(05-20-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.

I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.

Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.

Quote:

Quote:If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?

I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.

To answer Tanq, not only yes but hell yes. That is exactly the purpose of the New York law. There can be no other purpose. It is way overkill and beyond scope for any other purpose.

Do you really believe that a New York board would take his license for performing a legally acceptable procedure? Really? Seriously?

Professionals in all industries lose their licenses all of the time for doing something that is technically legal...

Wow, *that* the provider 'might' be reviewed and 'might' face disciplinary action sure gives me an overriding sense of comfort. I feel *much* better about the moral weight afforded to viable fetuses in New York.

I think that the 'might be reviewed' and 'might face licensure' action sure telegraphs the moral weight that the NY legislature stacks against crushing an 8.999 month fetus skill and dismembering it prior to removal.

I think that moral comparison denoted there more than tells me that the care shown for any such 8.999 month old fetus by the NY Legislature.

They swept up the care extended to any such late term fetus with a used broom and threw it to the wind when they stacked against the standard we now have in this board of a *possible* action of a 'might be reviewed' by some unnamed body under some unnamed professional provision.

My only point was that laws are not the only mechanisms through which someone can lose their license.

You can try and stretch my comment as much as you want, and to as far of a limit as you see fit, but I was explicitly responding to the proposition that a board not taking someone's license just because the thing they did was technically legal.

If you don't have an issue with that statement, please don't stretch it any further.

(05-20-2019 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 06:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 05:59 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  This one seems relevant to the discussion:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...fa0f485028

Over/under on # of people asking how that is any different than calling out a CEO?
I think another telling story about the influence he has on people based on his Twitter use and style of attack is what happened to Megyn Kelly. I heard this story on NPR a few weeks ago, terrifying, but luckily she has the means to afford protection.

Quote:It was my year of guards and guns — you know, thanks to Trump. I was under security threat for most of the nine months he was really coming after me. I had strange people showing up at my house. I had strange people casing my house. I had my children looking out the windows afraid. ... Every time he would come after me, he would release — as I describe in the book — a torrent of nastiness in my life, and I had to sort of just be steady at the helm, because I was going to cover this race come hell or high water.
By far, the tweet that bothered me the most was that of Trump's top lawyer, Michael Cohen, who's a senior executive with the Trump organization. When things were at a fever pitch after that first debate, Michael Cohen retweeted somebody saying, "Let's gut her." That one to me was the most disturbing and visceral. ...

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502042198/...-and-ailes

Michael Cohen was not Trump's top lawyer. He was a "fixer," something that every serious real estate developer needs. We've got somebody holding up the environmental approvals, go fix it, don't tell us what you did, and send us a bill.

Those people tend to be sleazy characters. They have to be to do their job. They exist primarily to give the boss deniability.

Well, that was certainly a delayed response...

(05-20-2019 11:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 06:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  "Dream scenario"? Dude, I'm having a discussion of the New York law as it relates to the Alabama law. I asked you for your opinion as to why the New York law was so horrible. A significant part of your answer related to the lifting of criminal liabilities.

Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.

Quote:Not sure where you got "unrestricted abortions is my dream scenario" out of that. Certainly not sure where you got "I support Gosnell" out of that (pretty repugnant, BTW).

Perhaps because of what is seemingly a defense in depth of that 'unrestricted abortion' regime.

Yes, I agree -- supporting Gosnell is definitely repugnant. I am glad we agree on that. The defense in depth of the New York regime is literally a defense of a system that would allow the practice of Gosnell to happen with no repercussions. I hope you realize that.

In a corresponding fashion, if I supported a system that allowed for the commercial ownership of another human based on their ethnicity with zero repercussions, I dont think it would be such a far stretch to say that I support slavery, considering I might be defending in depth a zero liability system for the specific actions that allow slavery.

Yes... if you supported a system that allowed for slavery then you would support slavery.

I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.

To suggest that I am OK with Gosnell's actions is just about as ridiculous as me saying that a supporter of the Alabama law is in favor of poor, black women dying due to pregnancy-related issues.

Quote:

Quote:I have yet to see any solution that I am 100% behind. I hate the Alabama law and (maybe this will shock you) I share your concerns with the New York law.

To be honest, this is the first inkling that you have any concerns with the New York law.

