It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New York legislature votes to legalize abortion up to birth, let non-doctors commit abortions

page: 13
32
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




§ 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health.



okay, let's look at the law...
first... they can perform an abortion if the pregnancy is within the 24 week point... gee, do you think that a trained nurse practitioner is qualified to give a patient the morning after pill? what about a first trimester non-surgical abortion which just consisted of dispensing two drugs? mind you I was living in NY when I first encounters a nurse practitioner, she was legally allowed to examine my son, make the wrong diagnosis, and I had to challenge her before she brought the doctor in to examine him... which was a good thing, since the kid had a collapsed lung!! so ya, if they are allowed to make these kinds of diagnosis, they may as well be allowed to administer a few pills for abortions, what the heck, they are allowed to give the patients every other kind of medication!!!

the absence of fetal viability... this might mean before the stage of development that a fetus is considered viable, but then, that would kind of be repeating the first wouldn't it, since that would be around the 24th week am I right?
so my guess is that it means past the 24th week, but still not viable. a nonviable pregnancy, one that cannot result in a liveborn baby. nurse practitioners are trained in various areas of medicine, one of them being Obstetrics.




Nurse Practitioner (Obstetrics and Gynecology): provides reproductive health care to women and female adolescents. Obstetrics and Gynecology nurse practitioners may provide primary care or acute care; they may address acute or chronic health problems or provide preventive or supportive care. Some Obstetrics and Gynecology nurse practitioners sub-specialize in fields such as Labor & Delivery.

www.op.nysed.gov...


I kind of think they are trained to know the difference between viable and nonviable as well as knowing how to slap a baby's behind in case they have a life birth!!! and, while you are griping about there not being a doctor around, what about midwives and home births? there is a much better chance of a distressed baby being born at home with a midwife I would think!!! there's no doctor present there either!

or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health... and I also think they are trained to know when the patient's life or health is at risk!!! I just don't buy the idea that we should put women's health and lives at risk because you think that some might slip through that doesn't fit your criteria of what is too risky for them! like I pointed out, we have alot of hospitals that have been popping up around the country pretending to run on basically the same way of thinking, and we now have the worse numbers of all the developed countries when it comes to maternal deaths!


edit on 26-1-2019 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 09:54 PM
link   


The bill also abolishes homicide charges against anyone who kills/murders the unborn, even if the mother wanted to have the child.





Even New York is no stranger to these types of prosecutions. In 2008, a car driven by a 28-year-old woman named Jennifer Jorgensen crossed the double-yellow line of Whiskey Road in Ridge, on Long Island. The head-on collision that ensued cut three lives short. The driver of the car Ms. Jorgensen hit, Robert Kelly, 75, died at the scene; his wife, Mary Kelly, 70, died of her injuries three weeks later. The infant that Ms. Jorgensen, eight months pregnant, delivered via emergency cesarean section shortly after the accident died five days later.

In 2012, a Suffolk County jury acquitted Ms. Jorgensen of two counts of second-degree manslaughter in the deaths of the Kellys, one count of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and one count of aggravated vehicular homicide.

The jury found Ms. Jorgensen guilty of a single manslaughter charge, holding that she recklessly caused the death of her daughter because she had not been wearing a seatbelt. She was sentenced to up to nine years in prison.

New York’s highest court threw out the conviction three years later, ruling that the state’s law doesn’t hold women criminally responsible in such cases. If it did, a pregnant woman who ignored doctor’s orders to stay in bed, took prescription or illegal drugs, shoveled snow or carried groceries could be charged with manslaughter if those acts resulted in the premature birth and death of the fetus, wrote Judge Eugene Pigott Jr. for the court’s majority.

www.nytimes.com...


getting into car accidents, throwing themselves down flights of stairs, it's really amazing the ways women come up with to end pregnancies!!! or maybe, just maybe, laws like the ones you are referring to are serving to throw women in jail for having miscarriages more than they are to prosecute assailants who are attacking pregnant women??



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
or maybe, just maybe, laws like the ones you are referring to are serving to throw women in jail for having miscarriages more than they are to prosecute assailants who are attacking pregnant women??



That's the sort of hyperbole that makes conversations about this so difficult.

Would not changing those laws to be more carefully defined, be a better option than ignoring that if a crime causes a woman to lose a wanted child, it is actually murder of a child in addition? You murder a pregnant woman who is pregnant with a wanted child, that it's two murders is a no brainer. The father would lose both a wife and child. That should be punished should it not?



