Wasnt even a deflection. Der trumpengroper wanted to end it. Can you tell the difference between statements demonstrating your premise to be faulty and actually arguing something? Your response tells me no.
The Democratic Politicians seem to enjoy murdering innocent babies.
Maybe it really is all about the children, but not in the way that they portray
themselves to love children. It’s more like using babies, and children
as pawns, to protect themselves, and for their “Liberal Insane Agenda”!
Sorry to hear about your lost, my wife lost a daughter at 31/32 weeks.
I have. Second grand baby that spent three weeks in NICU for being born pre-mature.
Under certain circumstanses with specific diagnosis by an actual doctor and confirmed by a second.
I have. My grandmother. Joint and unanimous e decision between my brother and I.
My mother made the same decision on my father when I was a kid.
1 Like
The bill removes abortion from the bill. Abortion is not longer listed as a cause for homocide charges to be filed.
1 Like
Removes abortion from the bill?
The bill expressly states abortion not performed under the stipulations of the bill can be homicide. Again, this is the state of NY mirroring Roe v Wade in state law in case it is repealed. Nothing is legal now that was not illegal before in the staye of NY.
No it doesn’t.
I posted it a while back. Everything in [ xx] was removed from the bill. Abortion was in the as being REMOVED from the bill.
Anything that was underlined was being added to the bill. There were no words underlined.
1 Like
here it is. Remember everthing in [brackets] was removed from the bill.
so these words,phrases were REMOVED from the bill that was passed:
or an
8 unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twen-
9 ty-four weeks
, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in
12 the first degree
The way the homocide bill reads NOW (as passed with things in brackets removed. A person can not be charged with homicide for performing ANY type of abortion under that law.
https://www.wgcaobgyn.com/prenatal/genetic_testing.php
Which of these non diagnostic tests cannot identify a genetic defect before the 7th month?
What defect cannot be spotted on an ultrasound, usually performed around the 5th month?
In any case, third trimester abortion to deal with handicapped infants is what I’d expect in a third world country—not the U S.
The woman has already had two trimesters to choose prenatal screenings and diagnostic tests. Third trimester abortion never should have even been offered. It is infanticide of a live baby.
I thought we recently went through this whole thing about making sure we know the complete context of a situation before we go flying off the handle.
2 Likes
LOL. Why do you think it is being reported that way?
The hypothetical he was discussing regarding a severely deformed baby that the mother planned to abort.
His hypothetical described resuscitating the baby. I believe the Gov was continuing the hypothetical as if the baby required mechanical assistance to live. At which point, it would be the parents painful decision as to wether or not the baby is to be left on life support, or if mechanical support is to be removed.
the reason I believe the hypothetical in his mind was thus is because the bill he was discussing says nothing about killing a baby after it is born. But of course, bill or no bill, plan to abaort or not, it is always the parents decision to remove a baby from life support.
Thank goodness you didn’t have to put up with a group of “pro life” legislators and activists telling you what you can and cannot do in these situations and labeling you a murderer if they disagree with your decision.
That’s all we are asking for when it comes to pregnancy and birth. These situations are extremely difficult. No sense in making it worse.
An “abortion” in the bill is a medical procedure, performed by licensed professionals, with certain requirements. The bill changed the penal code so that it was not contradictory. Prior to the bill, New York did not have feticide laws. That has not changed. Possible criminal charges steming from assault of a pregnant woman or death of a fetus have not changed. The only thing that has changed is a defined medical procedure is no longer included in the penal code.
Actually I’ve addressed this elsewhere. Note the key words health. Health is amorphous, I will quote from a review of this very issue.
Health of the mother, not just life of the mother, and the breakdown of it leads to abortion on demand til birth. Right now, this actually can be done, however, but needs 3 ‘doctors’ go tive the okay on this. This bill only makes it so one ‘doctor’ gives the okay. The term ‘health’ is very wide ranging, and gives lots of leewy. If a woman is just upset about the baby that is an emotional enough of a health issue, you need to know Doe vs. Bolton, the companion decision in 1973 to Roe v. Wade.
According to Professor Lucia A. Silecchia of the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, the term is “one of the most notoriously vague provisions in abortion jurisprudence,” and is included in various opinions and laws without any sort of clear definition as to what it actually means.
Because of the ambiguity, Silecchia said, the phrase is “amenable to widely-varying definitions and interpretations” that “leave enormous discretion to the professional judgment of an individual healthcare provider.” Under the new law in New York, which permits non-doctors to perform abortions, this person does not necessarily even need to be a licensed physician.
Silecchia told CNA that she believes the New York law is “as close to an abortion-on-demand statute that can be found in the United States today,” even beyond the 24 week limit.
The 1973 Supreme Court case Doe v. Bolton, which was decided the same day as Roe v. Wade, determined that what was “necessary to protect life or health of the mother” is for the physician to decide based on factors like “physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age–relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”
“The court believed then that consideration of all these factors was necessary to give the physician wide discretion in this matter,” Silecchia told CNA.
“However, these factors have not been clearly defined and attempts to define them have been criticized as interfering with the exercise of medical discretion,” she added. She said that there is no requirement for a doctor to even consider whether or not there exists an alternative to abortion that could solve the medical crisis.
“It does not seem to require that the physician even ask whether good counseling, material support, or comprehensive mental health care can be provided to the woman facing this difficult time in her life,” said Silecchia.
“While it is true that the statute says that after that point it must be necessary to ‘protect life or health’ of the woman carrying a child, this is a phrase that is so amorphous that it is not a meaningful standard,” she said.
Besides all of the above, who proaborts are either ignorant of, or basically mislead to think health means that there is no chance to use that, the fact is, that there is absolutely no condition in which killing the baby in the womb will save the life of the mother.
I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt,” Dr. Omar Hamada of Tennessee, who outlined that he has delivered more than 2,500 babies, wrote on social media on Wednesday. “There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no. There is absolutely no medical reason to kill a near term or term infant. For any reason.”
“If there’s a problem—and there are problems in the third trimester, both with the babies and with the mom that require delivery—just deliver the baby. We don’t have to kill it,” Hamada further explained to Fox News.
Dr. David McKnight, also of Tennessee, likewise said that if a concern arises, the baby is simply delivered via C-section. There is no need to kill the child to save the mother.
“As a board-certified practicing OB/GYN physician for over 30 years, I need to say publicly and unequivocally, that there is NEVER a medical reason to kill a baby at term,” he remarked. “When complications of pregnancy endanger a mother’s life, we sometimes must deliver the baby early, but it is ALWAYS with the intent of doing whatever we can to do it safely for the baby too. The decision to kill an unborn baby at term is purely for convenience. It is murder.”
Now, in reference to the Virginia Law it is best for the author of this law explain it herself, not just give the little snippet that is on video. She would know what the law is, the difference is, she is more honest than most proaborts:
She is reading the bill itself. Repeals the requirements that 3 doctors give the okay for this. Through the third trimester, no limit on bill. Not just at the point of a mother about to die. Mental health. She can’t explain what she means by ‘mental’ health. No doctor needs any training to know what mental health is.
“We are going to have a baby.”
Note the use of future tense.
You listed two OBs with obvious personal bias. A quick Google search will show you that. Maybe you should check what the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has to say. Here’s a quick quote from 2014.
“Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event.”
Some examples include eclampsia, HELLP syndrome and heart failure.
The slippery slope argument is as valid today as it was a year ago or at the time of Roe v Wade. A hypothetical situation is not a justification.