Quote:To call me out for my side of the discussion as supporting the actions of Gosnell is no better than me calling out those that support the Alabama law as racists.

The problem with that tautology is that the defense of a system that *directly* allows the actions of a Gosnell to go unpunished in any form is, for all intents and purpose, at the very minimum at least *some* direct support for the actions of Gosnell.

The 'racists' comment that you put forth is at *best* an indirect and amazingly attenuated glue to attach to 'racist'. At worst it has *zero* to do with racism.

Had you said 'those who support the Alabama law as supporting involuntary servitude', that would be much more on point. In fact, I would actually agree with that due to the rather blunt 'too bad lil' honey, carry it' moniker that attaches pretty easily to and pretty much aptly describes the results of a system to which that support attaches.

Quote:It's been made pretty clear that the conservatives on this forum hate that move.

Actually if the call for racism is proper, then I dont think you would see the 'push back'. When the call is amazingly attentuated at at best tangential, then yes, the push pack is present.

I have no issue the correct identification of the Richard Spencers, or the KKKers, or the Nazis as 'racist' -- it is fundamentally a true label. They support the system that promotes racism, they defend the mechanisms that make racism with zero cost an outcome.

If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?

I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.

Basic econ 101 question then since you cannot answer the question asked. When a cost goes to zero, is the expected demand for such a good expected to fall or rise?

Yes or No. A law that puts into place a zero liability for providing a good service increases the social cost to the provider? Yes or No.

Since I sense of obdurance here I guess we will have to go back to the basic building blocks to the 'yes/no' answer asked, but avoided.

Ancillary question: do you find the action by the Queens DA to not prosecute a person who stabbed and killed his third-trimester pregnant girlfriend in any way illuminating? Now consider the charges that Gosnell was tried on. Can you differentiate Gosnell's actions in any way, shape, or form from the stabber?

I am amazed at the obstinance at even recognizing the environment that the law ccreates. Whoo hoooo..... with Gosnell the Second, the Queens decision means no criminal charges and your answer means there *might* (get that, *might*) be a medical inquiry into Gosnell the Seconds credentials. Yeah, *that* 'might have your credentials reviewed' is a real gd serious impediment to the Gosnell the Second.

But somehow you refuse to acknowledge in the slightest that environment. (yeah, this board really needs a 'self forehead slap' emoji....)

Tanq, when you say not prosecute, do you mean at all? Or just for abortion?

The guy was still charged with first-degree murder...

https://nypost.com/2019/02/08/accused-mu...s-new-law/

Quote:Queens District Attorney Richard Brown sent out a press release saying Anthony Hobson, 48, would be charged with second-degree abortion as well as murder in Sunday’s fatal stabbing of Jennifer Irigoyen, 35.

But a DA spokeswoman later told The Post that the abortion charge “was repealed by the Legislature, and this is the law as it exists today.”

Just making sure you're not misinterpreting the news and saying that the guy was not charged for any crime for that heinous act. He was charged for a very serious crime still.

Correct. He was charged for an underlying murder. Glad he was.

Lucky that he didnt punch her in the gut. All we would have gotten out of that taking of life (yep, at viability it pretty much is taking a life) would have been a misdemeanor assault.

Gosnell wouldnt have been charged, period. Since the actions he performed were consented to.

That is the point that should be taken. Not all 'taking a last trimester life' will be accompanied by a handy fallback murder charge, will they?

(05-20-2019 11:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 06:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 05:59 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  This one seems relevant to the discussion:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...fa0f485028

Over/under on # of people asking how that is any different than calling out a CEO?
I think another telling story about the influence he has on people based on his Twitter use and style of attack is what happened to Megyn Kelly. I heard this story on NPR a few weeks ago, terrifying, but luckily she has the means to afford protection.

Quote:It was my year of guards and guns — you know, thanks to Trump. I was under security threat for most of the nine months he was really coming after me. I had strange people showing up at my house. I had strange people casing my house. I had my children looking out the windows afraid. ... Every time he would come after me, he would release — as I describe in the book — a torrent of nastiness in my life, and I had to sort of just be steady at the helm, because I was going to cover this race come hell or high water.
By far, the tweet that bothered me the most was that of Trump's top lawyer, Michael Cohen, who's a senior executive with the Trump organization. When things were at a fever pitch after that first debate, Michael Cohen retweeted somebody saying, "Let's gut her." That one to me was the most disturbing and visceral. ...

