New York State abortion bill now allows babies, At any point of pregnancy, to be aborted

[row_33]

the libs are convinced the SC will completely overturn Roe v Wade and abortion will be triply illegal in any form across the country

 

this is not remotely close to truth, even if the SC would actually overturn it (been 40 years since they could have....)

 

they love to bring in doomsday scenes for things that will not happen

 

 

[Rob's House]

This is the mass of cells our moral superiors want to slaughter. 

https://t.co/mFJYMb72cp

 

 

[/dev/null]

12 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

This is the mass of cells our moral superiors want to slaughter. 

https://t.co/mFJYMb72cp

 

 

deplorable

[IDBillzFan]

3 hours ago, /dev/null said:

deplorable

 

If that baby was in Tijuana, the left would be going crazy to save it.

 

But no.

 

It's here. In America. And based on the movement in those arms, they're probably thinking Planned Parenthood could bring in some serious cash for those limbs.

 

[KRC]

10 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

If that baby was in Tijuana, the left would be going crazy to save it.

 

But no.

 

It's here. In America. And based on the movement in those arms, they're probably thinking Planned Parenthood could bring in some serious cash for those limbs.

 

 

Just call the fetus/baby undocumented. Then the Democrats will fight to keep it alive. 

[boyst]

13 hours ago, Rob's House said:

This is the mass of cells our moral superiors want to slaughter. 

https://t.co/mFJYMb72cp

 

 

And yet, whaTs sad, is there are once in a blue moon reasons why a late af abortion is an ideal choice. This only does a disservice to women's rights and humanitarian rights.

[B-Man]

Yes........................that IS the liberal position.

 

 

Lone Democrat Senator Blocks Bill Banning Infanticide For Babies Who Survive Abortions

 

Last Thursday, Senator Ben Sasse (R-NB) requested the unanimous consent voteafter Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, a pediatric neurologist, had made comments indicating he did not object to letting an infant die after its birth, indicating that a born-alive “infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired.” 

 

On Monday, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), blocking a Senate bill that would require doctors to give aid to babies who survived abortions, objected to the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and her one vote was enough to prevent the Senate from passing the bill in a unanimous consent vote

 

According to the rules of the Senate:

A senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one senator objects, the request is rejected.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43049/lone-dem-senator-blocks-bill-banning-infanticide-hank-berrien

Edited February 5, 2019 by B-Man

[B-Man]

BRYAN PRESTON: 

New Democrat Abortion Bills Reveal the Truth About the Hardcore ‘Pro-Choice’ Movement.

 

“Margaret Sanger would be very proud of today’s Democratic Party.”

 

 

 

.

 

[B-Man]

This is from the Christian Post...........so "feel" free to instantly dismiss it...................

 

 

FTA:

 

Here are 3 myths about late-term abortion in the United States.

 

Myth 1: They only occur when the fetus will die anyway or the mom's life is in danger.

 

The idea that late-term abortions happen only when either the mother or the unborn child's life is in danger, or when it becomes known that the fetus has some kind of life-threatening genetic abnormality or disease, is contradicted by abortionists who have admitted performing them on healthy babies.

Live Action noted last week that Colorado abortionist Warren Hern has done so for reasons beyond health.

 

The documentary "After Tiller" a film about the work of late-term abortion providers following the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller, notes that third-trimester abortions were committed on babies who were healthy, the pro-life news outlet explained.

 

"Tiller would sign off on girls getting abortions for 'mental health reasons,' such as not being able to find a babysitter, or desiring to attend prom or a rock concert."

 

Abby Johnson, who was once a Planned Parenthood clinic director and whose story of leaving the abortion industry is being told in the upcoming movie "Unplanned," has said that "it is false to say the women who choose late-term abortion do so because of medical reasons."

 

"We referred hundreds of women to abort their babies after 24 weeks … not one was for medical reasons."

 

According to a 2013 study, "Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."

 

Myth 2: They are only allowed by law in extreme circumstances.

 

What supporters of abortion rights sometimes assert is that the practice of abortion in the third trimester is only legally permitted in extreme cases. And such abortions are rare when compared to the majority of all abortions performed, they often note.

 

While such procedures constitute only 1.3 percent of abortions, according to a 2015 CDC report, states with liberal abortion laws have Supreme Court precedent on their side. The standard set forth in the relevant high court rulings for when they are permitted is the "health" of the mother, not an "extreme" situation.

