New York State's New Abortion Law
- Thread starter Clean
- Start date
Eh...what does he know?
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
How weird that Progressives are now using Libertarian self-ownership and private property arguments for abortion.
I could maybe respect it if they were consistent. But then they would have to be for gun ownership freedom, right to defend yourself, and walls on the border.
It seems like the only consistent thing they are FOR is the suffering of innocents and the protection of criminals/aggressors. They are turning into the violence & crime party.
I could maybe respect it if they were consistent. But then they would have to be for gun ownership freedom, right to defend yourself, and walls on the border.
It seems like the only consistent thing they are FOR is the suffering of innocents and the protection of criminals/aggressors. They are turning into the violence & crime party.
Women who kill a child they are carrying cannot be called "mothers" in the maternal sense. Mother f'ers, yes.
Clean
5,000+ Posts
Yes. The new governor will sign it.
Ohio's new governor says he'll sign 'heartbeat' abortion bill that Kasich vetoed
Kasich is a POS on par with McCain.
They are for being able to have sex without any type of consequences whatsoever.
I am all for having sex too, but even as a teenager I recognized there were always some form of consequences attached to it.
So I read the bill, and though I'm going to try to give a fair analysis, I must admit to my bias. I hate abortion. Even if I can be reasonable on it, no issue sickens me like it does. I think it's the biggest moral stain on this country, and I think that in time, history will judge us harshly for permitting it so broadly and so flippantly particularly in light of what we now know about fetal development.
Having said that, here's my take on the bill's impact, and I'm trying to give it a fair reading. It's fairly similar to NJ's, but I think he somewhat glosses over part of it that I think is pretty significant. His description of the different standards for each trimester is accurate. The law permits abortions up to the point of birth to protect the life or health of the mother while giving the absolute right to abort up to 24 weeks. Obviously, the key word is the completely undefined and unqualified term "health." It could be physical health, mental health, or hell, even financial health. It's a catch-all term that could be easily applied to justify any abortion.
Not every description from the Right has been accurate. I don't see any evidence that children born alive during botched abortions can be killed after they're born. Nothing in the law allows doctors to kill someone who was already born alive. In fact, the term "person" is still defined as, "a human being who has been born and is alive," so your Kermit Gosnells can still be charged for murdering a baby who was born alive during a botched abortion. Would a state that is so rabidly pro-abortion actually investigate and charge a guy like Gosnell? I doubt it, but they could.
I do think NJ glosses over the criminal changes. He recognizes that homicide charges cannot be brought incident to an abortion, so even if a prosecutor could prove that a doctor performed a late-term abortion that didn't protect a woman's life or health (never gonna happen anyway, but let's pretend for a moment), the doctor could face no criminal charges for it.
However, the bill goes further than that. It strikes previous language in the definition of "homicide" that had made it a crime to kill a fetus beyond 24 weeks outside the abortion realm. In other words, if someone assaults a woman and kills her 30-week fetus, he won't get completely off the hook, but his punishment will be much lighter. He'll get charged with some form of assault on the woman. Before, he could have been charged with murder for the dead baby. This shows the true radicalism and ideological nuttiness of the bill. They were willing to weaken the potential criminal liability associated with doing physical harm to a woman just to maintain the ideological purity of dehumanizing the fetus. That is truly sick and deranged.
To put it into perspective, Texas has a different stance when it comes to the fetus. Back in 2003, the Legislature passed the Prenatal Protection Act. It doesn't impact abortion. However, it makes it a crime for someone other than a doctor or the mother to kill a fetus at any stage, and it allows a wrongful death civil action to be brought against the responsible person. (Strangely but not surprisingly, it prohibits any civil or criminal action to be brought against a doctor who kills a fetus, even if he's not performing an abortion.)
Now here's the tough part as a staunch pro-lifer. We have the right to criticize the State of New York for its rank barbarism and depravity. However, we don't have the right to have a federal court invalidate their new law. They have the right to be sick. It doesn't violate the Constitution. The remedy for pro-lifers is to make their case directly to the people of New York. Educated minds and changed hearts fix this sort of evil. Abusive court rulings do not.
