bilzfancy Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: A nod to Planned Parenthood, who undoubtedly paid for the NY majority needed to pass the law to increase their customer base. More money to PP = more money to the Dem campaign coffers. Think of all the fresh, young body parts they can sell. Where are you PPP leftists? Share your joy with the rest of your party. Doesn't PP get a lot of their funding from taxpayers?
IDBillzFan Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, bilzfancy said: Even liberals have to be offended by this, what's next, euthanasia for the elderly because they've become a burden? They're not offended by this. They're overjoyed. They are all literally celebrating this. There is too much money slicing up babies for them to worry about ethics. Even the "Catholics."
Gugny Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 22 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: @Gugny. Try reading this. We can go back to class tomorrow, I'll let you know what time it'll begin. We can only hope you learn something from the better man (me). Glad you missed the gleeful shoutbox lowIQ crowd this evening. When I'm registered like you, we can compare our manhood. Until then, I win, Gary Glitter.
boyst Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 Just now, Gugny said: When I'm registered like you, we can compare our manhood. Until then, I win, Gary Glitter. I'm not registered, idiot. Get yourself up to speed. You'd be amazed at how actually ***** perfect I am. But, avoid the actual article. Avoid learning and intelligence. Continue on NPCGugny. Your overlords Gov Coumo and Schumer love you.
IDBillzFan Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 Just now, bilzfancy said: Doesn't PP get a lot of their funding from taxpayers? Yes. We all pay for them to provide the abortions. And then they charge on top of that. That money goes straight to the Dem politician campaigns. They all but paid for Kamala Harris to get elected. They own her after she raided the house pf the guy who had undercover video of their body selling scheme.
Q-baby! Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: Yes. We all pay for them to provide the abortions. And then they charge on top of that. That money goes straight to the Dem politician campaigns. They all but paid for Kamala Harris to get elected. They own her after she raided the house pf the guy who had undercover video of their body selling scheme. Wow, that didn’t take long for you to go off on your evil dems crusade!!
KD in CA Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 41 minutes ago, B-Man said: I'm not sure, but I know our local State Senator, Cathy Young, tried to sponsor an add-on bill that would exempt the situation, where a domestic violence victim lost the baby. but the democrats said no. . Sorry, but battered women are far below abortion on the left wing pecking order.
IDBillzFan Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, KD in CA said: Sorry, but battered women are far below abortion on the left wing pecking order. Unless you beat the woman to abort the baby. The Democrats two-fer in NY. Now if they can just find a way to make money off it.
KD in CA Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, BigMcD said: Wow, that didn’t take long for you to go off on your evil dems crusade!! So....you can’t refute anything in his post?
Q-baby! Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, KD in CA said: So....you can’t refute anything in his post? I don’t know. He didn’t post anything.
KD in CA Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, BigMcD said: I don’t know. He didn’t post anything. Yet you felt compelled to respond to his lack of posting? Odd.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 18 minutes ago, KD in CA said: Sorry, but battered women are far below abortion on the left wing pecking order. Which is ridiculous because battered women are delicious.
Numark3 Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) Here is the actual text: Quote Section 1. Legislative intent. The legislature finds that comprehen- sive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a fundamental component of a woman's health, privacy and equality. The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman's fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion, courts have repeatedly reaffirmed this right and further emphasized that states may not place undue burdens on women seeking to access such right. Moreover, the legislature finds, as with other medical procedures, the safety of abortion is furthered by evidence-based practices developed and supported by medical professionals; any regulation of medical care must have a legitimate purpose. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States; the goal of medical regu- lation should be to improve the quality and availability of health care services. Furthermore, the legislature declares that it is the public policy of New York State that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy and equality with respect to their personal reproductive deci- sions and should be able to safely effectuate those decisions, including by seeking and obtaining abortion care, free from discrimination in the provision of health care. Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to prevent the enforce- ment of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman's health that burden abortion access. § 2. The public health law is amended by adding a new article 25-A to read as follows: ARTICLE 25-A REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT SECTION 2599-AA. ABORTION. § 2599-AA. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI- FIED, 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. 2. THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE CONSTRUED AND APPLIED CONSISTENT WITH AND SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE LAWS AND APPLICABLE AND AUTHORIZED REGULATIONS GOVERNING HEALTH CARE PROCEDURES. § 3. Section 4164 of the public health law is REPEALED. § 4. Subdivision 8 of section 6811 of the education law is REPEALED. § 5. Sections 125.40, 125.45, 125.50, 125.55 and 125.60 of the penal law are REPEALED, and the article heading of article 125 of the penal law is amended to read as follows: HOMICIDE[, ABORTION] AND RELATED OFFENSES § 6. Section 125.00 of the penal law is amended to read as follows: § 125.00 Homicide defined. Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person [or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twen- ty-four weeks] under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, OR criminally negligent homicide[, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in the first degree]. § 7. The section heading, opening paragraph and subdivision 1 of section 125.05 of the penal law are amended to read as follows: Homicide[, abortion] and related offenses; [definitions of terms] DEFINITION. The following [definitions are] DEFINITION IS applicable to this arti- cle: [1.] "Person," when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive. § 7-a. Subdivisions 2 and 3 of section 125.05 of the penal law are REPEALED. § 8. Subdivision 2 of section 125.15 of the penal law is REPEALED. § 9. Subdivision 3 of section 125.20 of the penal law is REPEALED. § 10. Paragraph (b) of subdivision 8 of section 700.05 of the criminal procedure law, as amended by chapter 368 of the laws of 2015, is amended to read as follows: (b) Any of the following felonies: assault in the second degree as defined in section 120.05 of the penal law, assault in the first degree as defined in section 120.10 of the penal law, reckless endangerment in the first degree as defined in section 120.25 of the penal law, promot- ing a suicide attempt as defined in section 120.30 of the penal law, strangulation in the second degree as defined in section 121.12 of the penal law, strangulation in the first degree as defined in section 121.13 of the penal law, criminally negligent homicide as defined in section 125.10 of the penal law, manslaughter in the second degree as defined in section 125.15 of the penal law, manslaughter in the first degree as defined in section 125.20 of the penal law, murder in the second degree as defined in section 125.25 of the penal law, murder in the first degree as defined in section 125.27 of the penal law, [abortion in the second degree as defined in section 125.40 of the penal law, abortion in the first degree as defined in section 125.45 of the penal law,] rape in the third degree as defined in section 130.25 of the penal law, rape in the second degree as defined in section 130.30 of the penal law, rape in the first degree as defined in section 130.35 of the penal law, criminal sexual act in the third degree as defined in section 130.40 of the penal law, criminal sexual act in the second degree as defined in section 130.45 of the penal law, criminal sexual act in the first degree as defined in section 130.50 of the penal law, sexual abuse in the first degree as defined in section 130.65 of the penal law, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree as defined in section 135.10 of the penal law, kidnapping in the second degree as defined in section 135.20 of the penal law, kidnapping in the first degree as defined in section 135.25 of the penal law, labor trafficking as defined in section 135.35 of the penal law, aggravated labor trafficking as defined in section 135.37 of the penal law, custodial interference in the first degree as defined in section 135.50 of the penal law, coercion in the first degree as defined in section 135.65 of the penal law, criminal trespass in the first degree as defined in section 140.17 of the penal law, burglary in the third degree as defined in section 140.20 of the penal law, burglary in the second degree as defined in section 140.25 of the penal law, burglary in the first degree as defined in section 140.30 of the penal law, criminal mischief in the third degree as defined in section 145.05 of the penal law, criminal mischief in the second degree as defined in section 145.10 of the penal law, criminal mischief in the first degree as defined in section 145.12 of the penal law, criminal tampering in the first degree as defined in section 145.20 of the penal law, arson in the fourth degree as defined in section 150.05 of the penal law, arson in the third degree as defined in section 150.10 of the penal law, arson in the second degree as defined in section 150.15 of the penal law, arson in the first degree as defined in section 150.20 of the penal law, grand larceny in the fourth degree as defined in section 155.30 of the penal law, grand larceny in the third degree as defined in section 155.35 of the penal law, grand larceny in the second degree as defined in section 155.40 of the penal law, grand larceny in the first degree as defined in section 155.42 of the penal law, health care fraud in the fourth degree as defined in section 177.10 of the penal law, health care fraud in the third degree as defined in section 177.15 of the penal law, health care fraud in the second degree as defined in section 177.20 of the penal law, health care fraud in the first degree as defined in section 177.25 of the penal law, robbery in the third degree as defined in section 160.05 of the penal law, robbery in the second degree as defined in section 160.10 of the penal law, robbery in the first degree as defined in section 160.15 of the penal law, unlawful use of secret scientific material as defined in section 165.07 of the penal law, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree as defined in section 165.45 of the penal law, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree as defined in section 165.50 of the penal law, criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree as defined by section 165.52 of the penal law, criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree as defined by section 165.54 of the penal law, trademark counterfeiting in the second degree as defined in section 165.72 of the penal law, trademark counterfeiting in the first degree as defined in section 165.73 of the penal law, forgery in the second degree as defined in section 170.10 of the penal law, forgery in the first degree as defined in section 170.15 of the penal law, criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree