New York 'celebrates' legalizing abortion until birth as Catholic bishops question Cuomo's faith
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
Who is online
56 visitors
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.
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.
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.
So what, too bad, don't like NYS's law, then don't live here, and once again, not your uterus, not your business
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.
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
So? That's a good thing. The woman health is a primary concern.
And opponents are wrong!
Again, so what?
As long as they're certified and it falls within their scope of practice, what's the problem?
Not even a little. Lady happens to be correct!
Abortion isn't murder and it's none of your business! So spare us the sanctimony!
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.
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.
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
It's sad that people read what they want to read into the law.
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-
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.
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?
I live in NYS, I know exactly what is going on, so don't ASSUME, you know me.
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.
Haven't you read Sean's posts? That door has been open for 48 years. Sheesh...
The only one who doesn't seem to understand the law here is you!
You base that assertion on what exactly? Your opinion?
See first statement.
What word would that be?
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?
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 :
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.
That's nice. prove it!
No, you're up to making things up now.
Too many folk as it is. The planet is being destroyed by overpopulation and greed.
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.
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.
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
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.
What question? And why ask me? I don't speak for Gov. Cuomo. Perhaps you should ask him.
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?
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.
Based on the 14th Amendment, I think that's true in every state.
What wording in the bill lead you to that conclusion?
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.
Except that would not happen. Your "what if" scenario is quite amusing. Not to mention clearly grasping at straws.
The focus of the article is on the NY law, which has been thoroughly explained by now. Not Virginia.
Why would they perform an abortion because of the mother's mental health? Depression and anxiety can be treated very effectively.
should someone with mental problems have a child? might be making more problems
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?
either is a good enough reason and both can be problems,
"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?
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.
It actually disproves his position. Sad.
Perhaps "amusing" is the wrong term. "Stupid" fits better.
That's a matter for the woman and doctor to determine. Not you nor anyone else!
No.
No, I don't. Why don't you elucidate for me!
Now all you have to do is provide evidence to substantiate or validate that claim.
You have yet to prove that claim.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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.'
The what lead you to make that assertion?
No. I understand that an abortion is a medical procedure, not a criminal act.
And?
Again, I haven't seen anyone claiming that the ONLY reason is to save the life of the mother. It's a strawman.
Citing 'narratives' that don't exist anywhere in the seed or it's threads is an issue.
Nice attempt to twist things around. I'll take that to mean you can't back up your claim!
That's really for a physician to decide, now isn't it?
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.
Because abortion is a medical procedure, not a criminal act.
I'm beginning to think you do. Especially since you can't seem to substantiate your claims.
The comment you quoted NOT a:
It looks to me like you intentionally misrepresent what's been said.
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.
That sounds perfectly reasonable.
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.
Except he was clearly violating the law and was convicted as a result. Apples and oranges there.
See previous statement.
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
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.
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.
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.
Is it?
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.
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.
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.
What he did was not legal. That is why he was convicted of multiple crimes.
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.
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.
So in other words, you have nothing but pure conjecture. Got it.
Yes, so? Is that a problem?
What Dr. Gosnell did was illegal. That's why he was convicted and imprisioned. It's also a Strawman argument.
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.
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.
You mean birth? A woman can still experience many issues after birth.
It's not.
I didn't say anything about the termination of a fetus post birth. I said "A woman can still experience many issues after birth."
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.
."Now it looks just like the needle that is used to supply the lethal injection to the living unborn child," Peters wrote.
Oh please.
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.
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.
People are not pro-abortion
That's false. Some people are very publicly 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.
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.
Wife or fetus? Which would you choose?
They are a minority. Most people are pro choice and you know that. I am pro choice, not pro abortion.
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.
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?
Come on BF. Those are extremists. You can find any craziness on the internet.
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 ...
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.
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?
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?
Ding Ding Ding!!!!!! A winner!
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.
We both tried but I don't think we got thru
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.
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. .
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?
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.
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.
So post the "broad" exemption in this bill.
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.