Having said that, here's my take on the bill's impact, and I'm trying to give it a fair reading. It's fairly similar to NJ's, but I think he somewhat glosses over part of it that I think is pretty significant. His description of the different standards for each trimester is accurate. The law permits abortions up to the point of birth to protect the life or health of the mother while giving the absolute right to abort up to 24 weeks. Obviously, the key word is the completely undefined and unqualified term "health." It could be physical health, mental health, or hell, even financial health. It's a catch-all term that could be easily applied to justify any abortion.
Not every description from the Right has been accurate. I don't see any evidence that children born alive during botched abortions can be killed after they're born. Nothing in the law allows doctors to kill someone who was already born alive. In fact, the term "person" is still defined as, "a human being who has been born and is alive," so your Kermit Gosnells can still be charged for murdering a baby who was born alive during a botched abortion. Would a state that is so rabidly pro-abortion actually investigate and charge a guy like Gosnell? I doubt it, but they could.
I do think NJ glosses over the criminal changes. He recognizes that homicide charges cannot be brought incident to an abortion, so even if a prosecutor could prove that a doctor performed a late-term abortion that didn't protect a woman's life or health (never gonna happen anyway, but let's pretend for a moment), the doctor could face no criminal charges for it.
However, the bill goes further than that. It strikes previous language in the definition of "homicide" that had made it a crime to kill a fetus beyond 24 weeks outside the abortion realm. In other words, if someone assaults a woman and kills her 30-week fetus, he won't get completely off the hook, but his punishment will be much lighter. He'll get charged with some form of assault on the woman. Before, he could have been charged with murder for the dead baby. This shows the true radicalism and ideological nuttiness of the bill. They were willing to weaken the potential criminal liability associated with doing physical harm to a woman just to maintain the ideological purity of dehumanizing the fetus. That is truly sick and deranged.
To put it into perspective, Texas has a different stance when it comes to the fetus. Back in 2003, the Legislature passed the Prenatal Protection Act. It doesn't impact abortion. However, it makes it a crime for someone other than a doctor or the mother to kill a fetus at any stage, and it allows a wrongful death civil action to be brought against the responsible person. (Strangely but not surprisingly, it prohibits any civil or criminal action to be brought against a doctor who kills a fetus, even if he's not performing an abortion.)
Now here's the tough part as a staunch pro-lifer. We have the right to criticize the State of New York for its rank barbarism and depravity. However, we don't have the right to have a federal court invalidate their new law. They have the right to be sick. It doesn't violate the Constitution. The remedy for pro-lifers is to make their case directly to the people of New York. Educated minds and changed hearts fix this sort of evil. Abusive court rulings do not.
Last edited:
thanks Deez ... Nice review.
I agree .. .it's a State Issue and if the people of NY think that's the thing to do, it's a sad, but Constitutional decision ... and still reflects very badly upon us and what we've become.
exchange the truth for a lie.
checked in triplicate (for you millennials, we used to have carbon copies ... and two carbon sheets would yield 3 signatures. It was really cool stuff! LOL)
I agree .. .it's a State Issue and if the people of NY think that's the thing to do, it's a sad, but Constitutional decision ... and still reflects very badly upon us and what we've become.
exchange the truth for a lie.
checked in triplicate (for you millennials, we used to have carbon copies ... and two carbon sheets would yield 3 signatures. It was really cool stuff! LOL)
Nope. The New York legislature would have to amend it.
Also agreed this is a state's right issue, and if we don't want damyankees telling us how to live and what laws to pass, we have no place doing that to them in this circumstance.
However, my wife and I will pray that the people of New York will vote in legislators who will amend this horrible and disturbing law.
However, my wife and I will pray that the people of New York will vote in legislators who will amend this horrible and disturbing law.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I am fine with federal courts not imposing their judgment over the NY abortion law.
However, I am for cities in NY state to nullify the state law if they so desire. Rule it evil, immoral, or any other justification, then don't abide it. Pass and enforce your own city law and fight this awful law.
Decentralism is our friend.
However, I am for cities in NY state to nullify the state law if they so desire. Rule it evil, immoral, or any other justification, then don't abide it. Pass and enforce your own city law and fight this awful law.
