly pro abortion. 

Who? or more importantly, who cares?

Protecting innocent life is one of those rules decent people live by.

That's why we have police and rescue personnel. 

You know the pro abortionists are actually ashamed of what they believe because they hide behind weasel words and rely on emotionally based rhetoric to intentionally mislead the casual observer.

You're thinking of pro-lifers. Most of their arguments are emotionally based rhetoric and appeals.

For instance, they'll tell you you can abort a fully developed viable child only if the mother's health is at stake.

Is the woman's health not a valid enough reason?

Of course, the fact that the current law already specifically allowed abortion at all times to save the life of the mother isn't mentioned for fear of the obvious inference that creates.

What "inference" would that be? The law only affirms what currently exists.

They certainly won't tell you that the mother's "health" exception is so broad as to be meaningless.

A woman's health status is between her and her doctor. If you're not a physician in care of the woman in question, you are unqualified to make such a judgement.

They need to pretend it's for when the woman has actual health risk. "The truth is a woman in New York can go into a abortion mill and have an abortion performed on her due date, she need merely claim the thought of a baby and the responsibility it entails is causing her "stress." So now the fully formed child can be killed and it it's legal because her "emotional health" was in danger.

And you say "pro-abortionists" rely on emotionally based rhetoric? It doesn't get more emotionally rhetorical than that nonsense you spew!

IT would be refreshing to see the pro abortionists crowd admit in public to what they argue in Court.

What would that be exactly?

It's obvious why they lie, they can' admit to the horror of what they practice.

Nice libelous statement and erroneous presumption.

Abortion when the woman's life on the line is not the issue. That's for the mother to decide.

It's for the woman to decide regardless of the issues or circumstances!

when we are talking about a law that allows abortion on demand of viable babies

You clearly haven't read or understand the law then!

It's not. That issue was decided in New York even before Roe.

Before Roe, NY abortion law only allowed abortion if the woman's life was in jeopardy.

Because, the Oath up until a few decades ago bound Doctor's to protect life from the moment of conception.

The Hippocratic oath does not prohibit abortion.

Sure they will. Read up on Dr. Gosnell as an example.

Pro-lifers love to bring up that example and apply it to everyone else it seems. Dr. Gosnell violated Penn. state law and medical ethics when he performed late term abortions, resulting in the death of patient's too. That's why he was arrested and convicted. It's quite disingenuous to apply such an example to other doctors with such a broad stroke.

Doctors as a group are just as venal, dishonest and ideological as any other group of adults. There are any number of motivations for a doctor to kill a viable human, and many can no doubt justify it as the "right thing to do."

Wow, you sure have some trust issues, don't you?

But if she changes her mind at the last second and is shot walking out of the clinic and the baby dies, suddenly it's murder. The same baby can be killed without penalty or put someone in jail for life, all depending how someone feels at the moment.

Wrong! Fetal homicide charges is based on the intent and circumstance, the stage of gestation, individual state laws, and whether a prosecutor pushes for such a charge. It also means a woman's choice was forcibly removed due to harm inflicted on her.

Maybe you should try and understand what's going on.

You first. Preferably without the hint of paranoia.

The bill's "exception" is so broad as to make the prohibition meaningless. All a mother needs to do to have an abortion is claim the baby will upset her emotional health. The bill is written so gullible people think it prohibits abortion of viable fetuses except in dire circumstances, when it in face legalizes them by simply checking a box.

And you base that assertion on what exactly?

It's almost like you have no idea how the Supreme Court handles abortion cases.

The SCOTUS ruled abortion is generally allowed up to the point of viability. 

IF you think it depends on trimesters or viability , you really have no business discussing the topic.

Of course it depends on the point of viability. That's been made quite clear.

You want an abortion at 32 weeks, tell the nurse you are stressed out about having a baby, and the "emotional health" box is checked and it's go time!

That's nothing but a baseless assumption.

I'm actually speaking from a place of understanding the reality of what the law means.

And what makes you such a legal expert?

Yeah it's the doctors or nurse at the abortion factories discretion. The person whose income is derived from performing abortions "discretion."

Statements like that only shows your bias and lack of credibility.

did you read the bill?

Did you?

the mother's life has nothing to do with it.

Actually, it does. It's one of the stipulations of the law.

Any old issue with the mothers mental, physical, or emotional health will do. Stress works.

Are you a medical expert now, able to make such determinations, especially for others?

Fetuses are viable at 24 weeks.

Yes, and abortions are allowed up to that point. Afterwards, it's only done when there are health risks to the woman.

Talk about arguing from a place of emotion!

Which is exactly what you're doing!

Read Doe v Bolton.

Doe and Roe complement each other and have similar effects in striking down restrictive abortion laws. 

Where did it create a new definition of health that is narrower than what it Constitutionally required?

"Health," especially in regards to an individual's health status, is up to a physician's professional judgement and expertise. Who are you to say if someone's health issues or concerns is valid or not?

Doe is important because it defines the health exception.

Such exception is at the discretion of a physician.

Since it's legal, there's no public record.

Then you have no basis or foundation for your assertions or argument and it falls flat! Thanks for playing.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.56  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.11    5 years ago
Because, the Oath up until a few decades ago bound Doctor's to protect life from the moment of conception. 

That was the law and has nothing to do with the doctor's oath. Doctors are also not allowed to put people out of their misery at the end of their lives, but again, that is the law. 

ou shot a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, you get charged with murder. Are you aware of tha

Again that law goes for viable life. It doesn't apply to early gestation. Which is my point. Doctors are not going to kill viable babies on a mother's request. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.57  Gordy327  replied to  96WS6 @3.1.43    5 years ago
How come harming babies doesn't count?

What babies are being harmed? If you know of anyone harming babies, you should report them to the authorities immediately.

The bill changes the language of late term abortion so that murdering the child is completely at the discression of the "health care providor" and the mother,

Murdering children is illegal and the bill says nothing about that. You mist be confused.

it also goes on to say anyone the patient chooses including Midwives and the like that have no formal degree or certification are included as "healthcare providors".

Wrong! Section 2 of the Bill (now law) explicitly states (emphasis mine): Section 2 of the bill creates a new Article 25-A of the Public Health Law (PHL), which states that an abortion May be performed by a licensed, certified, or authorized practitioner within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy.

Tell me, do you enjoy being wrong?

(we are talking about a gruesome and emotional subject after all)

Not really. If anyone is getting emotional about it, perhaps they're the ones with the problem. It might explain why their arguments are so weak and irrational too.

The problem is the law now says if the mother's "Health" not "life" are at risk and does not in any way define "health".

You do realize there are many HEALTH complications in pregnancy which can negatively affect the woman's LIFE, right? 

Understand the can of worms?

It seems you and others are trying to make more out of something than there is.

The other problem is it is left completely to the caregiver's descresion.

Who better to make the determination of someone's health status than a authorized healthcare provider, like a physician? That is their job.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.58  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  bccrane @3.1.26    5 years ago

Could you please provide a link to that, since the law was specific that a homicide of a fetus didn't get charged as murder. 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
3.1.59  Studiusbagus  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.58    5 years ago

Get your dancing shoes on...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.60  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.13    5 years ago
I have always taken a very scientific perspective to this.

Sure, as a practical matter, tough decisions have to be made in medicine every day.   That really changes nothing for me.

As a person with a technical education/background, science is very near and dear to my heart.   By necessity to do my job properly really but to a larger degree it leaves the building for me when it comes to the human condition.    The pragmatic approach science requires, usually doesn't work there for me.

I fall back on freedom of choice/liberty in cases like this.   As distasteful as abortion can be, i feel it is ultimately the pregnant persons choice and their choice only.   Life or death.   The ultimate exercise of freedom and liberty if you will.   So i'm not really Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.   I'm Pro-Liberty.

Still, its a tough place to be if one truly believes in the sanctity of life.   No way around that for me no matter how hard one tries to rationalize it away.  

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.1.61  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Veronica @3.1.25    5 years ago

It is all right here if you take the time to read it  see post 1.3.4 I am happy to see you are at the stage of denying the horriffic truth.  It means there is hope for you once the evidence becomes too stromg to deny.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.62  Gordy327  replied to  96WS6 @3.1.61    5 years ago

You didn't answer Veronica's question. You deflected. The law says abortion is OK after 24 weeks where the woman's health/life is in jeopardy and can be done by qualified health providers. So what's the problem exactly? 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1.63  cjcold  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    5 years ago

Used to be a paramedic and "do no harm" was what we tried to do. Not always possible. Triage.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.64  Dulay  replied to  96WS6 @3.1.54    5 years ago
Understand the can of worms? 

What I understand from your comments is that you have little to no respect for women's integrity and even less for medical professionals. 

1.43 % of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. That a pretty tinny can...

It also allows nurses, Dulas, and mid wifes to make these decisions.

Doulas? Really 96? Please DO quote the section of Title 8 of the NY health education law that qualifies Doulas 96. 

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.1.65  lady in black  replied to  Dulay @3.1.64    5 years ago

Their problem is they lost the war on women in New York State and know they can't do anything about it so they just spew their pro life false rhetoric   

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.1.66  lady in black  replied to  96WS6 @3.1.61    5 years ago

How many times are you going to read something into the bill that is clearly NOT there, I posted the entire bill on this seed and NO WHERE does it say what you are implying.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.67  Gordy327  replied to  lady in black @3.1.66    5 years ago

I guess some people prefer to read into something that is not there. Or they just like to make things up as they go along.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.1.68  lady in black  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.67    5 years ago

It's called alternative facts.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.69  Dulay  replied to  lady in black @3.1.65    5 years ago

That looks about right. 

When I ran through the bill, I was shocked at just how many restrictions NY had on abortion. They were imbedded all over their criminal statutes. It took decades to squirrel all of that stuff into the books and it must have hit them hard to have all that work wiped away in one piece if legislation. 

I think they need to keep an eye out for scum like James O'Keefe. I wouldn't be surprised to hear about him and his minions crawling around NY. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.70  Gordy327  replied to  lady in black @3.1.68    5 years ago

In other words, lying.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.71  epistte  replied to  lady in black @3.1.68    5 years ago
It's called alternative facts.

It's a perfect fit with their alternate reality.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
3.1.72  Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.13    5 years ago
People have to understand medicine to understand why sometimes awful decisions are made.