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

hyperbole or not, I think that it's north carolina that has jailed more women for "causing" their miscarriages then they have assailants of pregnant women!!
don't think they've taken the time to refine their law any though..
and how about you show me where the NY's abortion law will affect any laws related to the death of a fetus caused by an assailant? please use a source that isn't from a prolife group?? because I really think that that and the idea of nine month abortions is the hyperbole!!



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


Start at Line 19 and read down. nyassembly.gov...


"Person," when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a
human being who has been born and is alive.




Straight from the horse's mouth. If, in the ninth month, a baby is killed (not counting abortion), it is not a homicide according to the NY Law. The baby must have been born and breathing.

Correct me if that's not plain as day.
edit on 26-1-2019 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2019 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

serious question...
if a person is unaware that a women is pregnant, have they aborted the baby if they stab them and cause a miscarriage? I've read a few legal definitions for abortion, and it seems that the core of it would be the intent of ending a pregnancy??
if a person doesn't know a person is pregnant, how can they intend on ending the pregnancy?



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

The person would only be charged for harming the mother. From that Law I posted for you above, there would be no charges for the death of the baby. Even if he intentionally stabbed the baby resulting in the baby's death, he would only be charged for what happened to the mother.

The baby no longer matters where this law is concerned. As it stated, the baby must have been born and alive at the time its life was taken for it to be homicide.

Anybody that thinks this is okay is not okay upstairs.


edit on 26-1-2019 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
...
abortion rates have been falling steadily since the 1980s and is at the lowest level since roe was passed!!!
it's not what enabled the "hookup culture" and it hasn't resulted in the lower population rate. BIRTH CONTROL has!! so, guess we should get rid of the birth control next??


Why don't you stop going off a tangent and claiming things no one has argued about, or against?...

But if you want to get off a tangent..

Your idealist liberals, like the Gates, Soros, etc, have been advocating for, and getting money for programs that are forcing abortions in third world countries. Many women are dying because of the botched up abortions, and forced sterilizations that Liberals from the U.S. and the UK are forcing on people that are less fortunate than you are...



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: queenofswords

serious question...
if a person is unaware that a women is pregnant, have they aborted the baby if they stab them and cause a miscarriage? I've read a few legal definitions for abortion, and it seems that the core of it would be the intent of ending a pregnancy??
if a person doesn't know a person is pregnant, how can they intend on ending the pregnancy?



The unintentional killing of another person, including the unborn except in New York, is called manslaughter.


man·slaugh·ter (măn′slô′tər)
n.
The killing of a person without malice aforethought but with either the intention to commit an unlawful act that leads to an unintended death, or with an otherwise murderous intent that is extenuated by some partial defense, such as acting under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance occasioned by a substantial provocation on the part of the victim.

www.thefreedictionary.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

Why don't you get that the mother cannot end the pregnancy at late stage due to convenience. That is not what the law says.


It is what the law states. It seems a lot of you who are in favor of this law have no idea, or comprehension about what you are reading.


...
§ 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health.
...

nyassembly.gov...



By Nicole Brown
nicole.brown@amny.com @ncb417
Updated January 23, 2019 6:59 AM

...
The Reproductive Health Act maintains the 24-week limit under which women can seek abortions but adds a provision for abortions at any time if the baby would not survive the birth. Additionally, the act permits abortions at any point if it is necessary to protect the mother's life or health.
...

www.amny.com...


...
The Doe v. Bolton case defined thehealth of the mother in such a way that any abortion for any reason could be protected by the language of the decision. Its definition of health includes “all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age—relevant to the well-being of the patient. ALL these factors may relate to health.
...

www.all.org...



United States Supreme Court
DOE v. BOLTON(1973)
No. 70-40
Argued: December 13, 1971 Decided: January 22, 1973

...
Appellants then argue that the statutes do not adequately protect the woman's right. This is so because it would be physically and emotionally damaging to Doe to bring a child into her poor, "fatherless" 10 family, and because advances in medicine and medical techniques have made it safer for a woman to have a medically induced abortion than for her to bear a child. Thus, "a statute that requires a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term infringes not only on a fundamental right of privacy but on the right to life itself." Brief 27.
...