as defined in section 170.25 of the penal law, criminal possession of a forged instru- ment in the first degree as defined in section 170.30 of the penal law, criminal possession of forgery devices as defined in section 170.40 of the penal law, falsifying business records in the first degree as defined in section 175.10 of the penal law, tampering with public records in the first degree as defined in section 175.25 of the penal law, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree as defined in section 175.35 of the penal law, issuing a false certificate as defined in section 175.40 of the penal law, criminal diversion of prescription medications and prescriptions in the second degree as defined in section 178.20 of the penal law, criminal diversion of prescription medications and prescriptions in the first degree as defined in section 178.25 of the penal law, residential mortgage fraud in the fourth degree as defined in section 187.10 of the penal law, residential mortgage fraud in the third degree as defined in section 187.15 of the penal law, residential mortgage fraud in the second degree as defined in section 187.20 of the penal law, residential mortgage fraud in the first degree as defined in section 187.25 of the penal law, escape in the second degree as defined in section 205.10 of the penal law, escape in the first degree as defined in section 205.15 of the penal law, absconding from temporary release in the first degree as defined in section 205.17 of the penal law, promoting prison contraband in the first degree as defined in section 205.25 of the penal law, hindering prosecution in the second degree as defined in section 205.60 of the penal law, hindering prosecution in the first degree as defined in section 205.65 of the penal law, sex trafficking as defined in section 230.34 of the penal law, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree as defined in subdivisions two, three and five of section 265.02 of the penal law, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree as defined in section 265.03 of the penal law, criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree as defined in section 265.04 of the penal law, manufacture, transport, disposition and defacement of weapons and dangerous instruments and appliances defined as felonies in subdivisions one, two, and three of section 265.10 of the penal law, sections 265.11, 265.12 and 265.13 of the penal law, or prohibited use of weapons as defined in subdivision two of section 265.35 of the penal law, relating to firearms and other dangerous weapons, or failure to disclose the origin of a recording in the first degree as defined in section 275.40 of the penal law; § 11. Subdivision 1 of section 673 of the county law, as added by chapter 545 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows: 1. A coroner or medical examiner has jurisdiction and authority to investigate the death of every person dying within his county, or whose body is found within the county, which is or appears to be: (a) A violent death, whether by criminal violence, suicide or casual- ty; (b) A death caused by unlawful act or criminal neglect; (c) A death occurring in a suspicious, unusual or unexplained manner; (d) [A death caused by suspected criminal abortion; (e)] A death while unattended by a physician, so far as can be discov- ered, or where no physician able to certify the cause of death as provided in the public health law and in form as prescribed by the commissioner of health can be found; [(f)] (E) A death of a person confined in a public institution other than a hospital, infirmary or nursing home. § 12. Section 4 of the judiciary law, as amended by chapter 264 of the laws of 2003, is amended to read as follows: § 4. Sittings of courts to be public. The sittings of every court within this state shall be public, and every citizen may freely attend the same, except that in all proceedings and trials in cases for divorce, seduction, [abortion,] rape, assault with intent to commit rape, criminal sexual act, bastardy or filiation, the court may, in its discretion, exclude therefrom all persons who are not directly inter- ested therein, excepting jurors, witnesses, and officers of the court. § 13. This act shall take effect immediately. So I only skimmed this and I don't get the outrage. It strips criminal punishments for abortion-related stuff, okay that's fine. That's not what you all are chirping about. But now it adds late-term abortions based on the viability of the fetus or the health of the woman. Where are you getting it that they can now kill a baby right before delivery for no reason...? Now an abortion can be done late term, but under only two scenarios. Unless I am missing something, which please tell me! EDIT: I get that if you are pro-life you would be upset at this, but there isn't anything ghoulish or radical about this law. Edited January 24, 2019 by Crayola64 4 1
Koko78 Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Bray Wyatt said: Question - so if a pregnant lady is murdered does that mean a guy can’t be charged with two counts of murder now? (Not that that’s an important part of this, just wondering if that not a live until born could have other implications) Never could in NY. 1
Q-baby! Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Which is ridiculous because battered women are delicious. But they are not as tender.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Here is the actual text: So I only skimmed this and I don't get the outrage. It strips criminal punishments for abortion-related stuff, okay that's fine. That's not what you all are chirping about. But now it adds late-term abortions based on the viability of the fetus or the health of the woman. Where are you getting it that they can now kill a baby right before delivery for no reason...? Now an abortion can be done late term, but under only two scenarios. Unless I am missing something, which please tell me! "Health" isn't defined within the law to any degree of exclusivity, which makes in entirely subjective; which means it will be defined as broadly as possible upon interpretation because there were no legal limits placed on a broad definition. As to late term abortions for physical health reasons? There is no reason to kill a viable baby for the physical health of the mother. The baby is viable so you deliver it. This equally protects the life of the mother, and doesn't result in the unnecessary death of an infant. Edited January 24, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker 1