I agree with this lament. Most understand my position on this issue.

I still have a problem with why people do not see the reality.

It is all about choice... we are all choicers.....

It's only the absolutists on both sides that keep this inflamed like it is....

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
3.1.73  Nowhere Man  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.60    5 years ago
I fall back on freedom of choice/liberty in cases like this.   As distasteful as abortion can be, i feel it is ultimately the pregnant persons choice and their choice only.   Life or death.   The ultimate exercise of freedom and liberty if you will.   So i'm not really Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.   I'm Pro-Liberty.

I agree 100%

And all true libertarians should be squarely in agreement.... The two are not in-opposite of each other.......

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.74  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.72    5 years ago
It's only the absolutists on both sides that keep this inflamed like it is....

Cite one piece of proposed legislation that is pro-choice 'absolutist'. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
3.1.75  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @3.1.74    5 years ago

Since you demonstrably with your response fail to gather the import of what I said, It isn't worth a response.....

But then your one of the absolutists that keep it inflamed....

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.76  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.60    5 years ago
I fall back on freedom of choice/liberty in cases like this.   As distasteful as abortion can be, I feel it is ultimately the pregnant persons choice and their choice only.   Life or death.   The ultimate exercise of freedom and liberty if you will.   So I'm not really Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.   I'm Pro-Liberty.

This is the very essence of what it means to be pro-choice. You may find it wrong for you but you also understand that these decisions are best left up to the woman who is pregnant to make the best decision for herself. The idea that someone is pro-abortion is an emotional nonsense claim that has been invented by religious conservatives as a way to create a negative strawman of the pro-choice stance because no rational woman desires to get pregnant to have an abortion any more than someone wants to have a heart attack, diabetes or cancer

I am adamantly pro-choice but I am not sure if I could have an abortion in that situation, but I strongly feel that decision is only to be made by the pregnant woman and not the government or a religion 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.1.77  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  epistte @3.1.76    5 years ago
no rational woman desires to get pregnant to have an abortion any more than someone wants to have a heart attack, diabetes or cancer

I'll bet every one of these anti-choice people complaining about women having a choice would scream to high heaven if you banned fast food, alcohol or cigarettes. Sure, they've all been proven to lead to heart disease and greatly increase the risk of heart attack which KILLS thousands of people every day, but strangely these anti-choice folk seem to be pro-choice when it comes to doing things that might be bad for your own health or safety. Quite the double standard I'd say. I'm not pro-heart attack, but I am pro-double patty hamburger...

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
3.1.78  bccrane  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.58    5 years ago

You claimed in 3.1.4;  in NY, if you shot a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, you get charged with murder.

I provided in 3.1.52;

EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                      [ ] is old law to be omitted.


                HOMICIDE[, ABORTION] AND RELATED OFFENSES
  § 6. Section 125.00 of the penal law is amended to read as follows:
§ 125.00 Homicide defined.
  Homicide  means  conduct  which  causes  the  death of a person [or an
unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more  than  twen-
ty-four  weeks] under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in
the first degree, manslaughter  in  the  second  degree,  OR  criminally
negligent  homicide[,  abortion  in the first degree or self-abortion in
the first degree].

This is from the law which is linked in the article. This changed the penal code that an abortion
due to the homicide or abuse of the mother in which the fetus dies will no longer be considered
a homicide of the fetus. So, no, you will not get charged with murder in NY if the mother lives
and fetus dies. But now you change your position in 3.1.58 and query me for a link for proof.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
3.1.79  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.77    5 years ago
I'm not pro-heart attack, but I am pro-double patty hamburger...

Hey that resembles me....... (but generally I go for the triple when available, lean broiled beef is good for your heart, so I've been told by my health people)

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.1.80  epistte  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.77    5 years ago
Quite the double standard I'd say. I'm not pro-heart attack, but I am pro-double patty hamburger...

Only a double burger? I assume that would be with bacon and cheese plus the usual toppings of lettuce, tomato, and onion.  Most guys that I know can inhale one or even 2 triples without even a post-meal burp.

I've drastically cut down the amount of red meat that I eat and I am still searching for a veggie burger that tastes good.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.81  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.75    5 years ago
Since you demonstrably with your response fail to gather the import of what I said, It isn't worth a response.....

Yet you chose to do so, though not cogently. 

But then your one of the absolutists that keep it inflamed....

Really? How so NWM? Please be specific.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
3.1.82  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @3.1.81    5 years ago

Your pro-choice right?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
3.1.83  Nowhere Man  replied to  epistte @3.1.80    5 years ago
Most guys that I know can inhale one or even 2 triples without even a post-meal burp.

I used to be able to do that, but now I have to wait a while before the second one......

But then, when I was working, I would burn them off in a day.....

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.84  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.82    5 years ago
Your pro-choice right?

Relevance? Why are you deflecting? Prove your accusation. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
3.1.85  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @3.1.84    5 years ago
Relevance?

Your questioning relevance? seriously?

Why are you deflecting? Prove your accusation.

What deflection?

What accusation?

Are you going to make the argument that your not pro-choice?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.86  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.85    5 years ago
Your questioning relevance? seriously?

Yes. Can you answer WHY my position on abortion has anything to do with you being able to support your accusation that I am "one of the absolutists that keep it inflamed...."? 

Why are you deflecting? Prove your accusation.
What deflection?

The deflection from you supporting your accusation. 

What accusation?

Here, I'll repeat it again for you:

But then your one of the absolutists that keep it inflamed....

THAT accusation. 

Are you going to make the argument that your not pro-choice?

Why would I respond to your deflection? 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
3.1.87  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @3.1.86    5 years ago

Can't respond to a direct question.....

Plays the turnaboutism game.....

Hallmarks of an absolutist...... 

Since I have declared myself as a pro-choicer, the only explanation must be that you either disagree with that stance or you are simply being antagonistic cause I'm a conservative. 

And you hate conservatives even if they agree with a liberal precept....

That make you an absolutist in my opinion....

No deflection, although I do believe that you will accuse of another one....

Another hallmark of an absolutist, (and coward IMHO) refusal to answer any direct question. (uses turnaboutism to deflect away from any direct question)

So on that basis it wasn't an accusation, it was a statement of fact, based upon plain openly performed behavior on your part....

Now go ahead and cry to the house mama and get me dinged again for speaking the truth....

the question still remains....

Are you a pro-choicer? or not? got the balls to answer instead of deflect?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.88  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.87    5 years ago
Can't respond to a direct question.....
Plays the turnaboutism game.....
Hallmarks of an absolutist......

Then why are you doing it NWM? I asked YOU questions. YOU didn't answer them. 

   But then your one of the absolutists that keep it inflamed.... Really? How so NWM? Please be specific.

Since I have declared myself as a pro-choicer, the only explanation must be that you either disagree with that stance or you are simply being antagonistic cause I'm a conservative.

Your inability to conceive more than one explanation is on you. 

And you hate conservatives even if they agree with a liberal precept....

Utter bullshit. 

That make you an absolutist in my opinion....

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how unfounded. 

No deflection, although I do believe that you will accuse of another one....

Yet you STILL haven't cogently explained HOW I am an absolutist. 

Another hallmark of an absolutist, (and coward IMHO) refusal to answer any direct question. (uses turnaboutism to deflect away from any direct question)

Yet you failed to do just that. 

So on that basis it wasn't an accusation, it was a statement of fact,

You seem to think they are mutually exclusive. Why? 

based upon plain openly performed behavior on your part....

What 'behavior'? Please be MUCH MORE specific than you have been. 

Now go ahead and cry to the house mama and get me dinged again for speaking the truth....

Are you admitting to some kind of CoC violation? Someone will catch it...


the question still remains....
Are you a pro-choicer? or not? 

Right after YOU answer MINE. I asked first.. 

got the balls to answer instead of deflect?

I don't need balls to answer a question, I have good faith intent. You? 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
3.1.89  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @3.1.88    5 years ago

I give up with you.

There is no logic that I could cite that would get through....

I believe that it's behavior that tells one what they are dealing with when it comes to the manner in which people interact with others....

I've tried to approach you in the manner you seem to wish. But once I do you go into all this undefined and meandering accusatory spiel.....

Good faith intent? I don't see it, the same as you do not see mine....

I did answer yours as I see it, I can't help if you do not see it.

So I believe we will never see eye to eye, no matter how many issues we could agree on, you always seem to be insinuating that I'm less than you. It's always you go first then it's never your turn....

Sincerely this was an effort to find a channel of communication, I am beginning to think you do not want communication, your happy in your position of attempting to make everyone feel less than you..... (particularly those that you disagree with more often than not)

That is not a game I play. I believe in everyone is equal at the start and give that respect......

In my belief you do not....

It is what it is...

Se La Vie......

And no, I didn't really expect to get an answer, cause I knew that you would not accept mine. Thanks for being predictable....

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.90  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.89    5 years ago
So I believe we will never see eye to eye, no matter how many issues we could agree on, you always seem to be insinuating that I'm less than you. It's always you go first then it's never your turn....

Tissue? 

I asked you to 'cite one piece of proposed legislation that is pro-choice 'absolutist'', instead of doing so, or stating that you couldn't think of one, you stated this supercilious reply: 

Since you demonstrably with your response fail to gather the import of what I said, It isn't worth a response..... But then your one of the absolutists that keep it inflamed....

When I ask you how you came to that conclusion, you deflect with an irrelevant question that you demand that I answer. 

Now you disingenuously want to pretend that you are somehow a victim and all you wanted to do was communicate with me and make this obtuse statement: 

That is not a game I play. I believe in everyone is equal at the start and give that respect......

Which your own supercilious reply refutes.

I give up with you.

Promise? 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
3.1.91  Nowhere Man  replied to  Dulay @3.1.90    5 years ago

Thank you for demonstrating what I'm talking about....

I was NEVER talking about any legislation.... But that is what YOU have made it about......

Thank you for demonstrating my point....

The last part of an absolutist? claiming victory and then insults.....

Been down this road many times with many individuals. Your easier than most....

Didn't take a whole lot to get you to bite there....

Promise?

Will you?

No of course not..... {hilarious that you would ask}

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.1.92  Dulay  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.91    5 years ago
Thank you for demonstrating what I'm talking about....

Ditto. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.93  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @3.1.32    5 years ago
Only the mother has the right/power to terminate a pregnancy. If anyone else acts in a way that the fetus dies, it is homicide.