C'mon. Fetuses are viable at 24 weeks. Talk about arguing from a place of emotion!
So you have nothing. Gotcha.
Prove it - post that part of the bill.
Really? How many fetuses have you seen birthed at 24 weeks that don't require weeks if not months of care in a NICU?
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...
No, post the part that says a woman can walk in get an abortion after 24 weeks along for stress.
Well that didn't come out right, the bold part of the law is what has been struck out as the definition of homicide.
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.
Hey be careful you could get suspended if you seed that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
What can go wrong by prohibiting legal abortion? And your use of the incorrect term just makes your argument not worth discussing.
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.
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.
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.
How come harming babies doesn't count?
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!!!!
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.
Do you know of a rogue or sadistic pediatrician?
The definition of fetus is not the same as a baby.
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:
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted.
You are kidding right? That is the whole point. Those rules don't apply anymore.
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.
Who? or more importantly, who cares?
That's why we have police and rescue personnel.
You're thinking of pro-lifers. Most of their arguments are emotionally based rhetoric and appeals.
Is the woman's health not a valid enough reason?
What "inference" would that be? The law only affirms what currently exists.
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.
And you say "pro-abortionists" rely on emotionally based rhetoric? It doesn't get more emotionally rhetorical than that nonsense you spew!
What would that be exactly?
Nice libelous statement and erroneous presumption.
It's for the woman to decide regardless of the issues or circumstances!
You clearly haven't read or understand the law then!
Before Roe, NY abortion law only allowed abortion if the woman's life was in jeopardy.
The Hippocratic oath does not prohibit abortion.
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.
Wow, you sure have some trust issues, don't you?
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.
You first. Preferably without the hint of paranoia.
And you base that assertion on what exactly?
The SCOTUS ruled abortion is generally allowed up to the point of viability.
Of course it depends on the point of viability. That's been made quite clear.
That's nothing but a baseless assumption.
And what makes you such a legal expert?
Statements like that only shows your bias and lack of credibility.
Did you?
Actually, it does. It's one of the stipulations of the law.
Are you a medical expert now, able to make such determinations, especially for others?
Yes, and abortions are allowed up to that point. Afterwards, it's only done when there are health risks to the woman.
Which is exactly what you're doing!
Doe and Roe complement each other and have similar effects in striking down restrictive abortion laws.
"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?
Such exception is at the discretion of a physician.
Then you have no basis or foundation for your assertions or argument and it falls flat! Thanks for playing.
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.
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.
What babies are being harmed? If you know of anyone harming babies, you should report them to the authorities immediately.
Murdering children is illegal and the bill says nothing about that. You mist be confused.
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?
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.
You do realize there are many HEALTH complications in pregnancy which can negatively affect the woman's LIFE, right?
It seems you and others are trying to make more out of something than there is.
Who better to make the determination of someone's health status than a authorized healthcare provider, like a physician? That is their job.
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.
Get your dancing shoes on...
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.
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.
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?
Used to be a paramedic and "do no harm" was what we tried to do. Not always possible. Triage.
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...
Doulas? Really 96? Please DO quote the section of Title 8 of the NY health education law that qualifies Doulas 96.
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
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.
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.
It's called alternative facts.
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.
In other words, lying.
It's a perfect fit with their alternate reality.
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....
I agree 100%
And all true libertarians should be squarely in agreement.... The two are not in-opposite of each other.......
Cite one piece of proposed legislation that is pro-choice 'absolutist'.
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....
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
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...
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.
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)
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.
Yet you chose to do so, though not cogently.
Really? How so NWM? Please be specific.
Your pro-choice right?
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.....
Relevance? Why are you deflecting? Prove your accusation.
Your questioning relevance? seriously?
What deflection?
What accusation?
Are you going to make the argument that your not pro-choice?
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...."?
The deflection from you supporting your accusation.
Here, I'll repeat it again for you:
THAT accusation.
Why would I respond to your deflection?
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?
Then why are you doing it NWM? I asked YOU questions. YOU didn't answer them.
