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

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

I also pointed this out, excerpted it from the case, and put on bold some of the reasons that Doe v Bolton made it to allow "the mother's health" to mean anything either the doctor, or pregnant mother could come up with.

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

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

a reply to: TinySickTears

If your wife or girlfriend is pregnant and you and she are eagerly awaiting the birth of your new bundle of joy (i.e. you want the baby so it *is* a baby and not some *lump of cells*) and someone comes along and murders her, you lose both her and your new baby, but he can only be charged for the death of your significant other. There is no recognition at all of the death of your new baby no matter how far along she might have been, even if she was due to walk into that hospital and give birth the very next day.

I wonder if we lose a part of what makes us human when packed tightly into a small geographical area. Why do the majority of large cities/large populations appear to be so similar to each other and have vastly different morals compared to wide open rural areas?

originally posted by: ClovenSky
I wonder if we lose a part of what makes us human when packed tightly into a small geographical area. Why do the majority of large cities/large populations appear to be so similar to each other and have vastly different morals compared to wide open rural areas?

You're not the only one to have wondered that.

It would make a fascinating case study for an intellectually honest anthropologist wouldn't it?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
This cannot be right even the most pro-choice people can’t think it’s ok to abort (murder) a child a couple of days before they’re born. Additionally this would require a obstetrician and/or midwife because the woman would still need to deliver the child.

I really hope this is inaccurate because everything about this just seems horrifically wrong.

Abortion is pretty much a abomination in my view. 100% against it unless in exceptional circumstances.

We disagree in a lot of topics, but on this one we seem to agree. Unfortunately as I have already stated here, this bill also opens the door for "after birth abortion." There are already many advocates of "after birth abortion" = "the murder of newborns."

When I first saw this, I searched every left-wing source that posted an article on this bill, and read them all... Even after all those "left-wing sources" corroborated the article I still couldn't believe it, even though I have stated this was going to happen in the past.

People have to be downright evil to accept this as a legitimate reason for abortion up to the day/second the child is to be born.

I also pointed out that there is already an argument made by many in the left in which they argue that "there is no difference between newborns and the unborn, and neither one have moral status as persons," Hence in the mind of these...people... After birth abortion, or the murder of newborns, should be permissable even if the baby is completely healthy.

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...




The following video is from Washington DC, and points out that even now there are abortionists who kill babies, or just leave them to die, even when they survive the abortion.




The above has been happening throughout the U.S. and even in countries like Canada for a long time.

a reply to: ketsuko

"he can only be charged for the death of your significant other. There is no recognition at all of the death of your new baby no matter how far along she might have been."

That can't be true. Is that part of this new law?

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: ketsuko

"he can only be charged for the death of your significant other. There is no recognition at all of the death of your new baby no matter how far along she might have been."

That can't be true. Is that part of this new law?

It is. It specifically strikes out that language in existing law.

pjmedia.com...

The law included the New York criminal code's definition of homicide, explicitly striking any language about unborn babies: "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 10 the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, or criminally negligent homicide[, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in the first degree]."

The law included an explicit definition of the term "person:" "when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive."

If someone abuses a pregnant woman and kills her 25-week-old unborn baby, New York law no longer imposes a penalty.

I don't know how to do a strike in board code, but you can see the language stricken. I underlined it.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
I wonder if we lose a part of what makes us human when packed tightly into a small geographical area. Why do the majority of large cities/large populations appear to be so similar to each other and have vastly different morals compared to wide open rural areas?

New York State has a lot of rural area. I imagine California does too. I guess the city area really has an influence upon elections.

Life just got cheaper in New York.

It is disturbing.

The people who don't value the life of an unborn child have a following and are in positions of leadership.


They deserve, perhaps pity. But nothing more.


They are, for the most part, pathetic.


I really have to wonder about our future when things like this get passed.

They also repealed the part where a second doctor has to be present in case the abortion goes wrong and the child somehow manages to be born alive.

Now if that happens ... Oh well. I guess they dump it in a trash can or something or they can kill it after it manages to be born or something.

God save me from every having to move to New York.

a reply to: ketsuko

God save us all. People really have to have lost all compassion for agreeing with this.