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502042198/...-and-ailes

Michael Cohen was not Trump's top lawyer. He was a "fixer," something that every serious real estate developer needs. We've got somebody holding up the environmental approvals, go fix it, don't tell us what you did, and send us a bill.
Those people tend to be sleazy characters. They have to be to do their job. They exist primarily to give the boss deniability.

Well, that was certainly a delayed response...

Just found it flipping through. Didn't realize how old it was until after I responded.

(05-20-2019 11:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.

Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.

Quote:I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.

To answer Tanq, not only yes but hell yes. That is exactly the purpose of the New York law. There can be no other purpose. It is way overkill and beyond scope for any other purpose.

Do you really believe that a New York board would take his license for performing a legally acceptable procedure? Really? Seriously?

Professionals in all industries lose their licenses all of the time for doing something that is technically legal...

Wow, *that* the provider 'might' be reviewed and 'might' face disciplinary action sure gives me an overriding sense of comfort. I feel *much* better about the moral weight afforded to viable fetuses in New York.

I think that the 'might be reviewed' and 'might face licensure' action sure telegraphs the moral weight that the NY legislature stacks against crushing an 8.999 month fetus skill and dismembering it prior to removal.

I think that moral comparison denoted there more than tells me that the care shown for any such 8.999 month old fetus by the NY Legislature.

They swept up the care extended to any such late term fetus with a used broom and threw it to the wind when they stacked against the standard we now have in this board of a *possible* action of a 'might be reviewed' by some unnamed body under some unnamed professional provision.

My only point was that laws are not the only mechanisms through which someone can lose their license.

You can try and stretch my comment as much as you want, and to as far of a limit as you see fit, but I was explicitly responding to the proposition that a board not taking someone's license just because the thing they did was technically legal.

If you don't have an issue with that statement, please don't stretch it any further.

Just making a point that the only drawback to the NY legislation is rather illusory and subject to a massive amount of conjecture.

My guess is that that the NY legislature intended this. It is what they passed. Or maybe there are about 100 NY reps and state senators who voted on this and all had a gold medal, massive collective 'Gee, I could have had a V8' moment.

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  What is more likely to happen?
Scenario 1: The law isn't passed. More women will die from complications of pregnancy and more women will be forced to give birth to nonviable fetuses because they can't find a doctor willing to perform their 3rd trimester abortion.
Scenario 2: The law is passed. Hundreds of doctors who have been itching to abort healthy, viable 3rd trimester infants get their opportunity. The number of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy fetuses increases.
I think Scenario 1 is the more likely one.

Been away for a bit so my apologies if we've moved past this already....

to 1) Unlikely. Doctors can and do certainly try and save both... and would make a scientific judgement call that in the event of a non-viable fetus, would always favor the mother. Such decisions happen every day in this country in situations not involving abortion. As to the abortion vs giving birth to non-viable fetus... it's all the same to the mother. You still have to get the non-viable/aborted fetus out of the body. At 24+ weeks, this isn't just a heavy period.

2) I think to say 'itching to abort' is inflammatory, but accurate.

Let's not lump Gosnell in with a standard abortion doctor. Gosnell's primary convictions were for having living breathing otherwise viable children in his hands and watching them die, or assisting them to die by cutting their spinal chords. These were not all unhealthy children.

I'd ask this...
You're a wealthy family and your child at 28 weeks shows signs of being under-sized or heavy and genetic testing shows a high probability of unremarkable features.... so you decide to abort it.

Given where we are going with designer baby's, is this really that far off?

(05-20-2019 10:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.

I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.

Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.

As stated multiple times, the rationale was likely to provide more available doctors who are willing to perform 3rd trimester abortions when needed.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?

I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.

To answer Tanq, not only yes but hell yes. That is exactly the purpose of the New York law. There can be no other purpose. It is way overkill and beyond scope for any other purpose.

Do you really believe that a New York board would take his license for performing a legally acceptable procedure? Really? Seriously?