Your inability to conceive more than one explanation is on you.
Utter bullshit.
You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how unfounded.
Yet you STILL haven't cogently explained HOW I am an absolutist.
Yet you failed to do just that.
You seem to think they are mutually exclusive. Why?
What 'behavior'? Please be MUCH MORE specific than you have been.
Are you admitting to some kind of CoC violation? Someone will catch it...
Right after YOU answer MINE. I asked first..
I don't need balls to answer a question, I have good faith intent. You?
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....
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:
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:
Which your own supercilious reply refutes.
Promise?
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}
Ditto.
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.
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......
Whew! That's a reeleef. Lol
I am not ashamed of my pro choice view, in fact I am rather proud of it
OMG, Sean! That's almost word for word what Limbaugh said on his show today
Now we know where he gets his talking points!
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.
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.
Yea, and I think I am done. I have other things to do today.
Nice seeing you BTW.
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.
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".
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.
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.
Hyperbolic crap.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 , A1748S240 - 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 HealthS240 - 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 LBD05658-02-9S. 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.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."
How much you want to bet a story comes out over the law being abused in less than 6 months of it becoming law?
Get back to us when it happens. Otherwise, you have nothing.
Had to stop reading a few pages back. Stuff made me want to go out and beat up a lawyer.
You see it as an exception, I see it as an INCLUSION.
SO WHAT? What is your issue with that?
This is how I would refute it to a NT member.
The NY law INCLUDED the woman's health as a factor.
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:
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.
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.
Again, Bolton does NOT define a 'health exception'. It cites a broad definition of HEALTH.
Roe doesn't define a 'health exception' either.
So cite the SCOTUS opinion that does or JUST STOP.
Wow, a factual and cogent summary of facts. Why'd it take you so long?
You're not too hot at is so you should JUST STOP.
Getting a little personal Sean. It's clear you have your own issues with this topic.
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.
So you claim yet your comments prove otherwise.
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.
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?
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.
If you don't have examples, then all you have is mere speculation, and nothing more!
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Yes she does, just stop reading things into this law that simply are not true.
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.
Stop spewing pro lifer bullshit
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?
You can tell it's BS when they start getting insulting or emotional.
What atrocities are you referring to? Be specific! Cite examples of such "atrocities" happening due to law.
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.
There's nothing wrong with it. The law specifies the terms under which abortions are allowed. So what's the problem?
Expected emotional rhetoric! You only prove my point.
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.
When and if you have proof that someone is killing a baby, please call 911
[deleted]
Sounds like a case of delusion.
Wow...just wow. I thought you were better than that
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
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)!
Really? You give him for more credit than I do.
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.
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.
Who thinks that your fantasy 'atrocities' would be OK 96?
He used to be a moderator
I thought I had seen your worst. Boy Howdy was I wrong.
Deleted by poster.
Really? Well, I can see by his posts why that would be past tense.
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.
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.
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.
Nope. You didn't say anything of the sort.
Really 96? Tell us, in your fantasy HORROR scenario, HOW is this achieved?
Once again, NO where in the law does it State that....where is your proof
Sorry Gordy. That was meant for 96.
Review Title 8 of the NY Education law.
The law doesn't 'exclude doctors'.
It isn't 'vague' at all.
[deleted. You are getting to close to a skirt with that comment.]
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!
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?
No worries. Thanks for clarifying.
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.
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.
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.
Only in your mind!
A non-sequitur. Political party affiliation is not the issue.
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.
Mere paranoid and emotionally based speculation.
See second statement.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Midwives are not allowed to perform abortions in NYS. I don't where this stuff comes from.
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.
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.
Mostly from ignorance I'd wager.
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"?
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.
And who is that....what would be some good examples?
Google is your best friend: Read here to answer your question.
Midwives are not allowed to perform abortions in NYS. I don't where this stuff comes from.
Plenty of information on that.
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"
That too.
Clearly not!
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.
From the link:
From the link:
This next part is false and doesn't reflect the changes in the law:
Both requirements were repealed in the new law.
