(05-22-2019 07:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2019 07:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2019 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2019 03:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-20-2019 10:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]As stated multiple times, the rationale was likely to provide more available doctors who are willing to perform 3rd trimester abortions when needed.
No, that's false.
That may be the stated rationale, but that's not what this law does. This law exempts actions like Gosnell's from any punishment or liability of any form. That is not necessary to accomplish the stated rationale. I suppose it doesn't even technically make actions like Gosnell's legal. But exempting them from and penalty or liability pretty much accomplishes the same thing.
I’ve just read a few FAQs, the bills language, and some articles written by state legislators, and since the bill results in abortion care being moved from under the penal code, I can see why there is this concern about runaway, unethical doctors carrying out dangerous and heinous acts. But since abortion care was moved under the umbrella of health care procedures, it seems that this wouldn’t exempt providers from liability if the abortion procedure is done outside of the realm of appropriate healthcare procedures. I’d have to do more digging into the legal intricacies of trying to hold someone accountable for wrongdoing, but my guess would be there could still be criminal penalties if the medical procedure was not deemed to be in the interest of the woman’s health.
Furthermore, NY law still defines a person as “a human being that has been born and is alive,” so in the Gosnell case, where he was killing born babies after failed abortion procedures, a doctor would still be committing murder in New York.
Correct, the ones where the pulled out alive and the spinal cords clipped outside would be considered murder under the current NY criminal code. The ones where he reached in and snipped the spinal cords in utero would not.
Rule to be taken: reach in and snip the spinal cord and wait ten minutes to be sure no breath is ever taken. Collect $200 and advance to St James Place. Let the child take on breath -- go directly to jail.
Amazing nuance there.
Quote:And in the case of someone murdering a fetus, or a woman and her unborn baby, NY either has separate charges for that (that are unrelated to abortion)
The bill that implemented 2599A removed all corresponding criminal charges that could be (and were at times) applied to a
or charges are superseded (as was the case with Tanq’s example).
Quote:Reading the actual law and about it, it seems to make sense to me to move abortion under the umbrella of healthcare. Are their similar healthcare procedures that are covered in state penal codes that we can compare this to?
I could care less *where* in the state code it is applied. The fact that NY sweeps away the care for a viable fetus like garbage and allows a scot-free and absolutely liability-free destruction of that life is grotesque. And that, in my opinion, borders on derangement.
I don’t see how this bill removes liability - if later term abortions are performed without respect to the mother’s health, it appears to be that the law would make that procedure illegal and would hold the abortion provider liable, correct? Just like if any other doctor is acting in a negligent manner in how they, say, replace a knee, right?
The section provides zero criminal liability. There are no portions of any NY code that reference it for a criminal penalty.
The bill gives no right to an individual for a civil cause of action. Again, 2599A stands in stark isolation to the rest of the NY Code.
The bill provides for no avenue that the government may pursue. Language like "The violation of this provision shall subject the provider to civil penalties of x, y, and z." The is zero language that provides for that.
Your hypothetical falls apart for two reasons. There could only be two parties to bring such a 'negligence' action that you really really really want to write into this law to provide *some* liability.
The first is the putative mother. Do you really think a mother who seeks a viable-term abortion is going to be an aggrieved party? That just makes zero sense in every sense of that phrase.
The second is the state. In order for the state to act, two things have to occur. The first is *notice* that the state can bring an action. That is 'the state can bring a civil action for violation of this section' or somefink like that.
Do you see one here? Since 2599A is a brand new section, any notice provision would have to be provided that specifically calls it out. Considering that 2599A has 'zero' references in the NY Code, *and* the enacting bill does not add any notice provision. Well that prong is blown out of the water.
The other portion of the second is that for a state to bring an action, typically there must be an aggrieved real party that brings it to the state's attention. Again, when a woman is knowingly getting a viable term abortion, do you really think she is going to later claim that 'golly, I think I was healthy enough' after the fact?
The singular fact is that this statute is effectively unenforceable. And, to be blunt, it designed to be that way.
The asshats in Albany want a pathway to viable abortions, but dont want the resulting political heat. Solution: wow, we passed this thing that *only* allows it for non-viability and health reasons.
But these people who are steeped in careers dedicated to passing metric tons of proscriptions did two things that showed their true intent. They swept the NY laws of anything that could be deemed an end-run enforcement of the statute, and they 'forgot' to include any independent enforcement mechanisms. I mean, these legislators are very much knowledgeable that the counterpoint necessity of any restriction is an enforcement mechanism. And they studiously made sure that the section was very much bereft of them.
But by god, we have this *restriction* on the books. And yes, it makes the proponents of the section a little antsy when they have to pull Rube Goldberg-type 'solutions' out of the air as supposed 'enforcement' --- but that isnt the NY Legislature's problem at this point, is it?