I detest all you monsters and spineless wimps who would sit back while a baby three weeks from being born is murdered in the womb.

http://truthuncensored.net/new-york-stat...-to-heart/

Quote:In a vote of 94-49, New York State Assembly approved passage of AB 6221, the extreme stand-alone 10th point from the previously packaged 10-point Women’s Equality Act, which would expand third-trimester abortions and allow non-doctors to perform abortions. Since 2013, abortion advocates have been holding the Women’s Equality Act hostage to this single dangerous bill, refusing to break the 10-point bill up.

...

AB 6221, sponsored by Assemblywoman Glick, would change existing New York State law, which currently allows for abortion in the third trimester when the mother’s life is in danger, to allow abortion on-demand throughout all nine months.

...

If you can't stand up for these then you have no business on this earth ever citing "the least among you" to folks who disagree with tax and welfare policy..

Any Doctor that performs That should either be Castrated or be given a Hysterectomy to Never have Kids Themselves.

Expanding MURDER.

Absolutely disgusting. My wife is 13 weeks pregnant and it is already too late.

I think that is insane and I'm pro-choice. 1st trimester only.

We were able to see a heartbeat at 7 weeks.

I find the non-doctor line interesting. Because fewer and fewer people want to provide this service in light of the number birth control options available.

The sad thing is, some on the far left are just fine with late abortions and even want kids to have access to them without parental consent or even informing the parents.

These people are nothing but pro-abortion (not pro-choice) extremists.

Even most of liberal Europe doesn't allow abortions up until birth, yet these idiots scream you are interfering with a medical decision while wanting to put the medical decisions in the hands of considerably less well-trained individuals with a very nebulous "health of the mother" requirement.

F*** 'em.

For reference, this is the bill that is on the NY Assembly's site:

A06221 Memo:
BILL NUMBER:A6221

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the public health law, in relation to
reproductive services

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: Relates to access to reproductive
services.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Article 41 of the public health law is
amended by adding a new title 6-A.

S 4166 provides that the state shall not deny a woman's right to
obtain an abortion as established by the United States Supreme Court
in the decision Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

S 2. Effective date.

JUSTIFICATION: This bill codifies the alignment of State law with
existing federal law. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the United
State Supreme Court ruled that the United States Constitution protects
a woman's right to have an abortion prior to fetal viability or when
necessary to protect the health and life of the woman. Although
current State law does not have all of these protections, this has, in
fact and in law, been the law in New York for over forty years; this
proposal would not change or alter existing State and federal laws
that permit a health care provider or institutions from refraining
from providing an abortion for religious or moral beliefs. This bill
would not expand the class of individuals who could perform abortions,
nor would it alter the current long-standing criminal ban on partial
birth abortion. The bill simply codifies the reproductive rights that
women in New York have had since Roe.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: New Bill.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None to the state.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after
it shall have become law.

Relax BIE, you're yelling at the choir here. Nobody on this site would favor this blanketly in all cases. Of course, that's not what this law does anyway. That's just what your propaganda is telling you.

This bill is only for cases where the life and health of the mother are in danger as determined by a licensed physician. And there's nothing about allowing non-doctors to perform them.

Read for yourself here

Quote:This bill would not expand the class of individuals who could perform abortions, nor would it alter the current long-standing criminal ban on partial birth abortion. The bill simply codifies the reproductive rights that women in New York have had since Roe.

Quote:ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES
THE STATE SHALL NOT DENY A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO OBTAIN AN ABORTION AS ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN THE DECISION ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S.113 (1973). NOTWITH-STANDING ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY, NEW YORK PROTECTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM COMMENCEMENT OF HER PREGNANCY, OR WHEN NECESSARY TO PROTECT A WOMAN'S LIFE OR HEALTH AS DETERMINED BY A LICENSED PHYSICIAN.

Bull...still eating your crow?

If you're too stupid to see why that phrase is in there and what happens in the real wold no message board banter is going to help you, RotundTom. They have to put that phrase in there to be in accordance with RoeVWade because we are talking about viability. In practice all you need to do is find a true believer abortionist at your local planned parenthood and tell them your pregnancy is stressing you and viola there is your "health" exception.



And sorry if I'm not all over this for you. I am tending to a woman with severe HEG..

The 1973 Supreme Court decision Doe v. Bolton states that

“the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”

Stress, pressure from family, or a simple case of morning sickness, all of these are considered legitimate grounds for an abortion under current U.S. law. Essentially, a woman can have an abortion at any time, for any stated reason, and somehow it can be related to “health.”

(04-16-2015 08:32 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I find the non-doctor line interesting. Because fewer and fewer people want to provide this service in light of the number birth control options available.

No its because you can operate an abortion mill for less money if you don't need to deal with medical school..

(04-16-2015 02:40 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 08:32 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I find the non-doctor line interesting. Because fewer and fewer people want to provide this service in light of the number birth control options available.

No its because you can operate an abortion mill for less money if you don't need to deal with medical school..

It's not that easy to find people willing to do that.

Children aren't for everyone. I'm pro-abortion, but after the first trimester you should have made your decision.

Well, you admit being pro snuffing of life. Not hiding behind some lie like pro choice.

Can't permanently take choice away and claim you're pro choice.

My claim is that the fetus isn't developed enough to even remotely consider it as a child. It COULD develop into a child (human life) if given the chance to.

I would be pro-life IF I felt that most women in these "fringe" cases would actually do a good job of being a mother. I want to see WELL CARED FOR children.

(04-17-2015 06:56 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  My claim is that the fetus isn't developed enough to even remotely consider it as a child. It COULD develop into a child (human life) if given the chance to.

I would be pro-life IF I felt that most women in these "fringe" cases would actually do a good job of being a mother. I want to see WELL CARED FOR children.

Do you have any children?