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

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
and without an exception for the health of the mother, you are forcing doctors to withhold treatment till the problem gets to the point where the mother is in a serious health crisis and at risk of death!! or maybe it just puts her in a position where she is permanently disabled. either way, it makes absolutely no sense if there is no chance of the fetus surviving anyways, does it? and even if it does have a chance, shouldn't the women be the one who gets to decide weather or not she wants to accept that risk? not you based on a fictitious idea of ninth month abortions that probably don't happen more than once a decade or so?
that is the two changes made... exception for the health of the mother and for non-viable fetus. both of these are settled constitutional law.
and as far as expanding who can provide abortion services,

Expands current law so that nurse practitioners,
physicians’ assistants, and other qualified health care
professionals can provide abortion service

static1.squarespace.com...

NPs can prescribe medication, examine patients, diagnose illnesses, and provide treatment, much like physicians do. In fact, nurse practitioners have what’s referred to as “full practice authority” in 20 states, meaning that they do not have to work under the supervision of a doctor. In the remaining states, however, while NPs still have more authority than RNs, they must have a medical doctor sign on certain patient care decisions.

Nevertheless, nurse practitioners are increasingly becoming integral to medical teams as more and more hospitals and healthcare facilities are utilizing their expertise. Their experience as working nurses gives them a unique approach to patient care, while their advanced studies qualify them to take on additional duties that are usually left to physicians. In fact, as reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), it’s estimated that NPs can provide 80-90 percent of the care that primary care physicians offer.

nurse.org...

considering that many early abortions are non-surgical and consist mainly of dispensing drugs well, why not?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are so right. This law is going to change a lot of things.

I can envision Abortion-on-demand clinics being set up by "health care practitioners" where all you have to do is walk in and indicate your mental or emotional state of mind is causing you severe health problems such as anxiety and you no longer want this baby.

They will probably figure out a way to get state and federal grant money on top of medicaid dollars, too.

Then, NY will probably allow them to harvest the baby's body parts and sell them. I'm sure there are other things that will probably get "harvested" as well.

This is a dark dark day in America, imo.

what gets me is that they had the old law on the books, the one that didn't give any exceptions for health of the mother or fetal viability, and yet...
the state saw fit to force a mentally handicapped women to abort her child because there was a good chance that the medicine she was being given at the time would have harmed the child's development.

originally posted by: dawnstar
and without an exception for the health of the mother, you are forcing doctors to withhold treatment till the problem gets to the point where the mother is in a serious health crisis and at risk of death!! or maybe it just puts her in a position where she is permanently disabled.

How many times does it have to be pointed out that "the health of the mother" can mean MORE than "death or disability"? The death and disability part would be covered by the part that safeguards the LIFE of the mother. There is a reason why LIFE and HEALTH are clearly differentiated in the abortion debate. That is because in Doe v Bolton "health" was redefined to mean "psychological, physical (being pregnant changes your physiology) familial and even economical reasons" as valid reasons for an abortion even past 24 weeks.

In fact Doe v Bolton made it so that ANY excuse could be used up to the second trimester. In the third trimester abortions were allowed only if the mothers' life was in danger. That still didn't stop many "pro-abortionists" from breaking the law, and to this day many still do even in other "left-wing states."

originally posted by: dawnstar
either way, it makes absolutely no sense if there is no chance of the fetus surviving anyways, does it? and even if it does have a chance, shouldn't the women be the one who gets to decide weather or not she wants to accept that risk? not you based on a fictitious idea of ninth month abortions that probably don't happen more than once a decade or so?
that is the two changes made... exception for the health of the mother and for non-viable fetus. both of these are settled constitutional law.
and as far as expanding who can provide abortion services,

You are still unable to understand that every time you see an "or" in a sentence it means the "other" parts of the statements previous to the "or" do not apply.

...
§ 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 don't know how else to make you comprehend what you are reading.

Ok. Here is an analogy. When a police officer stops you for breaking the law and you become agitated and don't want to follow the directions of the officer, he/she can tell you: "We can do this the easy way, OR the hard way." What the officer is doing is giving you a choice. You can do one thing OR the other.

originally posted by: dawnstar
considering that many early abortions are non-surgical and consist mainly of dispensing drugs well, why not?

You still can't understand that we are not talking about the first and second trimester? This change in law allows abortions PAST 24 weeks. The change in the law is about abortions in the third trimester, it is not about the first or second trimester.

