New York State Senate Passes Bill Permitting Abortions up to Birth

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Gotcha.  But with 8 million successful abortions performed in that time frame, I saw nothing indicating women were being prosecuted, at all.  But whatever.  If that’s what NY wants, they got what they wanted.  I have far too many reasons NOT to live in NY state for this to even factor into a decision to move there.

 

  I'm not really sure about that part. It's possible they don't prosecute even though they could. It might be that they are changing the current law to be more in line with Roe v Wade now in case something happens with that law.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  More correct would be that a physician makes the evaluation that her life is in danger. If the woman perceives there is a health risk she would go to her doctor, not to an abortion clinic.

 

  If you have ever been at a hospital when a code white (L+D emergency) is called, it's a pretty grim situation. Not to overstate "health risks" of pregnancy, but it's not a trivial thing either when something goes wrong. Deliveries can go south in a heartbeat when something happens. And often it's not a surprise. The physician and nursing team often knows a difficult delivery is coming. They are ready with coolers of blood products, plasma, surgical teams and resuscitation teams standing by. Sometimes they cant do anything.

 

  I trust the physician to make the determination of health risk. Ultimately the woman will then decide what to do. You are not going to get an abortion at 24 weeks because you have a runny nose. If you have cancer and you are not going to make it another 12 weeks to the delivery date, the doctor can make that determination, and the woman will have to decide whether to risk the death of herself and the baby or not. If you search for cancer during delivery, there are an overwhelming number of heartbreaking cases where neither the mom or the baby made it. 

 

  

Not arguing with the rest of your narrative, my ex was a nurse, and I have several nurse friends, one is a L&D, so I get some pretty graphic tales over dinners.

 

But the way the law is written now, the woman’s life does not have to be in danger. (Words have meaning, and I have spent a lifetime interpreting laws and regulations as an outhouse lawyer)  She just has to want to preserve her life.  That has different meanings to different people.  Your interpretation will be somewhat different than mine, and ours will be different from a woman who comes to realize her life will be completely different from what she has come to expect up to that point.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, ALFKAD said:

Not arguing with the rest of your narrative, my ex was a nurse, and I have several nurse friends, one is a L&D, so I get some pretty graphic tales over dinners.

 

But the way the law is written now, the woman’s life does not have to be in danger. (Words have meaning, and I have spent a lifetime interpreting laws and regulations as an outhouse lawyer)  She just has to want to preserve her life.  That has different meanings to different people.  Your interpretation will be somewhat different than mine, and ours will be different from a woman who comes to realize her life will be completely different from what she has come to expect up to that point.  

 

  Correct, people will interpret health risk differently, but a physician trained in obstetrics will not. That's why the law is written so that the decision will be made medically. If a woman goes to her  doctor at 25 wks and wants an abortion because of a perceived health risk, the doctor will evaluate that possibility. If there is not a health risk, it would be medical malpractice to determine that an abortion could be performed. And it would also subject the physician to a charge of murder. 

 

  The reality is, the law is being misrepresented by some news sites (and individuals) as encouraging women to have late term abortions when it is not the case on any level. The intent of the law is to protect the right of women to have an abortion if it is determined medically necessary after 24 weeks. I would add that is a right that is already constitutionally guaranteed. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

14 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Correct, people will interpret health risk differently, but a physician trained in obstetrics will not. That's why the law is written so that the decision will be made medically. If a woman goes to her  doctor at 25 wks and wants an abortion because of a perceived health risk, the doctor will evaluate that possibility. If there is not a health risk, it would be medical malpractice to determine that an abortion could be performed. And it would also subject the physician to a charge of murder. 

 

  The reality is, the law is being misrepresented by some news sites (and individuals) as encouraging women to have late term abortions when it is not the case on any level. The intent of the law is to protect the right of women to have an abortion if it is determined medically necessary after 24 weeks. I would add that is a right that is already constitutionally guaranteed.

I agree with most of your assessment.  Except the bold part.  I searched the Constitution, and there is no mention of abortion.  

 

Let’s not mix current laws with the Constitution.  Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, yes.  Aborting to achieve those, not so much.  I did my part years ago to minimize abortions by getting my vasectomy.  I am part of the solution, not part of the problem.   

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I agree with most of your assessment.  Except the bold part.  I searched the Constitution, and there is no mention of abortion.  

 

Let’s not mix current laws with the Constitution.  Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, yes.  Aborting to achieve those, not so much.  I did my part years ago to minimize abortions by getting my vasectomy.  I am part of the solution, not part of the problem.   

 

   Reading the SC court ruling, they did call it a constitutional right covered by the 14th amendment, although you are correct that there is nothing in the constitution about abortion.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

52 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Reading the SC court ruling, they did call it a constitutional right covered by the 14th amendment, although you are correct that there is nothing in the constitution about abortion.