DOE v. BOLTON

in Doe v. Bolton it was even argued that "because of medical advances in medicine it is safer for a woman to have an abortion than to bear the child..." Which is a completely ridiculous and false statement.


edit on 27-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

most of the old laws that was struck down mentioned abortion specifically, I miss the one part where it doesn't mention abortion...



Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person [or an 8 unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twen- 9 ty-four weeks] under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in
10 the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, or criminally
11 negligent homicide[, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in 12 the first degree].

the part in itallics is what was struck down. so I went and looked up the meaning of criminally negligent homicide...
for ease, I am gonna use the term "you should have known better"...
like after being told at very doctor's visit you shouldn't be picking up your young children you should have known better than to pick them up?? now you are guilty of criminally negligent homicide because you cause the miscarriage of your baby? or gee, you should have known better than to drive without you seatbelt on, and now you've miscarried your baby. or, you should have known better than to try to walk down those stairs when you knew you were prone to having dizzy spells... or let's look at another side of that one... gee daddy of baby, you should have known better than to upset the momma of your baby and drive her blood pressure up causing the danged dizzie spell that sent her flying down a flight of stairs!!! can you not see how this would place innocent women at risk of being prosecuted for just miscarrying their baby? the danged list of "you should have known betters" would be rather long.. you should have known better than to do that job, you should have known better than to take that medication, you should have known better than to carry that stinking trash bag out to the trash can after waiting three days for someone else to do it!!
if a guy attacks a women to intentionally cause an abortion, isn't he practicing medicine illegally? after all the law clearly states who can legally terminate a pregnancy and insane man wanting to get out of having to pay child support payments isn't listed on someone who can?
the drunk driver in ny, she wasn't convicted for killing the passengers in the other car. she got off on that one. she was convicted for not wearing her seat belt, and thus, placing her fetus in danger. and that ruling wasn't overturned till three years later, and that judge made it a point that if it was allowed to stand, then it all those other "you should have known betters"- carrying groceries from the car, taking a heavy bag of trash to the outside garbage can, ect- would open the path for alot of women to be prosecuted and jailed for just having a miscarriage! the women who "threw herself down the stairs" well she was convicted, jailed for awhile, and later the conviction was overturned. not because the judge thought the idea of her throwing herself down the stairs was insane, but because it was proven in court that they had miscalculated how far along the pregnancy was and therefore, it wasn't a crime if she did throw herself down the stairs intentionally! a law in north carolina allows any women to get an abortion in the first 2 trimesters, but when it comes to the third, well first she needs affirmation from several doctors that her life or health is at risk.. and then she ALSO needs the permission of her husband. so I guess, in whoever's wrote this stupid law viewpoint, while the women is struggling to stay alive, the doctors are supposed to be off hunting down the husband to get his permission before they can intercede.
if it wasn't for supreme court decisions, this law would be in effect. and, like I said if Roe v wade is overturned, there is no reason to believe all those other decisions siding with the women's right to terminate her pregnancy would stand..
and, yes, the right to life crowd is hoping that the supreme court can be stacked with prolife judges who are willing to overturn roe. so the states might want to dust off the old lawbooks and look and see just what their state laws are and well... as I believe you put it, clarify them some.. like NY has been trying to do.





posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

why don't you read the posts I reply to before you insinuate that I am going off on a tangent.
in this case the post I was replying to was basically saying that abortion has caused the drop of the birth rate in the country and thus the need for more lenient immigration policies, and was nuturing the more reckless sexual behavior...
I am just pointing out that more than likely, it was birth control that cause those things, not abortion.




Your idealist liberals, like the Gates, Soros, etc, have been advocating for, and getting money for programs that are forcing abortions in third world countries. Many women are dying because of the botched up abortions, and forced sterilizations that Liberals from the U.S. and the UK are forcing on people that are less fortunate than you are...


so what third world countries are our tax money going to fund forced abortions? I know I've read of plenty where young girls are being forced into marriage, and then force to have children before their bodies are mature enough to be able to handle the pregnancy. but by what I understand, those groups that you are complaining about are kind of stuck unable to do anything to help them since if they even mention the option of abortion, their gov't funding will be stripped from them! are you talking about that country where the "oh, we can't give health insurance to our employees that cover birth control" company gets a large portion of their inventory from---china? oh ya, they still do force abortions onto people, and more than like the companiens that hobby lobby is buying inventory from is helping the gov't do it!!