Also, the change is about the fact that the life of the unborn does not matter at all. It used to be that if someone murdered a pregnant woman, the murderer would be charged with the killing of 2 people. Now in New York the law does not criminalize the unwanted murder of the unborn by someone else.

If a woman wants her child and she is pregnant, but her boyfriend beats her up to an inch of her death and kills the unborn, that murderer would only be charged with assault, battery and the attempted murder of the woman. But he would not be charged with the murder of the unborn, even if the mother wanted to have the baby...

The change is also about allowing non-doctors from performing abortions, but it also rules out the law in which a doctor has to be present in case the unborn survives the abortion, and by law, has to keep the unborn alive. That law/measure is also now gone in New York. So if the unborn survives the attempted abortion, the healthcare professional doesn't have to try to keep the baby alive anymore.

You do know that when a baby is born most of the time the doctor has to spank the baby right? That is done to force the baby to breath in air. If a newborn is just left by himself after being born and the spanking is not done, that baby will die most of the time. Likewise, if the unborn survives the abortion, but the unborn is not attended by the healthcare professional he/she(the unborn) will die.

"When the government becomes the arbiter of morality, then society has lost."
-DBCowboy

I hope sane New Yorkers will keep a close eye on what develops from the passing of this law.

Nothing good will come out of this. Not to mention the fact that now, since this has been made law in New York, this law can be used to argue that newborns have no rights either because there is no difference between newborns and the unborn on the date they are due...

New York has become the first city in the U.S. to legalize "infanticide." And the left "in general" in New York and all over the nation are applauding it...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

How many times does it have to be pointed out that "the health of the mother" can mean MORE than "death or disability"? The death and disability part would be covered by the part that safeguards the LIFE of the mother. There is a reason why LIFE and HEALTH are clearly differentiated in the abortion debate. That is because in Doe v Bolton "health" was redefined to mean "psychological, physical (being pregnant changes your physiology) familial and even economical reasons" as valid reasons for an abortion even past 24 weeks.

In fact Doe v Bolton made it so that ANY excuse could be used up to the second trimester. In the third trimester abortions were allowed only if the mothers' life was in danger. That still didn't stop many "pro-abortionists" from breaking the law, and to this day many still do even in other "left-wing states."
...

I made a mistake in the first paragraph above. Doe v Bolton allowed the use of any excuse up to the second trimester, not the third. Now the change in law in New York is what is allowing the use of the "redefinition of health of the mother", allowing any excuse to allow abortions past 24 weeks, and up until the date the baby is due.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: TinySickTears

I feel pity for you, the first thing you do is "find this hilarious." It just shows what kind of "compassion" you actually have for the unborn up to the day they are to be born.

Below you will see that no longer is it seen as homicide, by Democrats in New York, the death of the unborn if a murderer kills a pregnant woman.

Wait, though - homicide is a different issue. It does not need to be seen as homicide to be illegal. I'll say again - Roe vs Wade ruled that abortion is only permissable up to viability - initially through the balancing test of the mothers interest and right to life, which was viable in the third trimester. The SC later updated this to 'fetal viability', 23-24 weeks.

Is the NY legislature ignoring Roe vs Wade and Planned Parenthood vs Casey decisions? If it is, that sets quite a precedent. If so, why should there be any complaints if Roe vs Wade is completed overturned and abortion made illegal. If it doesn't mean anything then there can be no complaints in scrapping it.

This story does not ring true.

Your analysis is flawed. States are not barred from setting their own abortion laws as long as they don't infringe on the right of women to terminate a pregnancy before 20 or 23 weeks.

In Casey, the court upheld the restrictions that Pennsylvania placed on women. Since this became a precedent, a slew of states began burdening women with more steps to have a legal abortion.

Any abortion restriction denies women's agency.

originally posted by: icanteven
...
Any abortion restriction denies women's agency.

Except on the fact that what "abortion" denies is the life of another human being.

Abortion has roots on the eugenics beliefs of nazi Germany. Margaret Sanger was a racist who wanted to deprive the life of the unborn of "certain people," yet the left embraced this belief because Sanger sold to the left the belief that "killing another human life gives power to women..."

If you require a woman to carry a fetus to term, you are denying her agency. Period. Now, you can argue that the rights of a fetus supersede those of women. That's the crux of most anti-choice arguments: They reduce the role of women to that of a birth vessel based on the whims of the male-dominated state.

