Daily Wire HORROR: New York Set To Legalize Abortion Up To Birth
A Conservative FB Friend was very disturbed by the above link, so I posed some questions...
Coverage from CBS for comparison
Reason: Facts Regarding Later Term Abortions
- What do you see wrong in this wording?
- What would you say differently?
- Do you really want government to get between the Doctor and the Patient / Mother?
- Are you concerned that there are lot of blood thirsty doctors and mothers out there that will take a late term abortion decision too lightly?
- That they would not C section the baby when possible?
Law's wording according to DW.
"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 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 ."
What always fascinates me is that the folks who are usually most serious against sex education, making birth control free and early child funding are the first ones to be concerned about abortions. Sorry... My Libertarian tendency is showing. Thoughts?
Reason: Facts Regarding Later Term Abortions
28 comments:
Roe v. Wade has always allowed "the State to regulate" after week 20. New York has just done so, allowing infanticide at whim. Legal, but moral not.
And perhaps medically dangerous, to boot.
So you you would prefer to have politicians decide rather than the doctor and patient?
What is your point?
I would prefer that doctors and patients decide within the law, and that the law recognize the Roe v. Wade distinction.
The NY law conforms fully to Roe v Wade.
Roe v Wade
According to the framework, in the first trimester (the first three months of the pregnancy), a woman’s right to privacy surrounding the choice to have an abortion outweighed a state’s interests in regulating this decision. In the first trimester, having an abortion does not pose a grave danger to the life and health of the mother, and the fetus is still undeveloped. The state’s interests are not yet compelling, so it cannot interfere with a woman’s right to privacy by regulating or prohibiting her from having an abortion during the first trimester. During the second trimester, the state’s interests become more compelling as the danger of complications increases and the fetus becomes more developed. During this stage, it may regulate, but not prohibit abortions, as long as the regulations are aimed at protecting the health of the mother. During the third trimester, the danger to the woman’s health becomes the greatest and fetal development nears completion. In the final trimester the state’s interests in protecting the health of the mother and in protecting the life of the fetus become their most compelling. The state may regulate or even prohibit abortions during this stage, as long as there is an exception for abortions necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother.
Yes, just so. But it seems clear that unlimited abortion for any reason up until the 10th month was to be discouraged. And even though it may be legal it does not make infanticide right. Do you really, on a personal ethical/moral scale, believe otherwise?
As I ask above, how would you reword it?
"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 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 ."
And again. Why do you want to put the religious right and government between a Doctor and Their Patient?
Do you truly think the Doctor and Mother would kill a 30 week fetus if there was any other way?
If so, you must have worked with Doctors and Nurses very different than those I have.
This Doctor made an interesting point...
Apparently all these silly burdens to 1st trimester abortions are causing 2 trimester abortions.
No rewording needed. It says, "The state may regulate or even prohibit abortions during this stage, as long as there is an exception for abortions necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother." New York has gone the other way, and removed all restrictions on 3rd-trimester abortions. It is their right under the law, but, as the great statesman Alan Keyes once said, "there can be no right to do that which is wrong."
Jerry,
This excellent wording that you approve of is the NY Law that just passed.
"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 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 ."
Read it again. The quoted language was from Roe V Wade regarding the third trimester, which is what the New York law addressed. NOT the law regarding the second trimester, which is what you have just quoted.
NY Law Text
What do you disagree with again?
For your convenience.
"ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, 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.
Seems the same as the version in the post and above. The only thing I would change is I would replace 24 weeks with 16 weeks.
Start with the findings that begin the legalese. Unlike Roe v. Wade, there is a statement that effectively all abortions are equal. At 9 months, the parent is NOT within 24 weeks of conception, the fetus IS viable, and it is unlikely the woman's life or health is endangered and in fact is better served in almost all cases by the delivery rather than the abortion. Why are you again defending the indefensible? I like the argument that abortion is harmless, except for it always being fatal to one of the two parties.
As I said. How would you reword this?
Do you think a Doctor and Mother are going to kill a viable 8 month old fetus if it can be avoided?
Yes, I think so, if the State tells them it isn't harmful to the mother or to the fetus, which is what the NY bill language seems to say. I would reword it to simply delete all language below the Bill number. Problem solved.
Yep. I almost you may try to move to the middle...
Then that spring tying you to Tribe Conservative snapped tight... :-)
?
I have accepted that Roe v Wade is the moderate compromise, where the State "may regulate" (and medically speaking, should) after 24 weeks. NY has chosen to unregulate. That is the extreme tribe liberal view. Now, do you want to be a moderate, or not?
It seems to me that the regulation is very clear regarding the post-viability (ie 24 weeks) legal requirements. What else do you want?
"ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, 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.
How is a fetus at 36 weeks "WITHIN 24 weeks" of conception? The other terms are straight out of Roe v. Wade. This is way beyond it, bordering on contrary.
Jerry,
Are you just being difficult? The or means...
<24 weeks
or
the fetus has some severe health issue (ie not viable) maybe missing a brain...
or
fetus may cause mother's death
None of those conditions can be met after 24 weeks, yet the legislation is supposed to "extend abortion up until birth." You cannot accept the common description of it and yet insist that it does not apply to third-term abortions. Roe v. Wade covers all the rest. Also:
not required
Apparently there were other issues in the Gosnell Case. That was a failure to ensure the clinic was compliant for a license.
""ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE,"
And of course the baby may be brainless with it's heart still beating. Or have other issues that make it not viable.
Yes, and those are covered by Roe v. Wade. No need to expand that "LAW."
There is nothing in the provision you cite requiring that this be a medical doctor, or that he/she has admitting privileges to, or is in, a hospital or approved clinic. Why are you coming down on the side of state-approved infanticide, which is what every news story and the governor himself has said is the intent of this law? Are they all wrong?
Jerry,
Yes the people of NY are a brutal bunch of heathens who support the willy nilly killing of babies...
Where do you get this stuff? Oh well..
The reality is that NY just put Roe v Wade into their state law in case laws like the one Iowa just passed cause Roe v Wade to be over turned.
Hopefully more of the enlightened state's will adopt the NY law. And thankfully most of the people in our country live in those enlightened states.
Though I do hope they replace the 24 weeks with 16...
Most of the people in the country consider themselves pro-life, once a few exceptions like life and health of the mother are included. The outrage over NY's law is real and deserved. It goes =far beyond= the notion of Roe v. Wade, intended as a "compromise" in which 3rd-trimester abortions were to be discouraged because of the danger to the health of the mother and the certain death of the child, with exceptions allowed for "life and health of the mother."
Where I get this stuff is in the reporting and the text of the bill. People will die unnecessarily by this extreme bill, and the brutal crimes of Gosnell will become legal.
Post a Comment