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

source for what criminally negligent homocide means..

criminal-law.freeadvice.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Let's say a couple in New York are having a baby, and the woman is 8 months pregnant, a home invasion happens and the pregnant woman is treated roughly by the thief, she loses the baby it dies as a result and she survives. These parents decide they want a murder charge, the prosecutor says sorry in New York we can't. The couple has money and funding from advocacy groups, they challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court, given the people on the bench right now they win this and it is struck down.
New York making stupid laws, feminists should fully be against this part of the law because it's violating the right to proper justice for other women. Or have we devolved so badly that feminists don't want to protect their own ?
I woman that badly wanted a baby, and it dies because of violence and perhaps it was girl as well, they won't search for justice for those women's rights ?

Or has women rights and feminists gone so far left that they won't be a voice for their own anymore for purely political reasons?
At some point some poor liberal parents in New York are going to have a face slap red pill moment .
edit on 27-1-2019 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar

why don't you read the posts I reply to before you insinuate that I am going off on a tangent.
in this case the post I was replying to was basically saying that abortion has caused the drop of the birth rate in the country and thus the need for more lenient immigration policies, and was nuturing the more reckless sexual behavior...
I am just pointing out that more than likely, it was birth control that cause those things, not abortion.
...


I have read your posts. My statement wasn't just about that particular response you gave. You keep making strawman arguments without any evidence corroborating your claims. Not to mention, I can't even understand a lot of the claims you are making which have nothing to do with this change in the law. You even make false, and completely illogical claims such as:


originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: queenofswords

most of the old laws that was struck down mentioned abortion specifically, I miss the one part where it doesn't mention abortion...



Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person [or an 8 unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twen- 9 ty-four weeks] under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in
10 the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, or criminally
11 negligent homicide[, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in 12 the first degree].

the part in itallics is what was struck down. so I went and looked up the meaning of criminally negligent homicide...
for ease, I am gonna use the term "you should have known better"...
like after being told at very doctor's visit you shouldn't be picking up your young children you should have known better than to pick them up?? now you are guilty of criminally negligent homicide because you cause the miscarriage of your baby? or gee, you should have known better than to drive without you seatbelt on, and now you've miscarried your baby.
or, you should have known better than to try to walk down those stairs when you knew you were prone to having dizzy spells... or let's look at another side of that one...


You make no sense whatsoever in the above claims. All you keep doing is making strawman fallacies, and you get completely off tangent making up things that are not even part of reality. Show me a case in New York where a pregnant woman was charged with manslaughter, or "criminally negligent homicide" for picking up her baby, or for falling downstairs... Unless there is evidence that "the pregnant woman wanted to cause the miscarriage by causing an accident," there are no laws that i am aware of, much less in New York, that would charge a pregnant woman with manslaughter, or criminal negligent homicide for "picking her baby up, or falling downstairs, etc. BTW, "if the woman picks up her baby that baby was already born, so it has nothing to do with "abortion..."

However, if a woman violently shakes her baby because the baby wouldn't stop crying, in that case she would be charged with criminal negligent homicide, or even manslaughter. But that is not a fetus anymore, that is a newborn baby, or a baby that was already born months ago. This would have NOTHING to do with "abortion" or this new law...

However, what your claims show is that like many in the left you make no distinction whatsoever between a newborn, or a baby that was born months ago, and a human fetus. You seem to think both are the same, which corroborates my statements about "liberals/democrats" in the not so far future arguing that newborns and babies also have no rights, and that parents should be able to kill them for any reason.

In New York no woman needs to "force an accident" to abort her baby. New York is one of the states which, even before this law, was very lenient and would allow any excuse for a pregnant woman to have an abortion. All she needed to do is walk to a PP clinic...



edit on 27-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
i love how these members are so passionate about this life.!!!!!!!!

but then you get in other threads and they seem pretty callous.
about life in general and treatment of people that are you know. alive.

getting them scopes dialed in

but the babies man


Lol you came back to double down, everyone is on the same page except you.
..

People are compassionate about helpless beings that have zero choice, not for grown humans who make stupid decisions.

What kind of a loser do you have to be to have so much unprotected sex that you would need to kill this thing inside you asap before it grows into a human.

Then on the flip side, 90% of the women showing up for abortions are the bottom of the barrel, the losers of society that will.probably cause more problems for society then contribute.

There were times when these losers would be killed before they could even have babies.