And if you are okay with that, good for you. It's an admission that you place the rights of a fetus over a woman.

originally posted by: icanteven
If you require a woman to carry a fetus to term, you are denying her agency. Period. Now, you can argue that the rights of a fetus supersede those of women. That's the crux of most anti-choice arguments: They reduce the role of women to that of a birth vessel based on the whims of the male-dominated state.

And if you are okay with that, good for you. It's an admission that you place the rights of a fetus over a woman.

In almost every case, no one required her to get pregnant.

If she did not want to be pregnant, she should have taken steps to avoid that. I know sex is all kinds of fun and feels good, but there is no 100% reliable way to make it "safe." Don't they teach this in school, or do they just teach them how to shove a condom on?

originally posted by: icanteven
If you require a woman to carry a fetus to term, you are denying her agency. Period. Now, you can argue that the rights of a fetus supersede those of women. That's the crux of most anti-choice arguments: They reduce the role of women to that of a birth vessel based on the whims of the male-dominated state.

And if you are okay with that, good for you. It's an admission that you place the rights of a fetus over a woman.

Look, keep your claims about a "male-dominated state" to your own delusional mind... There are millions of women who are against abortion...

And AGAIN, on the third trimester human life is viable, so the "pro-death crowd" are only denying the right to life to another human being... The same group of people who today are "denying the right to life to certain humans," are the same group who also denied the right to life to other humans in the past because they were different... PERIOD.

Not to mention, again, that this is setting a precendent which will allow to argue that "because the unborn, the day they are to be born, are no different from newborns, then the killing of newborns should be allowed in all cases where the killing of the unborn is allowed."

This decision goes BEYOND the time that the unborn are inside a woman's body. This decision will also affect the life and future of newborns...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are still denying women agency when the state has a say whether or not she carries a pregnancy to term. I have more of a problem with this than the prospect of third-trimester abortions.

Many in the pro-life community treat women like idiots or simpletons. If a woman is going to terminate a pregnancy, I would imagine she would do it shortly after learning she is pregnant. If she learns of the pregnancy at 10 weeks or less, she can forgo a medical abortion for a pill. Why on earth would they wait until the third trimester to abort?

The answer is, third-trimester abortions, in the majority of cases, occur when there is a catastrophic problem with the fetus or the woman's health is imperiled. New York's new legislation will not change this. If a woman carries a fetus to the third trimester, it is likely that she plans on giving birth. It would be an agonizing decision to decide to abort. I trust women to be able to make that decision for themselves.

I don't know where your conjecture about newborns enters into the debate. Newborns are not even mentioned in the legislation. There is no precedent being set.

In fact, the only people talking about killing newborns are people who are anti choice. It's bizarre to make the leap from women's agency to killing newborns. It doesn't make any sense. Once someone is born, he or she is no longer physically bound with the body of the mother.

originally posted by: icanteven

You are still denying women agency when the state has a say whether or not she carries a pregnancy to term. I have more of a problem with this than the prospect of third-trimester abortions.

Your argument would be similar to democrats claiming in the 17th century that black people were their property, and that the democrats could do anything they wanted to black people... That's the kind of argument you, and the left, are making. You, the left, think that the unborn are "just a bunch of cells," and many of you even think mankind/the unborn are like viruses..." These are similar arguments to what Democrats were making for hundreds of years about black people and First Nation people... But now your focus is on the unborn, and like the "nazis," the left has decided that "the unborn is life unworthy of life."

Life Unworthy of Life

Here is part of the argument made in the Doe v Bolton court case...

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

Nowhere was it argued that the life of the mother was imperiled...

That case even argued that "it is safer to murder the unborn, than for her to bear the child..."

originally posted by: icanteven
Many in the pro-life community treat women like idiots or simpletons. If a woman is going to terminate a pregnancy, I would imagine she would do it shortly after learning she is pregnant. If she learns of the pregnancy at 10 weeks or less, she can forgo a medical abortion for a pill. Why on earth would they wait until the third trimester to abort?

Yet you all in the left claim the right "are all nazis," but you all embraced the ideas of Margaret Sanger, a nazi sympathizer that had the same ideas as the nazis... So go figure...

originally posted by: icanteven
The answer is, third-trimester abortions, in the majority of cases, occur when there is a catastrophic problem with the fetus or the woman's health is imperiled. New York's new legislation will not change this. If a woman carries a fetus to the third trimester, it is likely that she plans on giving birth. It would be an agonizing decision to decide to abort. I trust women to be able to make that decision for themselves.