Ok, now we are gonna have to part ways, SC ruling or not.  The 14th has nothing to do with abortion; in fact, it is on the opposite of the fence to it.  “nor shall any state deprive any person of life” Sure, you can argue whether or not a fetus is a person, but in no way does the 14th take away an unborn child’s rights, in any trimester.  Only activism has done that, sadly.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

15 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Ok, now we are gonna have to part ways, SC ruling or not.  The 14th has nothing to do with abortion; in fact, it is on the opposite of the fence to it.  “nor shall any state deprive any person of life” Sure, you can argue whether or not a fetus is a person, but in no way does the 14th take away an unborn child’s rights, in any trimester.  Only activism has done that, sadly.

 

  The supreme court determined that right to life begins when a fetus is viable outside of the womb. From a legal perspective, it is not about agreeing with it or not. There are a lot of constitutional rights that people differ on. They are still rights. Which is why killing a child after 24 weeks carries a charge of murder. Same after a baby is born, or when the child grows up to be a teenager. There is no slippery slope to argue rationally. That  argument is of born of emotion. We all argue from that perspective at times, but the fact is the law is clear. As I said we don't have to like it or agree with it. I often don't. I still think 21 weeks would be a better cutoff than 24. However unless I can change the law in NY, that is what it is.

[jg121783 3,907]

2 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

I agree with most of your assessment.  Except the bold part.  I searched the Constitution, and there is no mention of abortion.  

 

Let’s not mix current laws with the Constitution.  Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, yes.  Aborting to achieve those, not so much.  I did my part years ago to minimize abortions by getting my vasectomy.  I am part of the solution, not part of the problem.   

That's because you are looking in the wrong constitution. You need to look in the new Liberal constitution for the future United Soviet States of America. It's right after the amendment imposing a 90% tax on the "rich" (upper middle class) and before the amendment granting US citizenship to anyone who crosses our border.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

43 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

That's because you are looking in the wrong constitution. You need to look in the new Liberal constitution for the future United Soviet States of America. It's right after the amendment imposing a 90% tax on the "rich" (upper middle class) and before the amendment granting US citizenship to anyone who crosses our border.

 

  Tangential sarcasm aside, the constitutionality was covered in a ruling made by the SC 45 years ago. 

[jg121783 3,907]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Tangential sarcasm aside, the constitutionality was covered in a ruling made by the SC 45 years ago. 

The Supreme court is not the end all be all on what's right and wrong. The Supreme court has gotten it wrong in the past and their rulings were eventually overturned. One example is the Supreme court at one point ruled that slavery was constitutional. That was later overturned and I think we all can agree the Supreme Court was wrong when they made that ruling. I think it is still very much open for debate whether abortion is constitutional all moral/religous arguments aside.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

20 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

The Supreme court is not the end all be all on what's right and wrong. The Supreme court has gotten it wrong in the past and their rulings were eventually overturned. One example is the Supreme court at one point ruled that slavery was constitutional. That was later overturned and I think we all can agree the Supreme Court was wrong when they made that ruling. I think it is still very much open for debate whether abortion is constitutional all moral/religous arguments aside.

 

   Yes they do get things wrong, and yes things can change, but at this time, and for the past 45 years, it has been considered a right.

[Unidentified 2,930]

I haven't read all the comments but just wanted to contribute with my thoughts... I am pro-choice but this is taking things too far. They argue this is in case of the health of the mother or the baby is not going to make it after birth... At this point in the pregnancy if the mother is not healthy enough to continue the pregnancy just deliver the baby. And the whole baby won't live thing... Doctors are wrong all the time, there have been plenty of stories about babies whose mother was told they wouldn't survive who are now thriving. If the baby is going to die... Deliver the baby and keep him/her comfortable. 

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

14 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

I haven't read all the comments but just wanted to contribute with my thoughts... I am pro-choice but this is taking things too far. They argue this is in case of the health of the mother or the baby is not going to make it after birth... At this point in the pregnancy if the mother is not healthy enough to continue the pregnancy just deliver the baby. And the whole baby won't live thing... Doctors are wrong all the time, there have been plenty of stories about babies whose mother was told they wouldn't survive who are now thriving. If the baby is going to die... Deliver the baby and keep him/her comfortable. 

 

 

Many moons past, my mother was born premature.  I do not recall HOW premature, as both she and her mother are dead now.  The doctors told my grandmother there was no way her daughter was going to live.  But my great grandmother stepped in, took my mom home, and put her in a shoebox with a towel and light bulb for warmth, much like what one would do with baby chicks.  I've been told my mom easily fit in one hand.

 

Well, here I am, posting so many years later, proof that doctors don't always know best.  Viability is a many-wondered event.

[eieio 1,594]

Quote

The Yew York law has added the wording life or health is at risk.

 

It doesn't exclude mental health.  Makes a loophole in the law that will allow an abortion up to birth as long as the mother feels her mental health is going to suffer. Would not be to hard for her to find a doctor that agrees that she will go crazy if not allowed to abort.

[Unidentified 2,930]

17 hours ago, eieio said:

 

It doesn't exclude mental health.  Makes a loophole in the law that will allow an abortion up to birth as long as the mother feels her mental health is going to suffer. Would not be to hard for her to find a doctor that agrees that she will go crazy if not allowed to abort.

Then just freaking give up the kid for adoption. This is insane.