Really?  Well, if it's ok I have an anecdotal story for you. It's relevant because it involves cases that never get talked about in these discussions. I always remember this story, I was only about 10 or 11 years old and it was the first time I heard the term "abortion". It was the early 60's and every Sunday we would have Sunday dinner at my Uncle's house. It was a funeral parlor. There was always war stories, gossip, stories of all kinds. I was always all ears.
On this occasion somebody mentioned that the wife of my uncle's main competitor had died. She was in her mid thirties and the obituary never gave a cause of death. Though competitors, local undertakers helped one another at times, with vehicles etc and they shared secrets. I remember my uncle leaning forward and lowering his voice, said "she was pregnant and he didn't want the baby, so he had her go get an abortion. There was some complication and she died." That's all I remember about it but the reason I never forgot is it kind of bothered me for a while. 

So how often does a woman get an abortion because the man wants it?

I assume it happened back then.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
3.1.94  Studiusbagus  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.89    5 years ago
Se La Vie......

Please....never write to a French person. Lol.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
3.1.95  Nowhere Man  replied to  Studiusbagus @3.1.94    5 years ago
Please....never write to a French person. Lol.

You must think I was trying to say "c'est la vie"

Well I wasn't..... LoL......

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
3.1.96  Studiusbagus  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.1.95    5 years ago
Well I wasn't....

Whew! That's a reeleef.  Lol

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
3.2  charger 383  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    5 years ago
" the pro abortionists are actually ashamed of what they believe"

I am not ashamed of my pro choice view, in fact I am rather proud of it

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    5 years ago

OMG, Sean! That's almost word for word what Limbaugh said on his show today

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3    5 years ago

Now we know where he gets his talking points!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.3.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3    5 years ago

That's almost word for word what Limbaugh said on his show today

If you say so. 

Supreme Court interpretations on the health exception are publicly available to any person. Limbaugh apparently looked at them. To bad more people don't. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.3.3  Veronica  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.2    5 years ago

So post them in regards to this bill.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
3.3.4  Studiusbagus  replied to  Veronica @3.3.3    5 years ago
So post them in regards to this bill.

He can't. You can see he's running around it any way he can except honestly.

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
3.3.5  Veronica  replied to  Studiusbagus @3.3.4    5 years ago

Yea, and I think I am done.  I have other things to do today.  

Nice seeing you BTW.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.3.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Studiusbagus @3.3.4    5 years ago
You can see he's running around it any way he

Do you need help finding Doe v Bolton? 

Is google a mystery?

But by all means, please point out how the State of New York can define the health exception differently than what is mandated by the Supreme Court. 

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.3.7  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Veronica @3.3.3    5 years ago
What would change under the new law

Under the rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade and New York law, all women have the right to an abortion at any time in their first 24 weeks of pregnancy.

After 24 weeks, exceptions can be made under federal law when a woman's life or health is at risk. But the 1970 New York law made exceptions only when a woman's life is at risk.

The Reproductive Health Act changes New York's law to permit abortions after 24 weeks in case where a woman's lifeor healthwould be threatened by continuing the pregnancy.

The updated New York law leaves it to care givers to decide when a woman's health is at risk. Opponents argued that the law should have defined what constitutes a threat to a pregnant woman's health. 

The wording is broad enough to allow reasons like a c-section, mental stress and finantial stress as valid reasons for late term abortion, all the caregiver would have to do is say it is "in their opinion that it is in the mother's best interest" or that it would cause the mother "stress".

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.3.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.7    5 years ago
all the caregiver would have to do is say it is "in their opinion that it is in the mother's best interest"

Yet you provide no examples of that happening. Just because a law doesn't specifically ban jumping from a very high bridge doesn't mean there will be an increase in jumpers. Just because the law doesn't specifically require women to go before a court and plead their case and relies on the recommendation of the health professionals doesn't mean there's going to be a rush of elective late term abortions. The doctors and nurses do not take this lightly as so many anti-choice individuals would like you to believe. There is no large body part for-profit business chopping up full term babies or evil doctors greedily rubbing their hands together at the prospect of aborting another fetus.

There are many incredibly caring and empathetic doctors who recognize the necessity in some cases of late term abortions and loathe having to tell a perspective mother that they may have to consider it based on the health of the fetus or the mother, and they don't want they or their patients hands tied by ridiculous mostly religiously motivated bans preventing them from taking care of their patients. The number that occur are already extremely small, it is not a procedure anyone takes lightly, and 92% of abortions occur at or before 12 weeks.

So I recommend worrying about the giant orange rafter in thine own eye instead of spending so much time complaining about what you perceive as a splinter in someone else's.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.3.9  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.6    5 years ago
But by all means, please point out how the State of New York can define the health exception differently than what is mandated by the Supreme Court. 

So the WTF is your POINT Sean. 

You ask if we read the bill, then you deflect to a STANDING precedent of a 48 year old ruling.

Your argument is actually with Doe v Bolton, NOT with any ORIGINAL content of the new NY legislation. 

Just STOP. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.3.10  Dulay  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.7    5 years ago

Hyperbolic crap. 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
3.3.11  Studiusbagus  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.6    5 years ago
Do you need help finding Doe v Bolton? 

No, do you need tutoring on how to answer a direct question?

You've been hopping around and using the Doe v Bolton and any other broad hype ...

You were asked for the specific part you insist is there and you've avoided it because it's nowhere except in your hyped imagination.

Stop trying to blow smoke up our asses and telling us it's a volcano.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
3.3.12  Studiusbagus  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.6    5 years ago

See it's really simple you make the claim and be able to back it up factually. So far you won't or can't. 

did you read the bill? the mother's life has nothing to do with it.  Any old issue with the mothers mental, physical, or emotional health will do. Stress works. 

The real question is...did YOU read the bill? If so you can surely point out where the word of the mother claiming stress is good enough...

You've been asked to show this in the law and you have danced like Fred Astair around it.

Even 96 shows that this determination has to be consulted with a health professional, and not someone authorized to perform the abortion that has no psych training.

But keep dancing and blowing smoke.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.3.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Studiusbagus @3.3.11    5 years ago
o you need tutoring on how to answer a direct question?

Are you really unable to find the health exception in the bill? Even if you can't handle the bill, I'll point to the summary above.

ct, non-doctors are now allowed to conduct abortions and the procedure could be done until the mother's due date if the woman's health is endangered.

Now, for the 100th time, I'll explain what's happening. This is really simple stuff that shouldn't even have to spelled out.  This is how I would explain it to a fourth grader. 

The NY law creates an exception for woman's health.

The woman's health exception  was defined  by the Supreme Court.

he Supreme Court has defined abortion as a Constitutional right.

The Supreme Court has the final word on Constitutional  issues.

Unless you can show otherwise (you can't), the Supreme Court's definition of what constitutes a health exception controls  what the health exception meansd in the New York law.  

So to understand what the health exception actually means, you have to understand what the Supreme Court has said on the topic.

And the Supreme Court says the right to an abortion cannot be restricted if it impacts the well being of the mother,and her well being must include consideration of her  physical, physiological, emotional , familial well being and even her age. 

I'm tired of explaining basic civics. IF you can't understand how the Supreme Court impacts legislation, take it up with your grammar school teachers.

It's amazing how upset pro choice people get when they are faced with the reality of abortion law in this country.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.3.14  lady in black  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.13    5 years ago

There isn't one like you are claiming there is

S240 - DETAILS

See Assembly Version of this Bill: A21 Law Section: Public Health Law Laws Affected: Add Art 25-A §2599-aa, rpld §4164, Pub Health L; rpld §6811 sub 8, Ed L; rpld §§125.40 - 125.60, §125.05 subs 2 & 3, §125.15 sub 2, §125.20 sub 3, amd Art 125 Art Head, §§125.00 & 125.05, Pen L; amd §700.05, CP L; amd §673, County L; amd §4, Judy L Versions Introduced in 2017-2018 Legislative Session: S2796 A1748

S240 - SUMMARY

Enacts the reproductive health act; revises provisions of law relating to abortion.

S240 - SPONSOR MEMO

   
BILL NUMBER: S240

SPONSOR: KRUEGER
 
TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the public health law, in relation to
enacting the reproductive health act and revising existing provisions of
law regarding abortion; to amend the penal law, the criminal procedure
law, the county law and the judiciary law, in relation to abortion; to
repeal certain provisions of the public health law relating to abortion;
to repeal certain provisions of the education law relating to the sale
of contraceptives; and to repeal certain provisions of the penal law
relating to abortion

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

Relates to access to reproductive services.

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1 of the bill establishes the legislative intent.

Section 2 of the bill creates a new Article 25-A of the Public Health 

S240 - BILL TEXT DOWNLOAD PDF

                      S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________

    S. 240                                                     A. 21

                       2019-2020 Regular Sessions

                      S E N A T E - A S S E M B L Y

                               (PREFILED)

                             January 9, 2019
                               ___________

IN  SENATE  --  Introduced  by  Sens.  KRUEGER, STEWART-COUSINS, BAILEY,
  BENJAMIN,  BIAGGI,  BRESLIN,  BROOKS,  COMRIE,   GAUGHRAN,   GIANARIS,
  GOUNARDES, HARCKHAM, HOYLMAN, JACKSON, KAMINSKY, KAPLAN, KENNEDY, LIU,
  MARTINEZ,  MAY, MAYER, METZGER, MYRIE, PARKER, PERSAUD, RAMOS, RIVERA,
  SALAZAR, SANDERS, SAVINO, SEPULVEDA, SERRANO, SKOUFIS, THOMAS --  read
  twice  and  ordered  printed,  and when printed to be committed to the
  Committee on Health

