rumitoid

Total balderdash. Who do you get these wild theories from?

The bill allows:
1) It allows for late-term a******n (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term a******ns had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform a******ns beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

3) It removes a******n from the criminal code and places it entirely within the realm of public health law. Performing a late-term a******n had previously been a felony in New York, which as the Syracuse Post-Standard observed, “had a chilling effect on doctors in New York who were reluctant to provide a******ns after 24 weeks when the mother’s life was in danger or the fetus was no longer viable. In a widely reported case, one New York woman had to travel to Colorado to terminate her pregnancy when she found out after 31 weeks that the baby she was carrying would not survive outside the womb.”

The enactment of the RHA was characterized by some pro-life outlets, such as the website LifeNews as “a radical pro-a******n bill that would allow unborn babies to be aborted for basically any reason up to birth.”

How did such outlets arrive at that characterization?

The RHA states that “A health care practitioner, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an a******n 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 a******n is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

Pro-life critics contended that provision would essentially “authorize a******n up until the moment of birth” because its health exception might be broadly interpreted beyond just issues of physical health:
"This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don’t want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?"

A Democratic-led New York state legislature passed the Reproductive Health Care Act by a margin of 38 to 24, and Governor Andrew Cuomo signed it into law on 22 January 2019.

Although LifeNews reported that the Reproductive Healthcare Act “redefines a ‘person’ as ‘a human being who has been born and is alive,'” and describes a******n as a “fundamental right,” that change applies to language in the penal code, as the new legislation now regulates a******n as part of public health law instead of criminal law in New York.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-a******ns-birth/

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Another accessory to murder rears his ugly head.

rumitoid

I merely debunked the garbage report of what the law in New York mandated by the poster. I did not agree nor disagree with the law. Learn to discern the difference, it is important. You want lies for your arguments?

archie bunker Loc: Texas

You didn't debunk anything. The language in the law is extremely ambiguous. Leaving it wide open.

rumitoid

Really? Show how.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Show how it's not. I mean, really? If a woman claims depression, and gets doctor's support, she can have her child k**led. It is, after all, her mental health, right?

Shouldn't I be able to do the same with you? I can convince a doctor, or two that you've caused me depression. We'll call it "retroactive, nongestational a******n" and make it public policy. What do you think?

Rose42

Snopes is either leaning left or getting sloppy.

Even a layman can see its worded ambiguously. "If the health of the mother is threatened". That opens the door to many possibilities which need not be life threatening.

rumitoid

You made a statement: "the language is extremely ambiguous." Show how it is, it is your point of argument.

The poster said a baby born could be murdered by this law: do you agree?

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Yeah, I agree! A******n is straight up murder!

If someone murders a pregnant woman, it's a double homicide. Now, tell me how anything different isn't homicide.

rumitoid

The idea is interesting. A good Liberal lawyer, working the Twinkie defense years ago, may win.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

See where we are now?

rumitoid

A******n is murder. I have said this a number of times before. A fetus is not going to become a rock, tree, or chair. It is going to be a human. Ending that progression means ending a human life. No one can argue that point. What is argued, rightly or wrongly, is a woman's right to control her body: she should not be forced by law to possibly hurt or impeded her health or emotional well-being or financial status. Men do not have this concern, and many men do not care. I do not like to be picayune in such cases. A******n is wrong. Yet the Bible is not simply not clear but tends to favor a non-charge of murder.

If such a subject is today so massively covered by Christians, being the number one topic, why is the Bible so silent on the issue? Yes, we can take certain, actually many, verses proclaiming the wonder and beauty of life and to honor and respect that, yet that has nothing to do with the specific topic of a******n. There is only one--only one--verse on a******n: "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide." (Ex:21:22) The law at the time was an "eye for an eye," death for death. Obviously the fetus miscarried was not considered life or else the man would have been put to death.

Some points to consider:

God aborts 60%. Who are you to judge the Almighty?
God prescribes a******n potion – Numbers 5:22-27
K**l fetus, get fined – K**l woman, get death –Exodus 21:22-23
Infant becomes person after birth – Leviticus 27:6
Life begins at ejaculation – Ask Onan
The Bible doesn’t define when life becomes “a living soul.” Don’t put your words in God’s mouth

archie bunker Loc: Texas

WOW...

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Which is worse according to the Talking Head Programs on TV?
A 35 year old r****t picture;
Or standing up for late term a******n/infanticide?
According to the TV commentators, they focus on a 1984 photograph in a year book, that makes the Virginia governor unacceptable.
Is their a problem here?
Deflection by the MSM?

A new thread.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Absolutely horrific this bill put through, as they all stood there laughing, clapping and patting each other on the back!!!

Along with gleefully announcing a******n is no longer murder on there books..

Can we say infant genocide is kicking in NY?? Sure we can!!