 

Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that legalized abortion nationwide, is the most widely known court decision on the issue, but just as important is a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, that the justices said is to be read together with Roe.

 

In the Doe ruling, the court said that abortions were permitted after the period where the baby could survive outside the womb. Medical judgment as to the mother's "health" was left to a single doctor and could mean "physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient."

 

With such a loose definition, the practice is thereby permitted under the law for any reason in states that allow it.

 

Myth 3: The Democratic Party's position is mainstream.

 

While pro-life Democrats do indeed exist — two were featured speakers from the podium at the 2019 March for Life in Washington, D.C. — the national party has lurched to the left on the issue, asserting that their view is mainstream.

 

National party leaders have defended late-term abortion in recent years, and president Bill Clinton vetoed bills banning the practice during his tenure in office. Democratic opposition to federal legislation outlawing abortions at 20 weeks remains.

 

"We will continue to oppose — and seek to overturn — federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment," the 2016 Democratic Party platform stated.

 

The Hyde amendment is a provision barring the use of federal funds for abortions, a measure that has historically enjoyed bipartisan support, but no longer.

The Democrat Party's position is extreme compared to the laws in other nations. The United States is one of only seven countries, a list which includes places like North Korea and China, that allows for abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy.

 

Every few years since 1996, Gallup has polled Americans on whether they support abortion in the last three months of pregnancy. Opposition has ranged from 80 to 86 percent. The last poll to ask, May 2018, showed that 81 percent of Americans are opposed to abortion in the last three months of pregnancy.

 

https://www.christianpost.com/news/3-myths-about-late-term-abortion.html

[IDBillzFan]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

This is from the Christian Post...........so "feel" free to instantly dismiss it...................

 

DNC 2020: Kill the Christians. Kill the babies. Kill the Jews. Open the border.

 

 

[B-Man]

Quick reminder:

 

There is no situation where a woman in the third trimester needs to have the child killed before it fully exits her body or else she will be injured or die.

Needless to say (or it used to be), it is never OK to kill a child that is fully birthed.

 

 

 

Tran's bill in Virginia would have lessened the requirement to the opinion of one doctor rather than three,

and dropped the modifiers "substantially and irremediably" from mother's mental & physical health.

 

Why ?

 

To what end ?

 

Women in their 3rd trimester in Virginia were not being stopped from having an abortion, when they met the "serious medical condition" qualifier that you keep saying is needed.

 

Also, as many have pointed out, the number of present 3rd trimester abortions is very small, only around 2% of all abortions.

So, again, why the new push to lessen restrictions ?

 

 

 

.

[Foxx]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

Quick reminder:

 

There is no situation where a woman in the third trimester needs to have the child killed before it fully exits her body or else she will be injured or die.

Needless to say (or it used to be), it is never OK to kill a child that is fully birthed.

 

 

 

Tran's bill in Virginia would have lessened the requirement to the opinion of one doctor rather than three,

and dropped the modifiers "substantially and irremediably" from mother's mental & physical health.

 

Why ?

 

To what end ?

 

Women in their 3rd trimester in Virginia were not being stopped from having an abortion, when they met the "serious medical condition" qualifier that you keep saying is needed.

 

Also, as many have pointed out, the number of present 3rd trimester abortions is very small, only around 2% of all abortions.

So, again, why the new push to lessen restrictions ?

 

in case anyone didn't know, Soylent Green is people!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[B-Man]

Here’s what CNN wants you to understand ‘before judging late-term abortion’

 

 As for those who applauded what Trump had to say, CNN is more than hinting that people against late-term abortion are just ignorant and don’t really understand it:

 

 

Quote

 

CNN

✔@CNN

 

Before you judge "late-term abortion," doctors want you to really understand what it is: https://cnn.it/2Dgepl8

 

 

 

Headline should read: "It is not murder if we keep on telling you its not murder, even though its murder"

 

This CNN article is everything wrong with media coverage of abortion. Two pro-abortion doctors are given free space to deceive the public into thinking most-late term abortions are because the child has a disability or the mother's life is in danger, when the opposite is true.

 

If CNN really wanted everybody to get the whole picture in order to better “understand” maybe they’d have included video or photos.