Decentralism is our friend.
Clean
5,000+ Posts
Deez - An Iowa judge just struck down Iowa’s “heartbeat” abortion law for being too restrictive. Could a NY state judge strike this law down?
Iowa judge strikes down ‘fetal heartbeat’ abortion law
Iowa judge strikes down ‘fetal heartbeat’ abortion law
No. There is no limitation on how permissive a state can be with abortion.
Clean
5,000+ Posts
The issue is when does a fetus become human enough to acquire the right to life? Iowa and Ohio say when it has a heartbeat. NY says when it’s born. The Catholic Church says at conception.
The Supreme Court has refused to define when life begins in the past. Justice Blackmun wrote in Roe v Wade:
“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Lots of little lives are at stake.
The Supreme Court has refused to define when life begins in the past. Justice Blackmun wrote in Roe v Wade:
“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Lots of little lives are at stake.
yes ... that was a cop-out by the justices in RvW. Capitulation to political pressure.
I'm not Catholic, but I recognize their definition is accurate. The others are in error. That's not my opinion. To disagree with that is to disagree with reality ... and many do. I have! (not THIS reality, but others)
This replenishes your credibility loss from the Starbucks thread.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Viabiliity is ~22-24 weeks per medical science. I'm ok with outlawing after viability except in the instance the baby has died or mother"s life is at risk.
As you can see, the Court superficially avoided the issue of when life begins, but they do effectively decide when it doesn't begin by prohibiting states from banning abortion prior to viability. Once there is viability, the Court at least acknowledges the "potentiality of human life" (whatever that means) and lets them restrict it subject to the life and health of the mother.
And of course, none of this has anything to do with the actual written law that's supposed to be applied. If you read the opinion, there's almost no real legal analysis at all. It is pure policy making. The rule of law is completely irrelevant.
but the question shouldn't be about viability, it's about whether it's a human life. Clearly, it is. Viability is introduced for the convenience factor's point of discussion.
Our bodies mature until early-mid 20s for crying out loud ... what's the real difference between a zygote and an adult ... physically ... if the not-yet-matured-human body is left alone? (ie, not killed)
Time.
I, too, support room in the law for those TRULY difficult circumstances which can materialize at anytime in the pregnancy .. but statistically that's not worth a lot of discussion because those are that rare. Not immaterial, because for those folks it's everything during that period. We talking what The law should allow and for that decision in those relatively rare circumstances the Law should should allow. For the rest, the VAST majority of our current abortion victims (both unborn child and mother ... and father, too) the law needs to defend the defenseless and honor the sanctity of innocent human life.
But we are suffering from a seared conscious ... to exalt SELF. Period. We've convinced ourselves and try mightily to convince others of the "dignity" in choice. But the problem is ... again in the referenced group of abortions for convenience ... the choice was already made.
OBTW .... evidently the NY legislature also allows for "free" college tuition to illegal aliens in this same session. I know it's a bit off topic, but NY Legislature action this week ...
so how does that work? is the entire state of NY now a sanctuary?
How does one prove eligibility for this "free" program? Is there an illegal alien gold card cache just this side of the border one receives for successfully violating Fed immigration law???
Travesty (abortion law) and lunacy ... courtesy of New York. Sigh.
so how does that work? is the entire state of NY now a sanctuary?
How does one prove eligibility for this "free" program? Is there an illegal alien gold card cache just this side of the border one receives for successfully violating Fed immigration law???
Travesty (abortion law) and lunacy ... courtesy of New York. Sigh.
Clean
5,000+ Posts
A blue wave in this last election has given N.Y. Democrats carte blanche to do whatever they want for the next two years, and what a radical,left-wing bunch they are! From Gov. Cuomo and Congresswoman AOC on down to the state legislators. Even moderate Dems were swept aside.
As with other blue states, it was the huge urban vote that won the day. Cuomo lost 47 of 62 counties to his opponent. Obviously people outside NYC are more conservative than the city dwellers.
As with other blue states, it was the huge urban vote that won the day. Cuomo lost 47 of 62 counties to his opponent. Obviously people outside NYC are more conservative than the city dwellers.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