May 2018 Fact Sheet State Facts About Abortion: New York
Yep. The two up to date links state that midwives CAN preform abortions.
Opps...
In NY a nurse can perform an abortion? A surgical procedure?
NY believes a nurse is qualified to perform surgery? SMH.
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.
Please learn the difference between a nurse and a nurse practitioner
A 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.
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.
I know the difference. Doesn't make it safe. May make it more available but not safe. This law puts womens lives at risk.
Thank you for expanding on the definition. I did a quick google search and that definition came up first.
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.
There is plenty of gray area in this law. Planned Parenthood has been lobbying states for years to lessen the requirements to perform abortions.
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.
Please direct me to a gray area.
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.
That was before the aliens showed up and ...well....the probe
Based on your post, I'd say not.
How so? If an NP is fully qualified, competent, and certified to perform an abortion, then what's the problem?
Such as?
So? PP has nothing to do with this law or issue.
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.
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.
Again, the removal from the womb, of a viable fetus, is NOT a 'termination' of the fetus, it is a termination of the pregnancy.
And deflect...
What do you expect from the anti-woman crowd?
To imply being against murdering fully grown infants is anti-woman is pathetic.
Murdering fully grown infants (and just what is a fully grown infant, anyway?) is anti-baby and against the fucking law!!!!
I think they just make shit up as they go along.
Like pre-unborn baby or some other such nonsense.
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.
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.
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?
What and WHOM are you quoting Sean?
If the child is 'fully formed', why would it be killed when removed from the womb?
What argument is that Sean? Oh and how do you KNOW about it if it isn't public?
Logic would be refreshing...
Link? Cite the specific section please.
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.
Then why did you surround your statement with quotation marks Sean?
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?
A cogent question, the HORROR!
So the WERE admitting it in public. Glad we cleared that up.
That's FALSE Sean. It read:
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.
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.
The only thing that's obvious in your posts Sean is that you are incapable of supporting them.
I don't.
I posted the exact fucking wording Sean. It didn't require 'medical assistance', it required a second physician.
How about your provide me with evidence that such a requirement needs to be legislated Sean.
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!
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.
Whoosh, over your head...
"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...
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.
What a crock of shit! How about the honesty...you couldn't find a right wing site with the hyped bullshit that also contained the details of the law.
How New York’s abortion law has changed
New York’s Reproductive Health Act
I quoted directly from the headline...
Are we supposed to assume the headlines you seed aren't the topic?
"Unfortunatley all the seeds that deal with the language have "inflamitory titles"
Well, I guess you have your answer then, stop seeding inflammatory articles with poorly thought out or simply false accusatory headlines.
"point out that it is murder"
Maybe because abortion is not considered murder in the eyes of the law, that is simply your opinion. I could believe that indoctrinating children in Christian myths and telling them lies about Santa and Jesus amounts to child abuse and the Children being subjected to it should be taken from their parents and put in foster care, but if I was seeding articles daily about Christian child abusers and calling all Christians criminals I wouldn't be surprised to see my seeds being moderated or removed as inflammatory, because I would no longer be just debating my opinion, I'd be making accusatory statements that the law doesn't support me on.
"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?"
You're not trying to have a discussion, you're simply accusing law abiding Americans of being murderers, that is the only point you've been trying to drive home. We get it, it's your opinion that you know better than the doctors, you know better than the women having to make this incredibly difficult decision, you know better than the law and you want to label anyone who supports the law of the land either a "murderer" or an accomplice.
"To be clear that point is abortion and not Cumo's faith."
While I understand your excuses claiming NT won't allow you to post the seeds you want, the fact is this seed is about Cuomo as the first line states "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."
"please don't misread my post as an attack on you but Cumo is not really the subject here"
I didn't misread the post, you apparently "mis-posted" a seed that isn't about what you want it to be about, and yes, Cuomo is the subject in this seed that you posted.