IN ASSEMBLY -- Introduced by M. of A. GLICK, GOTTFRIED, LUPARDO,  HEAST-
  IE,  PEOPLES-STOKES,  JAFFEE, TITUS, SIMOTAS, L. ROSENTHAL, O'DONNELL,
  CAHILL, SOLAGES, ABINANTI, ARROYO, BARRETT, BARRON,  BICHOTTE,  BLAKE,
  BRAUNSTEIN,  BRONSON, BUCHWALD, CARROLL, COOK, CYMBROWITZ, DE LA ROSA,
  DenDEKKER, DILAN, DINOWITZ, D'URSO, ENGLEBRIGHT, FAHY,  GALEF,  GANTT,
  HEVESI,  HUNTER,  HYNDMAN,  JEAN-PIERRE,  JONES,  KIM, LAVINE, LIFTON,
  MAGNARELLI, MOSLEY, NOLAN, OTIS, PAULIN, PERRY, PHEFFER AMATO, PICHAR-
  DO, PRETLOW, QUART, RODRIGUEZ, ROZIC, SEAWRIGHT, SIMON, STECK, STIRPE,
  THIELE, WALLACE, WEINSTEIN, WEPRIN, WILLIAMS, WOERNER,  WRIGHT,  NIOU,
  ORTIZ, FERNANDEZ, GRIFFIN -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. EPSTEIN --
  read once and referred to the Committee on Health

AN  ACT  to  amend  the  public  health law, in relation to enacting the
  reproductive health  act  and  revising  existing  provisions  of  law
  regarding  abortion;  to  amend  the penal law, the criminal procedure
  law, the county law and the judiciary law, in relation to abortion; to
  repeal certain  provisions  of  the  public  health  law  relating  to
  abortion;  to  repeal certain provisions of the education law relating
  to the sale of contraceptives; and to repeal certain provisions of the
  penal law relating to abortion

  THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND  ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

 EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                      [ ] is old law to be omitted.
SA                                                         LBD05658-02-9 
  S. 240                              2                              A. 21

  Section  1.  Legislative intent. The legislature finds that comprehen-
sive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion,  is
a  fundamental  component of a woman's health, privacy and equality. The
New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect  a  woman's
fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion, courts have repeatedly
reaffirmed  this  right and further emphasized that states may not place
undue burdens on women seeking to access such right.
  Moreover, the legislature finds, as with other medical procedures, the
safety of abortion is furthered by  evidence-based  practices  developed
and  supported  by  medical professionals. Abortion is one of the safest
medical procedures performed in the United States; the goal  of  medical
regulation  should  be to improve the quality and availability of health
care services.
  Furthermore, the legislature declares that it is the public policy  of
New  York  State  that every individual possesses a fundamental right of
privacy and equality with respect to their personal  reproductive  deci-
sions and should be able to safely effectuate those decisions, including
by  seeking and obtaining abortion care, free from discrimination in the
provision of health care.
  Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to prevent the enforce-
ment of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a  legitimate
state  interest  in  protecting  a  woman's  health that burden abortion
access.
  § 2. The public health law is amended by adding a new article 25-A  to
read as follows:
                              ARTICLE 25-A
                         REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT
SECTION 2599-AA. POLICY AND PURPOSE.
        2599-BB. ABORTION.
  §  2599-AA.  POLICY AND PURPOSE. THE LEGISLATURE FINDS THAT COMPREHEN-
SIVE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE IS A FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENT OF EVERY  INDI-
VIDUAL'S  HEALTH,  PRIVACY  AND EQUALITY. THEREFORE, IT IS THE POLICY OF
THE STATE THAT:
  1. EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS THE FUNDAMENTAL  RIGHT  TO  CHOOSE  OR  REFUSE
CONTRACEPTION OR STERILIZATION.
  2.  EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO BECOMES PREGNANT HAS THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO
CHOOSE TO CARRY THE PREGNANCY TO TERM, TO GIVE BIRTH TO A CHILD,  OR  TO
HAVE AN ABORTION, PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE.
  3.  THE  STATE SHALL NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST, DENY, OR INTERFERE WITH
THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION IN  THE  REGULATION
OR PROVISION OF BENEFITS, FACILITIES, SERVICES OR INFORMATION.
  § 2599-BB. ABORTION.  1.  A  HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI-
FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-
IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM  AN  ABORTION  WHEN,
ACCORDING  TO  THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN
TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY,  OR  THERE  IS  AN
ABSENCE  OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.
  2. THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE CONSTRUED AND  APPLIED  CONSISTENT  WITH  AND
SUBJECT  TO  APPLICABLE  LAWS  AND APPLICABLE AND AUTHORIZED REGULATIONS
GOVERNING HEALTH CARE PROCEDURES.
  § 3. Section 4164 of the public health law is REPEALED.
  § 4. Subdivision 8 of section 6811 of the education law is REPEALED.

S. 240                              3                              A. 21

  § 5. Sections 125.40, 125.45, 125.50, 125.55 and 125.60 of  the  penal
law  are  REPEALED,  and the article heading of article 125 of the penal
law is amended to read as follows:
                HOMICIDE[, ABORTION] AND RELATED OFFENSES
  § 6. Section 125.00 of the penal law is amended to read as follows:
§ 125.00 Homicide defined.
  Homicide  means  conduct  which  causes  the  death of a person [or an
unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more  than  twen-
ty-four  weeks] under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in
the first degree, manslaughter  in  the  second  degree,  OR  criminally
negligent  homicide[,  abortion  in the first degree or self-abortion in
the first degree].
  § 7. The section heading,  opening  paragraph  and  subdivision  1  of
section 125.05 of the penal law are amended to read as follows:
  Homicide[,  abortion]  and  related  offenses;  [definitions of terms]
DEFINITION.
  The following [definitions are] DEFINITION IS applicable to this arti-
cle:
  [1.] "Person," when referring to the victim of  a  homicide,  means  a
human being who has been born and is alive.
  §  7-a.  Subdivisions  2  and 3 of section 125.05 of the penal law are
REPEALED.
  § 8. Subdivision 2 of section 125.15 of the penal law is REPEALED.
  § 9. Subdivision 3 of section 125.20 of the penal law is REPEALED.
  § 10. Paragraph (b) of subdivision 8 of section 700.05 of the criminal
procedure law, as amended by chapter 189 of the laws of 2018, is amended
to read as follows:
  (b) Any of the following felonies: assault in  the  second  degree  as
defined  in section 120.05 of the penal law, assault in the first degree
as defined in section 120.10 of the penal law, reckless endangerment  in
the  first degree as defined in section 120.25 of the penal law, promot-
ing a suicide attempt as defined in section 120.30  of  the  penal  law,
strangulation  in  the second degree as defined in section 121.12 of the
penal law, strangulation in the  first  degree  as  defined  in  section
121.13  of  the  penal  law, criminally negligent homicide as defined in
section 125.10 of the penal law, manslaughter in the  second  degree  as
defined  in  section  125.15 of the penal law, manslaughter in the first
degree as defined in section 125.20 of the  penal  law,  murder  in  the
second  degree  as defined in section 125.25 of the penal law, murder in
the first degree  as  defined  in  section  125.27  of  the  penal  law,
[abortion in the second degree as defined in section 125.40 of the penal
law,  abortion  in  the first degree as defined in section 125.45 of the
penal law,] rape in the third degree as defined in section 130.25 of the
penal law, rape in the second degree as defined in section 130.30 of the
penal law, rape in the first degree as defined in section 130.35 of  the
penal law, criminal sexual act in the third degree as defined in section
130.40  of  the  penal  law, criminal sexual act in the second degree as
defined in section 130.45 of the penal law, criminal sexual act  in  the
first degree as defined in section 130.50 of the penal law, sexual abuse
in  the  first  degree  as  defined  in section 130.65 of the penal law,
unlawful imprisonment in the first degree as defined in  section  135.10
of  the penal law, kidnapping in the second degree as defined in section
135.20 of the penal law, kidnapping in the first degree  as  defined  in
section 135.25 of the penal law, labor trafficking as defined in section
135.35  of  the  penal  law,  aggravated labor trafficking as defined in
section 135.37 of the penal law, custodial  interference  in  the  first

S. 240                              4                              A. 21

degree  as  defined  in section 135.50 of the penal law, coercion in the
first degree as defined in section 135.65 of  the  penal  law,  criminal
trespass  in  the first degree as defined in section 140.17 of the penal
law,  burglary  in  the third degree as defined in section 140.20 of the
penal law, burglary in the second degree as defined in section 140.25 of
the penal law, burglary in the first degree as defined in section 140.30
of the penal law, criminal mischief in the third degree  as  defined  in
section  145.05 of the penal law, criminal mischief in the second degree
as defined in section 145.10 of the penal law, criminal mischief in  the
first  degree  as  defined  in section 145.12 of the penal law, criminal
tampering in the first degree as defined in section 145.20 of the  penal
law,  arson  in  the  fourth  degree as defined in section 150.05 of the
penal law, arson in the third degree as defined in section 150.10 of the
penal law, arson in the second degree as defined in  section  150.15  of
the penal law, arson in the first degree as defined in section 150.20 of
the  penal law, grand larceny in the fourth degree as defined in section
155.30 of the penal law, grand larceny in the third degree as defined in
section 155.35 of the penal law, grand larceny in the second  degree  as
defined  in  section 155.40 of the penal law, grand larceny in the first
degree as defined in section 155.42 of the penal law, health care  fraud
in  the  fourth  degree  as  defined in section 177.10 of the penal law,
health care fraud in the third degree as defined in  section  177.15  of
the  penal  law,  health  care  fraud in the second degree as defined in
section 177.20 of the penal law, health care fraud in the  first  degree
as  defined  in  section  177.25  of the penal law, robbery in the third
degree as defined in section 160.05 of the penal  law,  robbery  in  the
second  degree as defined in section 160.10 of the penal law, robbery in
the first degree as defined in section 160.15 of the penal law, unlawful
use of secret scientific material as defined in section  165.07  of  the
penal  law,  criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree
as defined in section 165.45 of the penal law,  criminal  possession  of
stolen  property in the third degree as defined in section 165.50 of the
penal law, criminal possession of stolen property in the  second  degree
as  defined  by  section 165.52 of the penal law, criminal possession of
stolen property in the first degree as defined by section 165.54 of  the
penal  law,  trademark counterfeiting in the second degree as defined in
section 165.72 of the penal law, trademark counterfeiting in  the  first
degree  as  defined  in  section 165.73 of the penal law, forgery in the
second degree as defined in section 170.10 of the penal law, forgery  in
the first degree as defined in section 170.15 of the penal law, criminal
possession  of  a  forged  instrument in the second degree as defined in
section 170.25 of the penal law, criminal possession of a forged instru-
ment in the first degree as defined in section 170.30 of the penal  law,
criminal  possession  of forgery devices as defined in section 170.40 of
the penal law, falsifying  business  records  in  the  first  degree  as
defined  in  section  175.10  of  the  penal  law, tampering with public
records in the first degree as defined in section 175.25  of  the  penal
law,  offering  a  false  instrument  for  filing in the first degree as
defined in section 175.35 of the penal law, issuing a false  certificate
as  defined  in  section  175.40 of the penal law, criminal diversion of
prescription medications and  prescriptions  in  the  second  degree  as
defined  in  section  178.20  of  the  penal  law, criminal diversion of
prescription medications  and  prescriptions  in  the  first  degree  as
defined  in  section 178.25 of the penal law, residential mortgage fraud
in the fourth degree as defined in section  187.10  of  the  penal  law,
residential  mortgage  fraud  in  the third degree as defined in section