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...

Obviously no one bothered to read the actual bill that you're triggered over.

Abortions are legal from conception to pre-labor for every woman.

FALSE

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.

Anyone can perform an abortion. They don't even have to be a healthcare professional.

FALSE

A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion

Students. In particular medical students. Not anyone under Title Eight. Just medical.

You guys make me so mad sometimes because you'll spend pages being an echo chamber of false righteousness when all you needed to do was dig a little deeper, one link deeper in this case, to find the truth or facts right there. But it's easier to read a headline and run wild with it than the leg work of research.

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

You might want to read it again.

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

There are no restrictions on when the abortion might be considered necessary.

Also, the things I brought up are completely in the text (or rather not anymore because the text specifically strikes them from existing law). It's in red so you can see it easy.

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Obviously you didn't even bother to read the op, and the several instances in which excerpts were taken directly from the bill...

...
§ 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...

The problem is that the case Doe v Bolton redefined "patient's health/mother's health" as

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

Next time you should read, and make sure you understand, the evidence that is provided.

In the case Doe v Bolton it was even argued that "it is safer to murder the child, than for the mother to bear the child."

Hence because of this case ANY excuse can be used for abortion, and now abortion is legal in New York city up to the day the baby is to be born.

Not to mention that several "left-wing sources" corroborate the op.

BTW, Cuomo already signed the bill, so it is now the law in New York.

New York’s “Reproductive Health Act” allows abortion up until moments before birth

Washington, D.C. (Jan. 23, 2019) – Last night, New York passed a law allowing abortions during all nine months of pregnancy, right up until moments before birth.

The “Reproductive Health Act,” signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, permits abortions at any point during pregnancy if the abortionist deems it necessary for the mother’s “life or health.” As determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, health not only includes physical health, but encompasses “emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age” considerations, effectively allowing abortion for virtually any reason.

The new law also allows non-physicians to commit non-surgical abortions and moves the abortion law from the state’s penal code to its health code.

One World Trade Center was lit pink at Cuomo’s direction to celebrate the passage of the law, and Planned Parenthood is applauding the bill.
...

www.crescentcitytimes.com...

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Here is another article from CBS News corroborating the op.

New York passes law allowing abortions at any time if mother's health is at risk

By Caitlin O'Kane

Updated on: January 23, 2019 / 9:25 PM / CBS News

...
New York state has enacted strong new legal protections for abortion rights. The new law, signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday, safeguards rights laid out in Roe v. Wade and other court rulings, including a provision permitting late-term abortions when a woman's health is endangered, The Associated Press reports. The state's previous law, which had been on the books for nearly 50 years, only permitted abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman's life was at risk.
...

New York passes law allowing abortions at any time if mother's health is at risk

This is unlimited abortion up to due date.

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
...
Anyone can perform an abortion. They don't even have to be a healthcare professional.
...

So neither you, nor either of the members, or member, who voted for you understands the difference between "they don't have to be healthcare professional' and "letting non-doctors perform abortion"?...

The second part is the argument presented in the op, and the law corroborates this...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Thank you for providing the info on the doe case that defines health

We know this will be abused to kill late term babies

Unbelievably disgusting and evil

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Thank you for providing the info on the doe case that defines health

We know this will be abused to kill late term babies

Unbelievably disgusting and evil

Seconded.
The clarification is important and also makes it clear that NY just passed into law abortion up to the point of actual delivery for pretty much any health reason a doctor wants. All an abortionist need do is find a far left doctor and murder is legal in NY.
It's literally one step away from the legalising of killing babies after they are born if they are an inconvenience.

originally posted by: UKTruth
All an abortionist need do is find a far left doctor and murder is legal in NY.

To be honest - your statement underlines the problem that poisons debate in the US. A "far left doctor" is the only person you think capable of doing this work just introduces crass politics. The fact is that money talks, and you don't have to be "far left" to lack empathy and conscience.

I think the vast majority of doctors or medical professionals, regardless of their political colours, would find the OPs proposition an affront to their profession, and against their core principles as carers.