But since you insist on making it all about the abortion law, please do present evidence, if you can, proving that allowing doctors the discretion to consider the life of a mother or the fetus in late term abortions is being misused and abused by people electively as you have claimed in several of your other seeds touching on this subject. You claim that any old excuse will do, but do not even provide a single anecdotal example of such a thing happening, and if you can't even produce a single case of this, why should we believe you that the law is being misused or abused? Present some evidence someone abused it and you might get more people agreeing with you that it's murder, though it would still only be a mark against that individual, not the law itself.
Who would have thought that people opposed to unrestricted infanticide would generate inflammatory titles?
Who would have thought that people opposed to unrestricted infanticide wouldn't be able to support their claim that it's happening in the US?
Me.
The topic is about abortion. not infanticide.
Only your god commits infanticide.
One last thing before I go. Will all pregnant women have to make their medical records public to prove that her life was in danger if she wants to get an abortion after 24 weeks to save her life? If you don't demand that you will NEVER know why a woman gets an abortion - AS well you shouldn't.
Yet you keep demanding that I provide you with information you admit is confidential.
Sad.
Stay out of the lives and intimate decisions of other people, unless you likewise will allow them to make your medical decisions? What happened to the idea that you support small government and personal freedom, or is that stance only apply for conservative white men? Women are not subservient to any man and we aren't second-class citizens to a fetus in our bodies.
Because it really is all about liberty and personal freedom for themselves. And women that toe the line, too, of course
I didn't see it, but the new law should force doctors to "KILL" the kid in the womb as to keep "Emotional Outbursts" from happening, if they did it out of the "Womb" !
Killing a "Crying" kid can cause "Emotional issues" with those attending, raising the cost of "Health Care" insurance again !
Is this what passes for creative writing at conservative universities?
Was this a "Test" ?
Who knew !
The amount of disingenuous refusal to understand the law on this thread is amazing. Nice try anyway, Sean.
He got his clock cleaned. It happens quite often...
I see you didn't understand anything he said. Sad.
You should do stand up.
Conservative comics are never funny. Dennis Miller's career took a nosedive when he became a conservative post 9/11.
That would interfere with the running away.
I couldn't have said it better myself. there is no reasoning with the intentionally ignoirant
Irony alert. not to mention an ad hom.
Ignorant: from Old French ignorant (14c.), from Latin ignorantem (nominative ignorans) "not knowing, ignorant," present participle of ignorare "not to know, to be unacquainted; mistake, misunderstand; take no notice of, pay no attention to," from assimilated form of in- "not, opposite of" (see in- (1)) + Old Latin gnarus "aware, acquainted with".
Ignoirant: from Old French ignorant (14c.), from Latin ignorantem (nominative ignorans) "not knowing, ignorant," present participle of ignorare "not to know, to be unacquainted; mistake, misunderstand; take no notice of, pay no attention to," from assimilated form of in- "not, opposite of" (see in- (1)) + Old Latin gnarus "aware, acquainted with" + "Noir" from 1950's French and American films, literally "black film," from noir (12c.), from Latin niger (see Negro).
Used in a sentence:
If you haven't seen "Kiss me Deadly", Robert Aldrichs 1955 black-hearted apotheosis of film noir embodying the anxieties of Eisenhower's America, you're totally ignoirant...
Honestly kill all fetii, kill all babies, and fuck ti kill all children. Concentration camp style if possible.
If you make a serious response then you are a fucking retard.
I asked this question of the site's ladies on another article a half hour ago, I'm sure you've seen it, no one has responded yet...
I'm also going to also ask it here....
Anyone actually interested in some real facts?
Go ahead and post it, you might actually do the impossible and make me give less of a shit about fetuses than I already do.
Look, late term abortions are not taken lightly and are only performed under extreme circumstances (like the fetus won't survive anyways or the mother could die if she continues to carry it), its not like people are waiting til 2 weeks before the due date and then deciding on the fly they want an abortion after all. Babies aren't being born and then having the mother ask the doctor to slit its throat and the doctor just saying "okie dokie!"
Are officials from the world's largest pedophile ring really in a position to question anyone else's faith?