On abortion

[MartyFunkhouser]

Funk, you should read the article again.



This has been confirmed by advocates of the new law.

It is a factor that is considered in assessing "health." It is just a factor that the medical provider uses in making his or her assessment of the mother's health. What is inaccurate to say is that it is abortion on demand throughout pregnancy. Life and health are the factors that much be assessed by the medical provider and that providers judgment must come to a determination that life or health is in danger.

Ha. So now I am a hypocrite if I don't respond to each and every post? That's funny.

I didn't call you a hypocrite, I said I was surprised you let such inflammatory and inaccurate language in this discussion slide.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Missouri just banned abortions after 8 weeks.

[Jeff Lebowski]

For as much as the Dude complains about hyperbole and lack of civility, I am surprised he just let that one slide.

Ha. So now I am a hypocrite if I don't respond to each and every post? That's funny.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How about we read the text of the law. Yes, health of the mother could be interpreted broadly, but it is still a limitation and it is inconsistent with the GM's over the top claims and inconsistent with any claims that there is abortion without limitation to term. Mental well being is not an exception it is "life or health."

Funk, you should read the article again.

Another Supreme Court decision, Doe v. Bolton, says "health" refers to "all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the well-being of the patient" when it comes to an abortion.

This has been confirmed by advocates of the new law.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I'm not sure about the specifics. I was mostly reacting against GM's inflammatory language. No one is going to 'slaughter' a baby right before birth because of mental health issues.

For as much as the Dude complains about hyperbole and lack of civility, I am surprised he just let that one slide.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Does that link really refute the claims being made? If you read to the end, it says that "health of the mother" is an acceptable reason all the way up to birth, but I seem to recall that the "mental well-being" of the mother was one of the claimed exceptions, which of course could mean just about anything. Am I missing something?

How about we read the text of the law. Yes, health of the mother could be interpreted broadly, but it is still a limitation and it is inconsistent with the GM's over the top claims and inconsistent with any claims that there is abortion without limitation to term. Mental well being is not an exception it is "life or health."

§ 2599-aa. Abortion. 1. 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.

[Northwestcoug]

Does that link really refute the claims being made? If you read to the end, it says that "health of the mother" is an acceptable reason all the way up to birth, but I seem to recall that the "mental well-being" of the mother was one of the claimed exceptions, which of course could mean just about anything. Am I missing something?

I'm not sure about the specifics. I was mostly reacting against GM's inflammatory language. No one is going to 'slaughter' a baby right before birth because of mental health issues.

[frank ryan]

if true evil exists in this world, it exists in cases of discretionary abortion for convenience and unwanted pregnancy. sickening.

I understand your sentiment but it’s a bit much.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here's a different reading of the NY law:

https://www.democratandchronicle.com...do/2743142002/

I am missing the provision of 'slaughtering that child on its way out of the birth canal'...

Does that link really refute the claims being made? If you read to the end, it says that "health of the mother" is an acceptable reason all the way up to birth, but I seem to recall that the "mental well-being" of the mother was one of the claimed exceptions, which of course could mean just about anything. Am I missing something?

[Northwestcoug]

if true evil exists in this world, it exists in cases of discretionary abortion for convenience and unwanted pregnancy. sickening.

Not sure if this is typical sarcastic OG or not...

[old_gregg]

if true evil exists in this world, it exists in cases of discretionary abortion for convenience and unwanted pregnancy. sickening.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Here's a different reading of the NY law:



https://www.democratandchronicle.com...do/2743142002/

I am missing the provision of 'slaughtering that child on its way out of the birth canal'...

I'd also be interested in where that provision exists as argued by GM.

[MartyFunkhouser]

:eyeroll:

If a doctor can deliver a fullterm baby and either intentionally end its life or allow the baby to die based on the standardless decision of the mother (which is what I understand the NY law to have done; and the proposed VA law would have allowed), I'm going to call that not only batshit crazy, but also homicidal.

I disagree with the AL law. But I don't think a person can argue with a straight face and a fully functioning brain that forcing a woman to carry a child (even under horrific circumstances) is less humane than slaughtering that child on its way out of the birth canal (which is my real beef with the NY law). Sorry, chief.

You misunderstand the NY law.
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/S240

[Northwestcoug]

:eyeroll:

If a doctor can deliver a fullterm baby and either intentionally end its life or allow the baby to die based on the standardless decision of the mother (which is what I understand the NY law to have done; and the proposed VA law would have allowed), I'm going to call that not only batshit crazy, but also homicidal.

I disagree with the AL law. But I don't think a person can argue with a straight face and a fully functioning brain that forcing a woman to carry a child (even under horrific circumstances) is less humane than slaughtering that child on its way out of the birth canal (which is my real beef with the NY law). Sorry, chief.

Here's a different reading of the NY law:

As discussed above, third-trimester abortions — after the 24th week of pregnancy — are only permitted if it's necessary to protect the mother's life or health or there's an "absence of fetal viability."

Nationwide, such late-term abortions are rare: About 1.3 percent of all abortions came after the 21st week of pregnancy, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention....

The new state law leaves it up to the mother's health-care provider to "use their reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case."

Opponents of the new law, like Dolan, say the health exception would allow late-term abortions for almost any reason.

But the health exception isn't new: It's required by Roe v. Wade, even when a woman is late in her term. Still, many abortion providers in New York were hesitant to use the exception since prior state law only included an exception for the mother's life.

https://www.democratandchronicle.com...do/2743142002/

I am missing the provision of 'slaughtering that child on its way out of the birth canal'...

[Green Monstah]

The only batshit crazy law abortion law is the current Alabama ones. I don't love the NY or VA laws, but they aren't batshit crazy.

If you really want to talk about indifference to human life, the law that demonstrates the must indifference to human life is the Alabama one.

:eyeroll:

If a doctor can deliver a fullterm baby and either intentionally end its life or allow the baby to die based on the standardless decision of the mother (which is what I understand the NY law to have done; and the proposed VA law would have allowed), I'm going to call that not only batshit crazy, but also homicidal.

I disagree with the AL law. But I don't think a person can argue with a straight face and a fully functioning brain that forcing a woman to carry a child (even under horrific circumstances) is less humane than slaughtering that child on its way out of the birth canal (which is my real beef with the NY law). Sorry, chief.