Numark3 Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: "Health" isn't defined within the law to any degree of exclusivity, which makes in entirely subjective; which means it will be defined as broadly as possible upon interpretation because there were no legal limits placed on a broad definition[/quote]. As to late term abortions for physical health reasons? There is no reason to kill a viable baby for the physical health of the mother. The baby is viable so you deliver it. This equally protects the life of the mother, and doesn't result in the unnecessary death of an infant. No no no. You are conflating the two scenarios. First, a late-term abortion can be done for if "there is an absence of fetal viability," as determined by a "practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment." Two, a late-term abortion can be done if it is to protect the patient's life or health, as determined by a "practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment." So a practitioner must determine, in the professional judgment, if one of those scenarios apply. And of course it is subjective, nor would health ever be defined in this context. We let doctors make these determinations, we do not let legislators define what these two scenarios are. If you are contesting that a late-term abortion can never be done to protect the health of the patient, then you are suggesting a medical practitioner could never find scenario 2 applicable. But, no offense, I am going to trust a doctor's judgment on that, not yours...? The suggestion that a healthy fetus can be killed minutes before birth, at the whim of the woman, is false. Edited January 24, 2019 by Crayola64 2 1
Numark3 Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, B-Man said: Apologists will argue that the new law only makes late-term abortion legal in cases where it will save the mother's life. The problem with this argument is that it is false on every conceivable level. First, the law allows for abortions to protect the woman's life "and health." What does "health" mean? Well, anything. The law conspicuously avoids defining the term. It seems that any kind of health concern would qualify — physical health, emotional health, psychological health, financial health. The point is that the "life and health" stipulation will not effectively prevent any woman from getting an abortion for any reason at any time. This is false. One, health would never be defined in any context like this when it comes to a practitioner making medical decisions. Two, it cannot be used for a woman to "get an abortion for any reason at any time," It requires a medical practitioner to determine the abortion is neccessary to protect her life or health. A practitioner would never do that based on emotional/financial health, give me a break. When we make laws like this in the united states, we trust that our doctors will comply with thier rules. It is a self-regulated profession. When your argument against a law is, essentially, that doctor will not comply with it, then you are complaining about doctors, not the actual law. Quote Second, late-term abortion is never necessary to protect a woman's life or health. No late-term abortion has ever been committed for the sake of saving a woman's life. It has never happened and will never happen. I repeat: there is never any circumstance, ever, where a late-term abortion is medically necessary. It could be necessary, in the case of some kind of cataclysmic complication, to remove the child from his mother's womb. But it is never necessary to kill the child before removing him. There is no medical reason to take that extra step of preemptively killing the child. Um you have to cite this. You are essentially saying that a doctor can never make the medical determination that an abortion is needed to protect a woman's life or health. EDIT: Something else I will note is that these two scenarios likely go hand-in-hand: a fetus is not going to be viable, and carrying it to term will be a danger to a mother's life. If you're angry at the second scenario, it's just the other side of the coin. Edited January 24, 2019 by Crayola64 1 1
B-Man Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: This is false. One, health would never be defined in any context like this when it comes to a practitioner making medical decisions. Two, it cannot be used for a woman to "get an abortion for any reason at any time," It requires a medical practitioner to determine the abortion is neccessary to protect her life or health. A practitioner would never do that based on emotional/financial health, give me a break. When we make laws like this in the united states, we trust that our doctors will comply with thier rules. It is a self-regulated profession. When your argument against a law is, essentially, that doctor will not comply with it, then you are complaining about doctors, not the actual law. No it is Not. if a health-care practitioner deems it necessary for the mother’s life or health — the exception that was defined in Roe companion case Doe v. Bolton as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” In other words, abortion will be available to women essentially on demand up to the point of birth. Quote A practitioner would never do that based on emotional/financial health, give me a break. No. Your are being undeniably naive I have 4 decades of Hospital experience Quote When your argument against a law is, essentially, that doctor will not comply with it, then you are complaining about doctors, not the actual law. They are obeying the law, it is written vaguely on purpose, so that terminating the pregnancy can ALWAYS be justified, while letting a risky pregnancy go to term is the feared outcome. . Edited January 24, 2019 by B-Man
Recommended Posts