S. 240                              5                              A. 21

187.15 of the penal law, residential mortgage fraud in the second degree
as defined in section 187.20 of  the  penal  law,  residential  mortgage
fraud in the first degree as defined in section 187.25 of the penal law,
escape  in  the  second degree as defined in section 205.10 of the penal
law, escape in the first degree as defined  in  section  205.15  of  the
penal  law,  absconding  from  temporary  release in the first degree as
defined in section 205.17 of the penal law, promoting prison  contraband
in  the  first  degree  as  defined  in section 205.25 of the penal law,
hindering prosecution in the second degree as defined in section  205.60
of  the  penal law, hindering prosecution in the first degree as defined
in section 205.65 of the  penal  law,  sex  trafficking  as  defined  in
section  230.34  of the penal law, sex trafficking of a child as defined
in section 230.34-a of the penal law, criminal possession of a weapon in
the third degree as defined in  subdivisions  two,  three  and  five  of
section  265.02 of the penal law, criminal possession of a weapon in the
second degree as defined in section 265.03 of the  penal  law,  criminal
possession  of a weapon in the first degree as defined in section 265.04
of the penal law, manufacture, transport, disposition and defacement  of
weapons  and dangerous instruments and appliances defined as felonies in
subdivisions one, two, and three of section 265.10  of  the  penal  law,
sections  265.11,  265.12 and 265.13 of the penal law, or prohibited use
of weapons as defined in subdivision two of section 265.35 of the  penal
law,  relating  to  firearms  and other dangerous weapons, or failure to
disclose the origin of a recording in the first  degree  as  defined  in
section 275.40 of the penal law;
  §  11.  Subdivision  1  of  section 673 of the county law, as added by
chapter 545 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows:
  1. A coroner or medical examiner has  jurisdiction  and  authority  to
investigate  the death of every person dying within his county, or whose
body is found within the county, which is or appears to be:
  (a) A violent death, whether by criminal violence, suicide or  casual-
ty;
  (b) A death caused by unlawful act or criminal neglect;
  (c) A death occurring in a suspicious, unusual or unexplained manner;
  (d) [A death caused by suspected criminal abortion;
  (e)] A death while unattended by a physician, so far as can be discov-
ered,  or  where  no  physician  able  to  certify the cause of death as
provided in the public health law and  in  form  as  prescribed  by  the
commissioner of health can be found;
  [(f)]  (E)  A death of a person confined in a public institution other
than a hospital, infirmary or nursing home.
  § 12. Section 4 of the judiciary law, as amended by chapter 264 of the
laws of 2003, is amended to read as follows:
  § 4. Sittings of courts to be public.  The  sittings  of  every  court
within  this  state shall be public, and every citizen may freely attend
the same, except that  in  all  proceedings  and  trials  in  cases  for
divorce,  seduction,  [abortion,]  rape,  assault  with intent to commit
rape, criminal sexual act, bastardy or filiation, the court may, in  its
discretion,  exclude  therefrom  all persons who are not directly inter-
ested therein, excepting jurors, witnesses, and officers of the court.
  § 13. Severability. If any provision of this act, or  any  application
of  any  provision  of  this  act, is held to be invalid, that shall not
affect the validity or effectiveness of any other provision of this act,
or of any other application of any provision of this act, which  can  be
given effect without that provision or application; and to that end, the
provisions and applications of this act are severable.

S. 240                              6                              A. 21

  § 14. This act shall take effect immediately. 
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.15  Trout Giggles  replied to  lady in black @3.3.14    5 years ago
A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI- FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH- IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

This looks to be the main source of 96's and Sean's consternation with this law. However, I see nothing in this law that lets just anybody perform an abortion. "Lawful scope of practice" means just that. It is illegal for any non-medical person to perform abortions. It's practicing medicine without a license.

The other source of their angst seems to be "necessary to protect the patient's life or health". I don't want to create a straw man here trying to state what I think 96 and Sean are having problems with. I'll let them explain their positions. But any medical professional who is actually using good judgement isn't going to abort a 39 week fetus just because the potential mother says "I'm too stressed to have this baby and I don't want it anymore."

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.3.16  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Veronica @3.3.3    5 years ago
So post them in regards to this bill.

Why do you keep posting this after I have posted it in this seed MULTIPLE TIMES.  

ARE YOU CHOOSING TO KEEP IGNORING IT becuse you don't want to admit what the Democratic party stands for????   It's actually a GOOD thing BTW....  Only a fool blindly follows a political party.  Don't be willfully ignorant...read the bill for yourself.  It isn't that hard to understand.
 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.3.17  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Dulay @3.3.10    5 years ago
Hyperbolic crap. 

How much you want to bet a story comes out over the law being abused in less than 6 months of it becoming law?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.18  Gordy327  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.17    5 years ago

Get back to us when it happens. Otherwise,  you have nothing.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.3.19  cjcold  replied to  lady in black @3.3.14    5 years ago

Had to stop reading a few pages back. Stuff made me want to go out and beat up a lawyer.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.3.20  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.13    5 years ago
Are you really unable to find the health exception in the bill?

You see it as an exception, I see it as an INCLUSION. 

ct, non-doctors are now allowed to conduct abortions

SO WHAT? What is your issue with that? 

This is how I would explain it to a fourth grader.

This is how I would refute it to a NT member.

The NY law creates an exception for woman's health.

The NY law INCLUDED the woman's health as a factor. 

The woman's health exception was defined by the Supreme Court.

False. The SCOTUS, in Bolton, broadly stated the definition of 'health'. 

You hang you hat on Doe v Bolton and then misrepresent it's content and effect. In Bolton, the broad definition of HEALTH was cited for use as qualified REASONS for seeking, performing or counseling in favor of an abortion under statutes like those in GA at the time. 

From the opinion: 

Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.
The Supreme Court has defined abortion as a Constitutional right.

A right that CAN be restricted by states within CONTITUTIONAL constraints. NY's abortion laws were within those restraints BEFORE the new law was signed and they are within those restraints NOW. 

The Supreme Court has the final word on Constitutional issues.

Yet a change to that 'final word' can be sought by whomever has enough time and money to pursue a Writ of Certiorari before the court. Which is what the anti-choice crowd has been pursuing for DECADES. 

Unless you can show otherwise (you can't), the Supreme Court's definition of what constitutes a health exception controls what the health exception meansd in the New York law. 

Again, Bolton does NOT define a 'health exception'. It cites a broad definition of HEALTH.

So to understand what the health exception actually means, you have to understand what the Supreme Court has said on the topic.

Roe doesn't define a 'health exception' either.

So cite the SCOTUS opinion that does or JUST STOP.

And the Supreme Court says the right to an abortion cannot be restricted if it impacts the well being of the mother,and her well being must include consideration of her physical, physiological, emotional , familial well being and even her age.

Wow, a factual and cogent summary of facts. Why'd it take you so long? 

I'm tired of explaining basic civics.

You're not too hot at is so you should JUST STOP.

IF you can't understand how the Supreme Court impacts legislation, take it up with your grammar school teachers.

Getting a little personal Sean. It's clear you have your own issues with this topic. 

It's amazing how upset pro choice people get when they are faced with the reality of abortion law in this country.

You haven't confronted anyone with the reality of abortion law in this country Sean. You have managed to out your misrepresentation of it quite clearly though. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.3.21  Dulay  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.16    5 years ago
It isn't that hard to understand.

So you claim yet your comments prove otherwise. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.3.22  Dulay  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.17    5 years ago
How much you want to bet a story comes out over the law being abused in less than 6 months of it becoming law?

Oh I have no doubt that will happen. Just look at the 'story' in your seed. 

BTFW, since when has the possibility of a law being abused ever precluded it from being passed? RFRA's come to mind. 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.3.23  epistte  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.17    5 years ago
How much you want to bet a story comes out over the law being abused in less than 6 months of it becoming law?

How much you want to bet that supposed claim is being ginned up by the conservative echo chamber?   You are looking for something that isn't there because you already have a pre-determined bias against this legislation. Why do you think that your conservative views get to determine the reproductive decisions of other people?

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.3.24  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3.8    5 years ago
Yet you provide no examples of that happening.

The law litterally passed on tuesday.  WHat an awesome debate strategy./s   Thankfully I don't have an example of the law being abused litterally days after it passed but the way it is written I doubt it will take longer than months.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.25  Gordy327  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.24    5 years ago

If you don't have examples, then all you have is mere speculation, and nothing more!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.3.26  Dulay  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.24    5 years ago
The law litterally passed on tuesday. WHat an awesome debate strategy./s Thankfully I don't have an example of the law being abused litterally days after it passed but the way it is written I doubt it will take longer than months.

The date that the NY legislation passed isn't much of a debate strategy either 96.

There should be a plethora of evidence of your HORROR fantasy since 38 OTHER STATES have laws that include HEALTH as a reason for seeking and/or performing an abortion. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.3.27  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.24    5 years ago
The law litterally passed on tuesday.

"19 states permit later abortions to preserve the life or health of the woman."

This is not new, many States have nearly identical laws and have for years now. If there was going to be some boom in elective late term abortions that you've been fantasizing about it would have happened by now and you'd have evidence of it occurring.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.3.28  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3.27    5 years ago

the wording is different for the other states and that is the issue.  The reason this law is controversiol is the mother does not have to be in a life threatening situation like it is worded in the standing laws. It also opens up WHO is qualified to make these decisions.  If you are going to continue to deny the facts and the wording of the actual laws there is really no point in debating.   

