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: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 05:08 PM
link   
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.




posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Sick disgusting g mother #ers! Everyone who voted in favor needs to be aborted now! And those who proposed it, firing squads.


Hold your horses. Is this even true?
I can't believe that it is.
Think about it - if true it would contravene Roe vs Wade. That SC ruling made clear that abortions could be allowed up to viability.



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.


is this how it is now?



Pretty much.
I am not sure what NY are legislating yet - not read the bill - but I'd be shocked if it were abortion for any reason right up to birth as is being said.


www.newsday.com...


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.



Seriously can no one here read?





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.


So good bye murder charge, all righty then.

These people are scum, literal scum.



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The States of New York and California Days are Numbered . They Will Not be Able to Resist the American Peoples Voice for much Longer . A Comeuppance is in Order REAL SOON ..........



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I'm calling BS on this one.

I have only read the first page, but I simply refuse to believe it.

No one could be that cold.



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Feminism is their religion. Abortion is their sacrament. In New York City more black babies are aborted than are born. Its disgusting, a city which is against capital punishment for murderers has no problem giving innocent babies a lethal injection of poison.
edit on 23-1-2019 by JBIZZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 05:48 PM
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.



That’s what I read too. If the baby is going to be stillborn, or is already dead in the womb, they will abort. Or if the mom is going to die, AND the baby cannot survive the birth, they will abort.
There’s either death, or death.

If there’s really doctors in the US, that don’t believe in the “do no harm” thing, then your healthcare isn’t really healthcare.



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

Considering it's a completely fabricated story by Calvin Freiburger, its not. It's simply hyperbole to stir chaos. For a moderator, you sure seem to fall prey to a one-sided leaning all the time.


It is not a fabricated story... I gave several links to "left-wing sources" which verify everything in the op.
It is you, who without any evidence, want to deny that this is happening when in fact the bill has been approved by both houses in New York which are controlled by Democrats/Liberals.



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 05:53 PM
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.




or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.


At the practitioners discretion with no legal consequences. Health can mean anything even mental health issues could be used under this.

I'd imagine the next thing planned would be to force any practitioner who does abortions to do this even if they don't agree. They can kill a baby minutes before it's born, that's OK, but if they refuse after a patient asks? I don't know, this is pretty insane here.



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 05:53 PM
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.



It includes any related issue that affects the mother's health.



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...

In the op I explained what "the mother's health" means. In the case of Doe v Bolton the "health of the mother" was redefined to include any excuse made by a doctor or the mother. It includes "physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age." This even includes "economic reasons" as a viable excuse to allow abortions.


...
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...




edit on 23-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add link.



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555

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.




or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.


At the practitioners discretion with no legal consequences. Health can mean anything even mental health issues could be used under this.

I'd imagine the next thing planned would be to force any practitioner who does abortions to do this even if they don't agree. They can kill a baby minutes before it's born, that's OK, but if they refuse after a patient asks? I don't know, this is pretty insane here.


So it appears they were trying to do the right thing, but left the language too vague?



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 05:58 PM
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


Abortion =/= Illegal immigration.

because apples and apples correct?



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

So it appears they were trying to do the right thing, but left the language too vague?


I do not call it "doing the right thing" to take away all rights of the unborn, even on the day he/she is to be born.



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: iplay1up2
Your over the top reaction, means you did not read all of the article. An abortion can be done that late, only if the baby would not survive delivery. Still seems very wrong.


It isn't an "over the top reaction." It has been explained from the start that it includes any issue affecting a woman's health.


...
§ 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...

I have shown several times, even in the op, that "health of the mother" includes using ANY excuse the doctor or the woman make. Including "physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age." This even includes "economic reasons" as a viable excuse to allow abortions up to the day the baby is to be born.




edit on 23-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

I'm opposed to late term abortion period and consider it infanticide. That is intentionally vague. Most legislators are lawyers, they don't do that without reason. I'm sure every word was carefully parsed.

The intent is abortion on demand up to the second of birth.

As of 2018, 81% of Americans still believe late term abortion should be illegal.



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

It wasn't even vague. If people actually read Doe v Bolton they would see that any excuse is considered as affecting a woman's health.



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


edit on 23-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add excerpt.



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: amazing

So it appears they were trying to do the right thing, but left the language too vague?


I do not call it "doing the right thing" to take away all rights of the unborn, even on the day he/she is to be born.


I hear what you're saying, I feel differently if the child is already dead or the mother is going to die though.



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

You have a point, but I don't feel like every liberal just wants unlimited abortions. My wife is liberal, she voted for Hillary, but she hates abortion.



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 06:18 PM
link   

"Your advocacy of extreme abortion legislation is completely contrary to the teachings of our pope and our Church," Albany Bishop Rev. Edward B. Scharfenberger wrote in an open letter in the Evangelist on Saturday. "I shudder to think of the consequences this law will wreak. You have already uttered harsh threats about the welcome you think pro-lifers are not entitled to in our state. Now you are demonstrating that you mean to write your warning into law. Will being pro-life one day be a hate crime in the State of New York?"


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



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse



I have shown several times, even in the op, that "health of the mother" includes using ANY excuse the doctor or the woman make. Including "physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age." This even includes "economic reasons" as a viable excuse to allow abortions up to the day the baby is to be born.


It still doesn’t make sense. Any decent doctor/practitioner/midwife would take the viable fetus out and put it in an incubator. And then adopt it out somehow. Not just kill it for the hell of it. They’d at least try to have the baby live, or they shouldn’t be allowed to practice medicine or healthcare on anyone or anything.



posted on Jan, 23 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

I hear what you're saying, I feel differently if the child is already dead or the mother is going to die though.


Could you please keep up? It has been posted several times now that "ANY REASON affecting the mother's health" includes any excuse they make. Whether they claim the pregnancy is affecting the woman "emotionally, (it doesn't have to be just because of rape) physically, familial reasons, economic reasons, or any other excuse.

A woman can claim "being pregnant (up to the day the baby is to be born) has caused me a lot of emotional pain." "I have changed my mind and don't think I can bring up a baby." ANY REASON is considered as "affecting the woman's health."

It has also been shown that even homicide charges are no longer given in New York if a murderer kills a pregnant woman. Charges apply for the mother, but no charges of murder apply to the unborn at ANY time of pregnancy.

The life of the baby does not matter in New York for ANY reason.


edit on 23-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.







 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join