Catch 22, do you make the cum dumpsters have their kids so people are not responsible for actually killing a baby or be happy the losers are not breeding ?



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

okay, a women is in her 20th, her husband and her have spent a large sum of money over the years at various fertility clinic and finally, they concieved!! they are overjoyed! but then well someone breaks into their house, and because of something that was done, she ends up miscarrying..
why isn't this couple's loss thought to be less than the couple that you have imagined?

or let's say that either of these women decide to drive to the store. she deliberately decides to not buckle her seat belt because well, she was told that it can be a danger to the baby if she is in an accident... (I was told that by friends when I was pregnant).. well she missing a stop sign and causes an accident. ( yes, Electric, this case if real and happened in NY
www.theguardian.com... ) Does she really deserve the added heartache of a three year court battle with the threat of jail while she is grieving over the loss of her baby?




Her conviction was under the manslaughter statute for “recklessly” causing the death of another person. Jorgensen had been sentenced to three to nine years in prison, which was stayed pending her appeal. Now it is dismissed along with the charge.

Any imposition of criminal liability for actions of pregnant women where a child later dies from injuries suffered while in the womb needs to be clearly defined by lawmakers, Judge Eugene Pigott Jr wrote. “It should also not be left to the whim of the prosecutor.”

“Conceivably, one could find it ‘reckless’ for a pregnant woman to disregard her obstetrician’s specific orders concerning bed rest; take prescription and/or illicit drugs; shovel a walkway; engage in a contact sport; carry groceries; or disregard dietary restrictions,” Pigott wrote. “Such conduct, if it resulted in premature birth and subsequent death of the child, could result in criminal liability for the mother.”

At present, that’s not in New York’s criminal law, Pigott wrote.

Jorgensen was relieved by the ruling, said her attorney, Richard Mischel.

“It was a hard struggle for Jennifer,” he said.
www.theguardian.com...


Maybe NY will come back with a clearer law to add some kind of justice for an event like the one you have described. But, the outdated law seems to have a few flaws..
one being that I highly doubt that the couple in my story wouldn't feel just as much loss as the couple in your story..
and second, the inclusion of criminally negligent homicide would, and seems to have been include that women who just wanted to drive to the store and for whatever reason had an accident that caused the death of her child.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




However, what your claims show is that like many in the left you make no distinction whatsoever between a newborn, or a baby that was born months ago, and a human fetus.


ever think to consider that a person could have a child that they consider a baby, one, or two year old and be pregnant at the same time?? it might be a stupid position to be in, but it was one that I found myself in!! and yes, the doctor was yelling at me at every visit to stop lifting the kids, which I didn't have really much choice about!!!

by the way, we've been here so many times before, I have brought the same stories as these to your attention plus plenty more. I've gotten tired of tracking down the sources to the stories and posting them and well, I know that you have been provided links to them many times... so, no, I don't see you backing up the allegation that groups are "forcing" abortions on women in third world countries, you haven't provided any links to stories of babies being ripped from their mother's wombs days before their birth date.


edit on 28-1-2019 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodworth

originally posted by: TinySickTears
i love how these members are so passionate about this life.!!!!!!!!

but then you get in other threads and they seem pretty callous.
about life in general and treatment of people that are you know. alive.

getting them scopes dialed in

but the babies man


Lol you came back to double down, everyone is on the same page except you.
..

People are compassionate about helpless beings that have zero choice, not for grown humans who make stupid decisions.

What kind of a loser do you have to be to have so much unprotected sex that you would need to kill this thing inside you asap before it grows into a human.

Then on the flip side, 90% of the women showing up for abortions are the bottom of the barrel, the losers of society that will.probably cause more problems for society then contribute.

There were times when these losers would be killed before they could even have babies.

Catch 22, do you make the cum dumpsters have their kids so people are not responsible for actually killing a baby or be happy the losers are not breeding ?


Bottom of the barrel cum dumpsters.

Got it

You're just proving my point.

You lot care about some life.

It's all negotiable.




posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
Am I wrong? And correct me cause I'm not so bright. That appeared to mean, only if the baby wouldn't survive anyways and to save the mother? That's the intent right? If I'm wrong, please just tell me.



Think I read the law abolishes the survival protections of the baby. That seems to suggest that if the attempted abortion fails and the baby survives they are free to kill it.




top topics



 
32
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join