Just to prove your assertion is COMPLETELY FALSE Virginia Democrats are already pushing through the "repeal act"  "which seeks to repeal restrictions on third trimester abortioins JUST LIKE THE NY LAW DOES.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.29  Gordy327  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.28    5 years ago
The reason this law is controversiol is the mother does not have to be in a life threatening situation like it is worded in the standing laws. 

No, it's controversial simply because it expands abortion rights in the state, which pro-lifers do not like or agree with. It's controversial because some people want to intrude on another's personal decisions, which is none of their business! The law takes a woman's health, including life threatening situations into consideration.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.3.30  lady in black  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.28    5 years ago

Yes she does, just stop reading things into this law that simply are not true. 

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.3.31  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.29    5 years ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.32  Gordy327  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.31    5 years ago
would you like to dispute the actual differences in the laws or are you just going to spew liberal bullshit?

I'm aware of the difference between the new law and the old one. And you erroneously presume I'm a liberal. And trying to make thins into a liberal vs. conservative discussion only shows your bias and lack of credibility.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.3.33  lady in black  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.31    5 years ago

Stop spewing pro lifer bullshit

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.3.34  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.18    5 years ago
Get back to us when it happens. Otherwise,  you have nothing.

WOW that is sick.

So to be clear you are OK with a law that will allow atrocities to happen until they actually occur instead of fixing the law or are you OK with killing a full term baby?  How come no one has that thinks this is OK has the balls to come out and say it?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.35  Gordy327  replied to  lady in black @3.3.33    5 years ago
Stop spewing pro lifer bullshit

You can tell it's BS when they start getting insulting or emotional.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.36  Gordy327  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.34    5 years ago
So to be clear you are OK with a law that will allow atrocities to happen until they actually occur

What atrocities are you referring to? Be specific! Cite examples of such "atrocities" happening due to law.

instead of fixing the law or are you OK with killing a full term baby? 

What's wrong with the new law? It "fixed" the old one. And no one is killing a full term fetus. That is just pro-life hyperbole.

How come no one has that thinks this is OK has the balls to come out and say it? 

There's nothing wrong with it. The law specifies the terms under which abortions are allowed. So what's the problem?

WOW that is sick.

Expected emotional rhetoric! You only prove my point.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.3.37  lady in black  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.35    5 years ago

Reminds of the red scare when people saw communists everywhere.  The proof is plain to see, the words are in black and white, no gray areas, yet people read things into what they think they see but are actual falsehoods and alternative facts.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.3.38  lady in black  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.34    5 years ago

When and if you have proof that someone is killing a baby, please call 911

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.3.39  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.36    5 years ago
There's nothing wrong with it. The law specifies the terms under which abortions are allowed. So what's the problem?

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.40  Gordy327  replied to  lady in black @3.3.37    5 years ago
Reminds of the red scare when people saw communists everywhere.  The proof is plain to see, the words are in black and white, no gray areas, yet people read things into what they think they see but are actual falsehoods and alternative facts.

Sounds like a case of delusion.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.41  Trout Giggles  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.39    5 years ago

Wow...just wow. I thought you were better than that

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.3.42  lady in black  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.39    5 years ago

Just stop, NO where in the law does it STATE that whatsoever.  And you wonder why pro lifers aren't taken seriously when you have to make up shit. Show where in the law it states that...I want proof to your claims

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.43  Gordy327  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.39    5 years ago
Hey you have the balls to admit you are OK with killing a baby that could live outside the woumb even if the mother's life is not endangered.  Congratulations.  Was that so hard?

Misrepresenting what I said or implying I said something which I didn't is a good as lying! Not to mention your post is just an emotional platitude! If a fetus can survive outside the womb after viability,  it will be delivered via induction or C-Section. No one is saying a fetus delivered that way will be killed once delivered. only you are saying that and it's just plain false (to put it mildly)! 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.44  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.41    5 years ago
Wow...just wow. I thought you were better than that

Really? You give him for more credit than I do.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.3.45  Dulay  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.34    5 years ago
So to be clear you are OK with a law that will allow atrocities to happen until they actually occur instead of fixing the law

You've been asked multiple time for evidence that such 'atrocities' WILL occur and you failed to provide any. As the NY law states, they rely on 'evidence-based practices developed
and supported by medical professionals', NOT fearmongering bullshit. 

or are you OK with killing a full term baby? 

As has been stated here multiple times, other states have had basically the same law for years and you have yet to post any proof that full term babies are being killed because of those laws in those states. 

So unless and until you post some evidence to support your fearmongering, it's just hyperbolic bullshit. 

How come no one has that thinks this is OK has the balls to come out and say it? 

Who thinks that your fantasy 'atrocities' would be OK 96? 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.46  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.44    5 years ago

He used to be a moderator

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.3.47  Dulay  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.39    5 years ago

I thought I had seen your worst. Boy Howdy was I wrong. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.3.48  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.29    5 years ago

Deleted by poster. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.49  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.46    5 years ago
He used to be a moderator

Really? Well, I can see by his posts why that would be past tense.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.50  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.3.48    5 years ago

Uh Perrie, I think your reply might be meant for 96W, and not me? I was quoting his statement in my reply  post above. Otherwise, I agree with you.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.3.51  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.43    5 years ago

  it will be delivered via induction or C-Section.

What I said is you are OK with it being killed right before the c-section or induction.  This is what the new law allows that you agree with.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
3.3.52  Sunshine  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.3.48    5 years ago
OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW,

I wonder what that means? 

Does changing the law excluding doctors have to do with ethics?  

The law was written very vague for a reason.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.3.53  Dulay  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.51    5 years ago
What I said is you are OK with it being killed right before the c-section or induction.

Nope. You didn't say anything of the sort.   

This is what the new law allows that you agree with.

Really 96? Tell us, in your fantasy HORROR scenario, HOW is this achieved? 

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.3.54  lady in black  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.51    5 years ago

Once again, NO where in the law does it State that....where is your proof

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.3.55  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.50    5 years ago

Sorry Gordy. That was meant for 96. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.3.56  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.28    5 years ago
The reason this law is controversiol is the mother does not have to be in a life threatening situation like it is worded in the standing laws. It also opens up WHO is qualified to make these decisions.

It clearly says who is open to make these decisions:

A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI- FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH- IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE:

I think you are missing the bigger issue here. You keep saying, democrats. I am not a dem, but I am pro-choice. With the change in SCOTUS and other states putting on stricter and stricter limitations on abortions (i.e. forcing women to take intravaginal ultrasound). What you are doing is guessing at the outcome of this law instead of waiting to see how it plays out. But no where in the law does it say that a woman can do what you are saying they can do. 

This is nothing but hyperbole at this point. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.3.57  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.52    5 years ago
I wonder what that means?

Review Title 8 of the NY Education law. 

Does changing the law excluding doctors have to do with ethics?

The law doesn't 'exclude doctors'. 

The law was written very vague for a reason.

It isn't 'vague' at all. 

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.3.58  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.52    5 years ago

[deleted. You are getting to close to a skirt with that comment.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.59  Gordy327  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.51    5 years ago
What I said is

That is not what you said. here is what you said: "So to be clear you are OK with a law that will allow atrocities to happen until they actually occur instead of fixing the law"

You never actually specified what "atrocities" were allowed or even being committed. The best you seem able to offer is mere speculation with a hint of paranoia. Then you tried to turn around and imply I said things which I did not. Once again, you're lying!

What I said is you are OK with it being killed right before the c-section or induction.  This is what the new law allows that you agree with.

That is not what the law allows! Neither does that occur in medical facilities! So you're either reading into something that is not there, or you're lying. Which is it?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.60  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.3.55    5 years ago
Sorry Gordy. That was meant for 96.

No worries. Thanks for clarifying. 

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.3.61  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.59    5 years ago
That is not what the law allows!

It is EXACTLY what it allows.  The fact you are in denial gives me hope you may stray from the party line after storeis of selling baby parts and abortions in which the child could have been delivered safley come out, with the verbiage of this law it is almost a certainty it will only be a matter of time and with all the other states quicly jumping on this sick bandwagon I fear it will be dreadfully short.  I hope when it does you speak out against it instead of making excuses for murder and towing the party line.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.62  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.52    5 years ago
I wonder what that means?

Title VIII defines the provisions and scope of practice and regulations of various professions within the state of NY. In the context of the new law, it means anyone medical provider who is licensed and certified to perform an abortion can do so.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
3.3.63  Sunshine  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.58    5 years ago
Yea that's what I keep pointing out to the willfully ignorant

You can only try.  The law is very vague as written, an abortion is not between a woman and her doctor anymore.  It is between a woman and a "health practitioner" whatever that maybe.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.64  Gordy327  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.61    5 years ago
It is EXACTLY what it allows

Only in your mind!

The fact you are in denial gives me hope you may stray from the party line

A non-sequitur. Political party affiliation is not the issue.

after storeis of selling baby parts

Which turned out to be just that-stories. But if you have to resort to that, then nothing you say afterwards is worthy of any serious consideration. not that it was before either.

and abortions in which the child could have been delivered safley come out, with the verbiage of this law it is almost a certainty it will only be a matter of time and with all the other states quicly jumping on this sick bandwagon I fear it will be dreadfully short.

Mere paranoid and emotionally based speculation.

I hope when it does you speak out against it instead of making excuses for murder and towing the party line.

See second statement.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.3.65  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.63    5 years ago

"health practitioner" 

Doctor, Midwife, Nurse Practitioner (RN/PhD), PA and nursing staff in an emergency. Those are the only people licensed in NYS to deliver or not at that late stage, due to the huge complications involved.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
3.3.66  Sunshine  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.3.65    5 years ago
Doctor, Midwife, Nurse Practitioner (RN/PhD)

I am reading it as not only can they perform a late term abortion but also diagnose the mother's health in determining whether an abortion can be legally performed.

ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE:

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.3.67  Dulay  replied to  96WS6 @3.3.61    5 years ago
It is EXACTLY what it allows.

You keep insisting that yet have been unable or unwilling to PROVE your claim. Merely repeating something doesn't make it true. 

As I stated before, if you HORROR scenario were a reality, there would be a plethora of evidence to support it because many other states have the same standards that NY just passed. 

So post some EVIDENCE and stop fabricating FICTION. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.68  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.66    5 years ago
I am reading it as not only can they perform a late term abortion but also diagnose the mother's health in determining whether an abortion can be legally performed.