There are many women who don't even know they are pregnant until their water breaks. Not to mention that your claim about "third trimester abortions only occur when the woman's health is imperiled" is false, and absurd. First of all, the "life" of the mother is the argument when the mother's life is imperiled, and has been in effect since Roe v Wade... Second of all, many in the left have already made the argument that "there is no difference between the unborn and the newborn, hence killing newborns should be allowed in all cases where the unborn are allowed to be aborted."

originally posted by: icanteven
I don't know where your conjecture about newborns enters into the debate. Newborns are not even mentioned in the legislation. There is no precedent being set.

Yes this has set a precedent. BTW, you should read the information people give. I have given already several times evidence from the left making the argument that the unborn, and newborn are no different. They are not considered as persons by the left, and as such the killing of the newborns should be allowed in all cases in which the unborn are allowed to be aborted...

Since you are too lazy to actually look it up in this thread, here they are again...

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Alberto Giubilini1, Francesca Minerva2

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
...

jme.bmj.com...

Unfortunately there are many in academia, and lean to the left in politics, who even argue that "infanticide/after birth abortion should be legal."

One such academic is Peter Singer.

Infanticide Should Be Legalized

The United States should allow the use of infanticide in the case of infants with severe medical complications. This policy should be adopted because euthanizing infants in some scenarios can be a valid moral option since certain infants can be born with absolutely terrible life prospects. For example, there are a number of instances where infants can have terminal ailments that cause them to suffer immensely after birth before killing them shortly thereafter. In these situations, infanticide should be an option available to the parents of infants with these conditions. Additionally, there are strong grounds that can justify infanticide in a broader context since infants are not rational and self-conscious agents. Because infants cannot hold a conscious desire to continue living – and have never held a conscious desire to continue living - they can't be given the same rights as persons. Therefore, painlessly killing an infant cannot be wrong in the same way that killing a person is wrong. Of course, there would have to be parameters set around the practice of killing infants. And such technical matters are, indeed, important. But, for now, it is sufficient to recognize that there are certain situations in which intentionally killing infants can be justified.
...

www.debate.org...

originally posted by: icanteven
In fact, the only people talking about killing newborns are people who are anti choice. It's bizarre to make the leap from women's agency to killing newborns. It doesn't make any sense. Once someone is born, he or she is no longer physically bound with the body of the mother.

False again, and an absurd argument since the "pro-life" crowd want to defend newborns... It is the left who are making this argument. But again, you were too lazy to read the information provided here, or to even try to find out for yourself using a search engine... Which only takes 2 minutes to find corroboration on these arguments...

a reply to: icanteven

Then again, it has been also pointed out that the life of the unborn in New York does not matter at all, even if the mother wants to have her baby.

Because of this law if the boyfriend/husband/girlfriend/wife or some stranger beats up a pregnant woman to one inch of her death, but kills the unborn baby, now in New York the murderer would not be charged for killing the unborn anymore. Even if the mother wanted to have that child. This is evidence that the unborn, up to the date they are to be born, do not matter anymore in New York.

This change in the law also makes it so that no doctor has to be present in case the abortion fails and the unborn survives and is born. By doing this, if the unborn survives the abortion and is born, the healthcare professionals can just leave the newborn to die, and it is perfectly legal in New York...

This is "infanticide," no matter how the left tries to claim otherwise.

New York City "celebrated" the new law granting expectant moms the legal right to murder their unborn child. The World Trade Center is GLOWING PINK this week.

bigleaguepolitics.com...

If someone stabs a pregnant woman and kills the baby (whose due date is only days away) will no longer be charged with murder. Brilliant, convicts rights and all. Psychologists and counselors can now order abortion at late term because "mother changed her mind" or "Is insecure about finances" ?

Without the right to life no other rights matter.
Cuomo is a sick man.

you are assuming that all fetus' will reach a point where they will be viable, ever!! It's not a correct assumption.
so, in the 24 wk, or the 26th, the mother finds that her fetus will not be viable at birth, has gone and gotten 2nd and 3rd opinions on it and decides that she doesn't wish to invest any more time and heartache into the pregnancy, I guess you would also have a problem with allowing her to opt to induce labor and deliver the child at this early stage, even though it will quicken it's demise? heck, she can do what every other new mother can do and abandon her baby at the hospital and leave it to the care of the state, right? and, of course, the hospital can't legally leave it on the cold windowsill in some dark closet somewhere once it's born. no, they have to do all they can do to preserve the child's life, right, no matter how much it suffers, how many seizures they might have to pull the little guy out of every hour... and ya, the good ole ny taxpayers, along the those paying federal taxes, ya, they will be happy to pick up the cost? heck, maybe we can even invest some of that taxpayer money to come up with some imitation wombs replicating the life support system that mom provides and increase their life expectancy, although they might never be able to leave that fake womb, might never even acknowledge the world outside of their own brain, if they even have that ability. and ya, the taxpayer's can foot the bill!