 

But guess what ? They don't mention the actual procedure. Funny, now they leave that out.

But they want you to "understand" what it is............

 

 

 

 

Here's what it can be under the new "relaxed"  laws

 

Gosnell Junior, who may not even be a doctor, pencil whips an authorization based on "mental health."

 

It's a fig-leaf and we all know it

[Hedge]

Meanwhile, similar things are advancing

in New Mexico: https://www.lifenews.com/2019/02/07/new-mexico-house-passes-bill-to-legalize-abortions-up-to-birth/

 

and VT: https://www.lifenews.com/2019/02/07/vermont-committee-passes-radical-bill-legalizing-abortions-up-to-birth/

 

and MA: https://www.lifenews.com/2019/02/07/massachusetts-bill-follows-new-yorks-radical-agenda-legalizes-abortions-up-to-birth/

Edited February 7, 2019 by Hedge

[Numark3]

4 hours ago, B-Man said:

Here’s what CNN wants you to understand ‘before judging late-term abortion’

 

 As for those who applauded what Trump had to say, CNN is more than hinting that people against late-term abortion are just ignorant and don’t really understand it:

 

 

 

 

Headline should read: "It is not murder if we keep on telling you its not murder, even though its murder"

 

This CNN article is everything wrong with media coverage of abortion. Two pro-abortion doctors are given free space to deceive the public into thinking most-late term abortions are because the child has a disability or the mother's life is in danger, when the opposite is true.

 

If CNN really wanted everybody to get the whole picture in order to better “understand” maybe they’d have included video or photos.

 

But guess what ? They don't mention the actual procedure. Funny, now they leave that out.

But they want you to "understand" what it is............

 

 

 

 

Here's what it can be under the new "relaxed"  laws

 

Gosnell Junior, who may not even be a doctor, pencil whips an authorization based on "mental health."

 

It's a fig-leaf and we all know it

 

So CNN can’t use pro-abortion doctors but you can keep citing to a tweet from an ultra conservative and pro-lifer???

 

What about this from The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

 

Medical conditions where fetus is not viable in late-term pregnancy: “Many abortions that occur later in pregnancy involve fetal anomalies incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, the absence of the brain and cranium above the base of the skull, or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavityii. In these cases, where death is likely before or shortly after birth, patients may decide whether to continue the pregnancy and deliver a nonviable fetus or have an abortion.”

 

Medical conditions where carrying the fetus to full term could endanger the woman’s health: “Abortion later in pregnancy may also be necessary when complications severely compromise a woman’s health or life, conditions which may also reduce the possibility of fetal survival. These might include premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta. Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion.”

 

Source: https://m.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Government-Relations-and-Outreach/Facts-are-Important-Abortion-Care-Later-in-Pregnancy-is-Important-to-Womens-Health?IsMobileSet=true

 

 

 

These bills allow for abortion under these circumstances.  But keep rambling about infanticide.  The ACOG statement lists specific medical conditions. Please refute them since you post on every page how these medical conditions don’t exist.

 

seriously, that copy and paste took two minutes of googling...

 

 

edit: with all the ***** that can go wrong, it is outrageous for someone to say nothing can occur in a pregnancy that could endanger a mothers life, or that an abortion couldn’t alleviate those dangers.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Crayola64

[Foxx]

14 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

So CNN can’t use pro-abortion doctors but you can keep citing to a tweet from an ultra conservative and pro-lifer???

 

What about this from The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

 

Medical conditions where fetus is not viable in late-term pregnancy: “Many abortions that occur later in pregnancy involve fetal anomalies incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, the absence of the brain and cranium above the base of the skull, or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavityii. In these cases, where death is likely before or shortly after birth, patients may decide whether to continue the pregnancy and deliver a nonviable fetus or have an abortion.”

 

Medical conditions where carrying the fetus to full term could endanger the woman’s health: “Abortion later in pregnancy may also be necessary when complications severely compromise a woman’s health or life, conditions which may also reduce the possibility of fetal survival. These might include premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta. Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion.”

 

Source: https://m.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Government-Relations-and-Outreach/Facts-are-Important-Abortion-Care-Later-in-Pregnancy-is-Important-to-Womens-Health?IsMobileSet=true

 

 

 

These bills allow for abortion under these circumstances.  But keep rambling about infanticide.  The ACOG statement lists specific medical conditions. Please refute them since you post on every page how these medical conditions don’t exist.