Diagnosing health is a medical practitioner's responsibility. When it comes to medical procedures, a practitioner must be licensed and certified to perform a certain procedure.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.3.69  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.66    5 years ago

That is correct, since those are the very people who are allowed in NYS to perform all medical treatment, not just abortions if they studied reproduction as their speciality. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
3.3.71  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.68    5 years ago
Diagnosing health is a medical practitioner's responsibility.

Mid-wives are only trained for uncomplicated pregnancies/births.  And have always been required to seek further medical help from doctors for anything beyond their training.

Now this law is stating that Mid-wives or "health practitioners" do not have to.  They can use their own judgement and can perform an abortion.  Who would support such a law?  

Like I said.. it is vague and is putting the mother at great risk.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
3.3.72  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.71    5 years ago

It's rare to actually see a doctor when you go to the doctor, at least around here.  I generally get to see a nurse practicioner;  when I took my mom in last week for a UTI, she saw a PA.  It's not a big deal.  These people are trained, and they generally consult with the doctor and can bring him/her in if necessary.  It's not like they are just CNAs.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.3.73  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.71    5 years ago

Midwives are not allowed to perform abortions in NYS. I don't where this stuff comes from. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.74  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.71    5 years ago
Mid-wives are only trained for uncomplicated pregnancies/births.  And have always been required to seek further medical help from doctors for anything beyond their training. Now this law is stating that Mid-wives or "health practitioners" do not have to. They can use their own judgement and can perform an abortion. Who would support such a law?  

Key word there is training. A practitioner must be trained and then licensed and/or certified to perform a certain procedure. If the scope of a procedure exceeds their scope of practice, then they must defer to a another practitioner who is allowed to perform the procedure.  States can determine the legal scope of practice for many professionals.

Like I said.. it is vague and is putting the mother at great risk.

Only to you. Abortion procedures, especially late term abortions, are usually done in a medical facility with trained and licensed practitioners. So risks are minimized and appropriate interventions and personnel can be utilized if any complications do occur.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.75  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.3.73    5 years ago
I don't where this stuff comes from.

Mostly from ignorance I'd wager. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
3.3.76  Sunshine  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.3.73    5 years ago
3.3.65 Perrie Halpern R.A. replied to Sunshine @3.3.63 45 minutes ago
"health practitioner"  Doctor, Midwife, Nurse Practitioner (RN/PhD), PA and nursing staff in an emergency. Those are the only people licensed in NYS to deliver or not at that late stage, due to the huge complications involved.

That is what you said above....the law states "health practitioner"  I asked what that was and the above was your response.

Who is allowed to perform abortions according to the new law?  Who are the "health practitioners"?

A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI- FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH- IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE:
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.77  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.76    5 years ago
Who is allowed to perform abortions according to the new law?  Who are the "health practitioners"?

It says so right in the law: "A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI-FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW." 

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
3.3.78  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.77    5 years ago
A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI-FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW."

And who is that....what would be some good examples?  

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.3.79  lady in black  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.76    5 years ago

Google is your best friend:  Read here to answer your question.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.3.80  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.3.73    5 years ago

Midwives are not allowed to perform abortions in NYS. I don't where this stuff comes from. 

Plenty of information on that. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.81  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.77    5 years ago

Key phrase is "lawful scope of practice"

I don't think some people understand what that means. My GP is not going to perform surgery on me because that is outside his "lawful scope of practice"

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.82  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.81    5 years ago
Key phrase is "lawful scope of practice"

That too.

I don't think some people understand what that means.

Clearly not!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.83  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.78    5 years ago
And who is that....what would be some good examples?

Whom do you think would be licensed and certified to perform abortions? OB/GYN doctors, Physician assistants, nurse practitioners, to name a few. Do you think some Joe Schmoe off the street is going to do it? Seriously, it is not complicated. Lady was even kind enough to provide a good citation for you to reference at your leisure.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.3.84  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.80    5 years ago
Midwives are not allowed to perform abortions in NYS. I don't where this stuff comes from. 
legislature/

From the link:

Physician assistants will be permitted to also carry out surgical abortions and licensed midwives and nurse practitioners can do nonsurgical procedures using medications if they are “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice," according to the legislation.

From the link: 

In addition to M.D.s, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives may perform nonsurgical abortions.

This next part is false and doesn't reflect the changes in the law:

After the 12th week, the procedure must be in hospital on in-patient basis. After the 20th week, an M.D. must be present to handle medical care of any live birth.

Both requirements were repealed in the new law. 

May 2018 Fact Sheet State Facts About Abortion: New York

Plenty of information on that. 

Yep. The two up to date links state that midwives CAN preform abortions. 

Opps...

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
3.3.85  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.83    5 years ago

In NY a nurse can perform an abortion?  A surgical procedure?

NY believes a nurse is qualified to perform surgery?  SMH.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.86  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.85    5 years ago
In NY a nurse can perform an abortion?  A surgical procedure? NY believes a nurse is qualified to perform surgery? 

What part of "scope of practice," or "licensed" and "certified" do you not understand? You also seem to confuse nurse with nurse practitioner (NP). If a NP or any other medical practitioner is trained and certified to perform a procedure within an established scope of practice, then they are allowed to perform said procedure. Abortion itself is not necessarily a surgical procedure. It can also be a pharmacological procedure. There are different and specific interventions which can be utilized to perform an abortion, depending on the situation.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.3.87  lady in black  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.85    5 years ago

Please learn the difference between a nurse and a nurse practitioner

Nurse Practitioner (NP) is an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse who has earned at least a Master's degree and completed additional training in a specialty area of medicine. Because of their advanced skills, NPs have more authority for administering patient care compared to RegisteredNurses.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.3.88  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  lady in black @3.3.87    5 years ago

In NYS to be a Nurse Practitioner (NP), you must have a PhD is a specific medical field. For instance, my son in law to be, is finishing off his studies at Columbia to be a Nurse Practitioner in Psychiatry. This means he can do anything a doctor can do, including writing scripts without the supervision of a doctor. But unlike a doctor, he can only do this in his field, Psychiatry. They are trained in a specific field. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
3.3.89  Sunshine  replied to  lady in black @3.3.87    5 years ago
Please learn the difference between a nurse and a nurse practioner

I know the difference.  Doesn't make it safe.  May make it more available but not safe.  This law puts womens lives at risk.  

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.3.90  lady in black  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.3.88    5 years ago

Thank you for expanding on the definition.  I did a quick google search and that definition came up first.  

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.3.91  lady in black  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.89    5 years ago

See Perrie's reply right above yours.  So much misinformation that people seem to be reading into the law.  It's all black and white, no gray areas, and again google is your best friend to do your own research.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Quiet
3.3.92  Sunshine  replied to  lady in black @3.3.91    5 years ago
no gray areas

There is plenty of gray area in this law.  Planned Parenthood has been lobbying states for years to lessen the requirements to perform abortions.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
3.3.93  lady in black  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.92    5 years ago

I don't give a shit about planned parenthood, this law has been in the works for years.  You only see gray where you want to.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.3.94  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.92    5 years ago
There is plenty of gray area in this law. 

Please direct me to a gray area. 

Planned Parenthood has been lobbying states for years to lessen the requirements to perform abortions.

First of all, Planned Parenthood has never had an issue in NYS. Second, they would still have to comply with the competency part of the law. They don't get a free pass.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
3.3.95  Studiusbagus  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.46    5 years ago
He used to be a moderator

That was before the aliens showed up and ...well....the probe 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.96  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @3.3.89    5 years ago
I know the difference. 

Based on your post, I'd say not.

Doesn't make it safe.  May make it more available but not safe.  This law puts womens lives at risk.  

How so? If an NP is fully qualified, competent, and certified to perform an abortion, then what's the problem?

There is plenty of gray area in this law.

Such as?

Planned Parenthood has been lobbying states for years to lessen the requirements to perform abortions.

So? PP has nothing to do with this law or issue.

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
3.4  Freefaller  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    5 years ago
You know the pro abortionists are actually ashamed of what they believe because they hide behind weasel words and rely on emotionally based rhetoric

I've read many a related article and comments and in my opinion it's generally not the pro choice crowd that's hiding behind weasel words and relying on emotionally based rhetoric.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.4.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Freefaller @3.4    5 years ago
ead many a related article and comments and in my opinion it's generally not the pro choice crowd

It's funny.

In this very thread you have  pro choice people claiming the law doesn't allow the termination of viable fetuses ( It does)

Claiming Roe overruled Doe (It didn't. They are companion cases)

Claiming the Supreme Court's definition of the health exception doesn't apply in New York.

etc..etc.

One can only laugh. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.4.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.4.1    5 years ago
In this very thread you have  pro choice people claiming the law doesn't allow the termination of viable fetuses ( It does)

Again, the removal from the womb, of a viable fetus, is NOT a 'termination' of the fetus, it is a termination of the pregnancy. 

One can only laugh.

And deflect...

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
3.4.3  Studiusbagus  replied to  Freefaller @3.4    5 years ago
You know the pro abortionists ...

What do you expect from the anti-woman crowd?

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.4.4  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Studiusbagus @3.4.3    5 years ago

To imply being against murdering fully grown infants is anti-woman is pathetic.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.4.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  96WS6 @3.4.4    5 years ago

Murdering fully grown infants (and just what is a fully grown infant, anyway?) is anti-baby and against the fucking law!!!!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.6  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.4.5    5 years ago
'Murdering fully grown infants'

I think they just make shit up as they go along.

Like pre-unborn baby or some other such nonsense.  

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
3.4.7  Studiusbagus  replied to  96WS6 @3.4.4    5 years ago
To imply being against murdering fully grown infants is anti-woman is pathetic

To imply someone that feels a woman is free to make a choice with her own body as "pro abortion" is what??

Those that fight to restrict anothers choice as a free human being ignores those rights of another citizen is anti-woman.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.4.8  epistte  replied to  96WS6 @3.4.4    5 years ago
To imply being against murdering fully grown infants is anti-woman is pathetic.

Back the partisan hyperbole down a dozen notches if you desire to have a rational debate. There is no such thing as a fully-grown infant because that would be oxymoronic. Abortion isn't murder and it never was, even before the Roe' decision. 