or would you decide that it's murder to evict the nonviable fetus from it's nice warm home within the women so early since, it decreases it's chances of life so badly and force her to carry it till natural birth takes place. what happens if that never comes, how long should she have to wait? heck my doctors offered that service to me when i was in the first few weeks of my 10th month. it wasn't till one good kick broke the water that we agreed to bring about labor. but in the case of some fetuses, inducing labor is gonna be a death sentence for them. so, how long do you think a women should be forced to carry such a fetus?

and you keep raising the court ruling saying that it says that it would allow for a ninth month abortion for any reason. well, that ruling IS IN EFFECT NOW, so NY state laws currently has no effect, does it? and, if Roe v. wade is shot down, which it's that possibility that has caused the passage of the NY law, what makes you think that any decisions based on the Roe decision won't go down with it? and, quite frankly, all anyone has to do is search for lawsuits against the religiously controlled hospitals in the country to know that none of these court decisions protect the life or health of the mother when "religious beliefs" come into play... so, I tend to believe that we would have women dying in hospitals while doctors sitting on their hands waiting for the end of the fetus' heartbeat before we would see any women just willy nilly opting for a ninth month abortion!!!

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

For me its not really a "passion for life" as you put it. It's more a disgust at the act of ending a life for no purpose besides you just don't feel like feeding and taking care of it.

This is not the same thing as securing our borders. You could make the argument that securing our borders will cause the deaths of some who mightve survived if they couldve made it here and stayed here, but thats still not the same thing as me going south of the border and strangling the life out of them with my bare hands or hiring a medical expert to do it for me while I look the other way.

So, no. No passion for life here motivating my actions against abortion. Just a disgust for murder thats all.

Abortion, as OtherSideOfTheCoin wisely stated, should only be allowed in cases of rape/incest or when a medical situation puts the mothers life as risk, if she decides not to take that risk. If a mother decided to risk/sacrifice her life for her child's she should have every right to make that choice as a sane adult.

But I also think we need some safeguards in place to make sure a doctor isn't just "accidentally misdiagnosing" something in order to give someone a green light to kill.

It is also not immoral to defend your border with deadly force if necessary. So it is not an equal thing to compare abortion with the defense of your homeland.

Nobody is saying "hey theres a guy within 500 yards of the border. vape the sob."

Theyre saying "If they form an army and rush our defenses, forcing their way in, blast the mothers with everything ya got." Of course when people talk about scopes, they are reaffirming a well intentioned desire that any such invasion force would never get closer than sniper distances. But in reality, we would not be able to engage until we could accurately assess their intentions. Maybe they plan to approach within feet of the border, and chant a protest for a while then go home.


Also there is a difference between American babies and encroaching foreigners. I'm just saying.

And this constant murder mill is hiding certain truths about our society. What if our society had all these extra people in it, many of whom went on to create more people.

Well for one thing the big immigration push could not materialize.

But perhaps even more significantly, the promiscuous lifestyles promoted by Hollywood and musical artists would not seem so attractive... Seeing all these hot slutty women with 6 kids would change the entire imagery. Where would we get slutty women to populate the dance clubs if they all had babies to take care of?

Abortion has enabled the entire hookup culture to persist.

But, at the end of the day, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that, actions have consequences. Propping up an illusion that they do not have consequences...well those chickens will come home to roost one day.

You've had a girlfriend abort a child before havent you? Or maybe your sister did? youre defending it for some reason...

My mom aborted the one before me.

Anyway, you were probably young at the time if you did that. Dont feel bad. It was not the right thing to do, but you were influenced by society like we all are. I know there are multiple instances where I would've done the same thing if the mother of the child was the one who wanted it. Ive always been of the mind she should choose but now I would actually be against it. (however i have accepted that i simply cannot "produce". it wouldve happened by now)

We all make mistakes, we all learn. And you're probably gonna be ok. You have a decent head on your shoulders.