 

seriously, that copy and paste took two minutes of googling...

 

 

edit: with all the ***** that can go wrong, it is outrageous for someone to say nothing can occur in a pregnancy that could endanger a mothers life, or that an abortion couldn’t alleviate those dangers.

what is outrageous is that you fail to see the history of PP.

[Numark3]

8 minutes ago, Foxx said:

what is outrageous is that you fail to see the history of PP.

 

I have never mentioned PP, but um ok.

 

 I am only talking about this stupid tweet that says: it’s impossible for a pregnancy complication endangering the woman’s life to occur (that could be alleviated through an abortion) in late term.

[B-Man]

House Democrats Once Again Block Bill Protecting Infants Born Alive After Abortion

by Lauretta Brown

 

House Democrats have twice refused now to take up the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act for consideration.

 

The measure is “designed to ensure any infant born alive after an abortion receives the same protection of law as any newborn: mandating care and instituting penalties for doctors who allow such infants to die or who intentionally kill a newborn,” according to a statement from the office of its sponsor Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO).

 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) attempted to get the legislation considered in the House Wednesday.

 

“If the Democrats object, we'll ask again, and again and again because it is just right,” he said prior to his attempt. “It's not a partisan issue–it’s about saving lives. I think everyone can agree with that. We should solve this problem this week.”

 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2019/02/07/house-democrats-block-bill-protecting-infants-born-alive-after-abortion-n2541026

[Numark3]

31 minutes ago, B-Man said:

House Democrats Once Again Block Bill Protecting Infants Born Alive After Abortion

by Lauretta Brown

 

House Democrats have twice refused now to take up the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act for consideration.

 

The measure is “designed to ensure any infant born alive after an abortion receives the same protection of law as any newborn: mandating care and instituting penalties for doctors who allow such infants to die or who intentionally kill a newborn,” according to a statement from the office of its sponsor Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO).

 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) attempted to get the legislation considered in the House Wednesday.

 

“If the Democrats object, we'll ask again, and again and again because it is just right,” he said prior to his attempt. “It's not a partisan issue–it’s about saving lives. I think everyone can agree with that. We should solve this problem this week.”

 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2019/02/07/house-democrats-block-bill-protecting-infants-born-alive-after-abortion-n2541026

 

Why don’t you keep posting your fake news about no medical reason existing for a late term abortion 

[Chandemonium]

13 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

 

So CNN can’t use pro-abortion doctors but you can keep citing to a tweet from an ultra conservative and pro-lifer???

 

What about this from The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

 

Medical conditions where fetus is not viable in late-term pregnancy: “Many abortions that occur later in pregnancy involve fetal anomalies incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, the absence of the brain and cranium above the base of the skull, or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavityii. In these cases, where death is likely before or shortly after birth, patients may decide whether to continue the pregnancy and deliver a nonviable fetus or have an abortion.”

 

Medical conditions where carrying the fetus to full term could endanger the woman’s health: “Abortion later in pregnancy may also be necessary when complications severely compromise a woman’s health or life, conditions which may also reduce the possibility of fetal survival. These might include premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta. Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion.”

 

Source: https://m.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Government-Relations-and-Outreach/Facts-are-Important-Abortion-Care-Later-in-Pregnancy-is-Important-to-Womens-Health?IsMobileSet=true

 

 

 

These bills allow for abortion under these circumstances.  But keep rambling about infanticide.  The ACOG statement lists specific medical conditions. Please refute them since you post on every page how these medical conditions don’t exist.

 

seriously, that copy and paste took two minutes of googling...

 

 

edit: with all the ***** that can go wrong, it is outrageous for someone to say nothing can occur in a pregnancy that could endanger a mothers life, or that an abortion couldn’t alleviate those dangers.

No one ever said nothing can occur late in pregnancy that can endanger the mother’s life or that well known medical conditions don’t exist. @B-Man‘s position from the beginning has been that these conditions exist and may require preterm delivery either by induction or emergency c-section  to save the mother in some cases, but that it is not necessary to kill the child first. I think he’s been pretty clear on that point, but I’ll let him correct me if I missstated anything.