This law doesn't allow full term elective abortions of a viable fetus, despite what some conservative talking head had convinced you.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
3.4.9  seeder  96WS6  replied to  epistte @3.4.8    5 years ago
This law doesn't allow full term elective abortions of a viable fetus, despite what some conservative talking head had convinced you.

You are completely wrong but I know you have avoided reading the law so that is not surprising.

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
3.4.10  epistte  replied to  96WS6 @3.4.9    5 years ago
You are completely wrong but I know you have avoided reading the law so that is not surprising.

I have read the law and there is nothing that supports your wild claims.  The inclusion of the word health does not open the Pandora's box of late-term abortions that you seem to have been convinced it does.  Who told you that it did?

Even if it did, why do you believe that your views have any bearing on the medical decisions of others?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.5  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    5 years ago
"The truth is a woman in New York can go into a abortion mill and have an abortion performed on her due date, she need merely claim the thought of a baby and the responsibility it entails is causing her "stress." 

What and WHOM are you quoting Sean? 

So now the fully formed child can be killed and it it's legal because her "emotional health" was in danger.

If the child is 'fully formed', why would it be killed when removed from the womb? 

IT would be refreshing to see the pro abortionists crowd admit in public to what they argue in Court.

What argument is that Sean? Oh and how do you KNOW about it if it isn't public? 

Logic would be refreshing...

Plus, with this law, they can now kill babies who survive the abortion process without legal risk.

Link? Cite the specific section please. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.5.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @3.5    5 years ago
What and WHOM are you quoting Sean? 

It's not a quote, it's how Doe v Bolton (the case that explains the health exception) is applied. By all means, find a Court case where the Court said the health exception did not apply to a late term abortion.

If the child is 'fully formed', why would it be killed when removed from the womb

I can see why you'd need to resort to that. 

What argument is that Sean? Oh and how do you KNOW about it if it isn't public?

Supreme Court hearings and decisions are almost all public. Did you not know that?  But by all means, point me to an Supreme Court argument where pro-choicers argued for narrowing the broad health exception of Doe.  

Link? Cite the specific section please. 

The law repeals section 4164 of New York's public health law, that mandated medical assistance be provided to babies that survive abortion. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.5.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.5.1    5 years ago
It's not a quote, 

Then why did you surround your statement with quotation marks Sean? 

it's how Doe v Bolton (the case that explains the health exception) is applied. 

Since Doe v Bolton is a 1973 SCOTUS opinion, I presume that it has been 'applied' that way ever since. So what does the NEW NY legislation have to do with that 48 year old application Sean? 

I can see why you'd need to resort to that.

A cogent question, the HORROR!

Supreme Court hearings and decisions are almost all public. Did you not know that? But by all means, point me to an Supreme Court argument where pro-choicers argued for narrowing the broad health exception of Doe.

So the WERE admitting it in public. Glad we cleared that up. 

The law repeals section 4164 of New York's public health law, that mandated medical assistance be provided to babies that survive abortion.

That's FALSE Sean. It read: 

When an abortion is to be performed after the twelfth week of pregnancy it shall be performed only in a hospital and only on an in-patient basis.  When an abortion is to be performed after the twentieth week of pregnancy, a physician other than the physician performing the abortion shall be in attendance to take control of and to provide immediate medical care for any live birth that is the result of the abortion.

I know of NO STATE that mandates that a physician other than the OBGYN must be present to provide immediate medical care for any live birth. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.5.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @3.5.2    5 years ago
Then why did you surround your statement with quotation marks Sean? 

I didn't. There an unclosed quote that was a typo at the beginning  and the word "stress" is in quotes sarcastically.

We can argue about typos if you want, but its just a mistake. 

So what does the NEW NY legislation have to do with that 48 year old application Sean? 

I thought this was obvious, but NY rewrote and liberalized it's abortions laws for the first time since 1970.   The legislature simply made abortion on demand explicit, on the off chance Roe is overturned.

That's FALSE Sean. It read: 

Why do you say things that aren't true?  Under the prior law, medical assistance was required to be provided the baby. There is zero requirement that assistance be offered now. 

But by all means, show me the section that requires medical assistance be given to a baby that survives the abortion.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
3.5.4  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.5.3    5 years ago
I thought this was obvious,

The only thing that's obvious in your posts Sean is that you are incapable of supporting them. 

Why do you say things that aren't true?

I don't. 

Under the prior law, medical assistance was required to be provided the baby.

I posted the exact fucking wording Sean. It didn't require 'medical assistance', it required a second  physician. 

There is zero requirement that assistance be offered now. 
But by all means, show me the section that requires medical assistance be given to a baby that survives the abortion.

How about your provide me with evidence that such a requirement needs to be legislated Sean.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
4  MonsterMash    5 years ago

Mother: Doctor I'm 32 weeks pregnant I want an abortion

Doctor: That's against the law.

Mother: If I don't get an abortion I'm going kill myself

Doctor: In that case you're life is in danger I can do the abortion.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
4.1  seeder  96WS6  replied to  MonsterMash @4    5 years ago

EXACTLY

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
4.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  MonsterMash @4    5 years ago

And this is where your hype takes a turn down stupid street.

Mother: If I don't get an abortion I'm going kill myself
Doctor: In that case you're life is in danger I can do the abortion.

Wrong!

Doctor: Well, in that case I'm not doing the abortion and I am going to Baker act you.

That is also the law!

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
4.2.1  epistte  replied to  Studiusbagus @4.2    5 years ago
Wrong!

Doctor: Well, in that case I'm not doing the abortion and I am going to Baker act you.

That is also the law!

Absolutely. There are psych' medications that can be given to control depression and anxiety that are not in any danger to the developing fetus. Threatening suicide does not allow a late-term abortion. 

If severe depression was a previous risk she would have been monitored by her psychiatrist long before the 24-week limit.  Its very likely she would have been on birth control so she didn't get pregnant if this was a foreseeable risk.

Why do these people care of she has an abortion anyhow? Who put them in charge of the intimate medical decisions of others? What are they afraid of happening if a woman has an abortion? I want a 20-minute meeting with their urologist and convince him that they should be castrated, because if they can make reproductive decisions for women, then women can likewise make their reproductive decisions. 

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
4.2.2  Studiusbagus  replied to  epistte @4.2.1    5 years ago
Why do these people care of she has an abortion anyhow?

They don't.

The anti-woman crowd here saw abortion/Cuomo/Democrat and decided it was the end of all mankind because of Liberals.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.2.3  charger 383  replied to  epistte @4.2.1    5 years ago
Why do these people care of she has an abortion anyhow?

I have not been able to understand that.  It is flat out not their damn business

If they claim religious reasons then they should let their Lord handle it if he ever holds a Judgement Day   

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @4.2.3    5 years ago
It is flat out not their damn business

But they somehow think it is. Go figure.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
Sophomore Silent
4.2.5  Phoenyx13  replied to  epistte @4.2.1    5 years ago
Why do these people care of she has an abortion anyhow?

it's all about control - they wish to control what people can/cannot do with their bodies/medical decisions/lives etc. It's all about control.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.6  Gordy327  replied to  Phoenyx13 @4.2.5    5 years ago
It's all about control.

That about sums it up.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
4.2.7  Cerenkov  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.6    5 years ago

Why do you care if a stranger is murdered or raped? It's flat out none of your damed business!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Cerenkov @4.2.7    5 years ago

False equivalency. 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
4.2.9  Cerenkov  replied to  Dulay @4.2.8    5 years ago

Nope. I don't think you know what that phrase means...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Cerenkov @4.2.9    5 years ago
Nope. I don't think you know what that phrase means...

Yep. It's like pornography, I know one when I see one. 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
4.2.11  epistte  replied to  Cerenkov @4.2.7    5 years ago
Why do you care if a stranger is murdered or raped? It's flat out none of your damed business!

Who is being murdered or raped?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.2.12  Dulay  replied to  epistte @4.2.11    5 years ago
Who is being murdered or raped?

No one but male privilege is dying.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
4.2.13  Cerenkov  replied to  Dulay @4.2.12    5 years ago

Yes, all crime has been eliminated in the US! /s

You guys are so disingenuous in your defense of atrocity. Hilarious. 

 
 
 
epistte
Junior Guide
4.2.14  epistte  replied to  Cerenkov @4.2.13    5 years ago
Yes, all crime has been eliminated in the US! /s You guys are so disingenuous in your defense of atrocity. Hilarious. 

How is an abortion an atrocity?  How many abortions have you been forced to endure?

Do you also oppose birth control?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.2.15  Dulay  replied to  Cerenkov @4.2.13    5 years ago
You guys are so disingenuous in your defense of atrocity.

Ditto. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.16  Gordy327  replied to  Cerenkov @4.2.7    5 years ago

Your false equivalency aside, what makes you assume I care? And you're right, it is none of my business. Just like someone's choice to continue a pregnancy or not is none of my business either. So what's your point?

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
5  Veronica    5 years ago

I find it amusing that when pro-choice people take on very restrictive abortion laws in certain states they are told not to live there.  Well guess what - if you do not like NYS law - MOVE!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Veronica @5    5 years ago
Well guess what - if you do not like NYS law - MOVE!

Even if they moved to NY no one is going to force them to get an abortion. The NY law or any other State laws aren't effecting them in any way shape or form, no one is stopping them from having babies.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
5.2  Cerenkov  replied to  Veronica @5    5 years ago

Whoosh, over your head...

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
6  Dismayed Patriot    5 years ago

"Catholic Bishops Question Cuomo's Faith"

I thought questioning others faith was supposed to be verboten in most religious circles. Do Protestants allow Catholic Bishops to question their faith even though they don't follow the same doctrines? I guess "Judge not lest ye be judged" are just words that have no meaning to some Christians...

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
6.1  seeder  96WS6  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6    5 years ago

I didn't want to post this seed on it becuase it does not address the actual language of the bill and is too easily derailed from the point...just like you did.   Unfortunatley all the seeds that deal with the language have "inflamitory titles" and point out that it is murder and have offended people so they are forbidden by the COC.   It makes it hard to have a grown up discussion about an inflamitory subject without someone like yourself deflecting from the point I was trying to drive home doesn't it?   To be clear that point is abortion and not Cumo's faith.  I know it is not your fault I had to post 3 seeds before I got one that passes the new COC so please don't misread my post as an attack on you but Cumo is not really the subject here.

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
6.1.1