Yes. A total knee replacement is a legally acceptable procedure but if a doctor puts in the left knee implant instead of the right knee implant (and does it on multiple occasions) then he or she will certainly have a day of reckoning with the medical board.

Patient: Doc, I feel like I’m recovered from the surgery. There’s just one thing...
Doc: What is it?
Patient: I just can’t dance like I used to. It feels like... I have two left feet!

(05-20-2019 10:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.

I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.

Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.

As stated multiple times, the rationale was likely to provide more available doctors who are willing to perform 3rd trimester abortions when needed.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?

I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.

To answer Tanq, not only yes but hell yes. That is exactly the purpose of the New York law. There can be no other purpose. It is way overkill and beyond scope for any other purpose.

Do you really believe that a New York board would take his license for performing a legally acceptable procedure? Really? Seriously?

Yes. A total knee replacement is a legally acceptable procedure but if a doctor puts in the left knee implant instead of the right knee implant (and does it on multiple occasions) then he or she will certainly have a day of reckoning with the medical board.

Patient: Doc, I feel like I’m recovered from the surgery. There’s just one thing...
Doc: What is it?
Patient: I just can’t dance like I used to. It feels like... I have two left feet!

(05-20-2019 10:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.

I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.

Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.

As stated multiple times, the rationale was likely to provide more available doctors who are willing to perform 3rd trimester abortions when needed.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?

I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.

To answer Tanq, not only yes but hell yes. That is exactly the purpose of the New York law. There can be no other purpose. It is way overkill and beyond scope for any other purpose.

Do you really believe that a New York board would take his license for performing a legally acceptable procedure? Really? Seriously?

Yes. A total knee replacement is a legally acceptable procedure but if a doctor puts in the left knee implant instead of the right knee implant (and does it on multiple occasions) then he or she will certainly have a day of reckoning with the medical board.

Patient: Doc, I feel like I’m recovered from the surgery. There’s just one thing...
Doc: What is it?
Patient: I just can’t dance like I used to. It feels like... I have two left feet!

(05-20-2019 10:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.

I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.

Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.

As stated multiple times, the rationale was likely to provide more available doctors who are willing to perform 3rd trimester abortions when needed.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:If you would, a simple yes or no answer: does the New York law put into place a legal and administrative regime that promotes the actions of a Gosnell to act as he did with no recourse (zero cost, zero downside). Yes, or No?

I doubt it. He would have been acting way outside the bounds of the standard of medical care so I would assume that at the very least the medical board would find his actions worthy of losing his license.

To answer Tanq, not only yes but hell yes. That is exactly the purpose of the New York law. There can be no other purpose. It is way overkill and beyond scope for any other purpose.

Do you really believe that a New York board would take his license for performing a legally acceptable procedure? Really? Seriously?

Yes. A total knee replacement is a legally acceptable procedure but if a doctor puts in the left knee implant instead of the right knee implant (and does it on multiple occasions) then he or she will certainly have a day of reckoning with the medical board.

Patient: Doc, I feel like I’m recovered from the surgery. There’s just one thing...
Doc: What is it?
Patient: I just can’t dance like I used to. It feels like... I have two left feet!

(05-20-2019 10:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.

I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.

Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.

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.

(05-22-2019 03:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 10:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-18-2019 11:08 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually, the regime set in place has NO liabilities. Neither, criminal, civil, administrative, nor professional. It literally has *zero* teeth.

I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.

Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.

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. 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) or charges are superseded (as was the case with Tanq’s example).

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?

(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:  

(05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I don't mean to be coming off as a strong supporter of the New York law or even giving it a vigorous defense. I found the Alabama law repulsive and asked you why you found the New York law equally repulsive. I am trying to figure out why they law was put in place and what their reasoning was in terms of taking out the criminal repercussions.

Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.

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.

lad, if a someone stabbed a pregnant woman and cannot be tried for that harm to a fetus, do you *really* think there is some 'hidden provision' that allows a viable-pregnancy abortion to be charged? Knock yourself out looking for that provision. There is no reference at all in the NY codes to the newly created 2599A. Zero. It stands alone, and there is no portion of NY law that prescribes any penalty for that act. It just sits there in its own little space, like a smelly dirty kid that never washes his hair and has to eat by themself at lunch/playground.

Quote: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
act that resulted in a 'death' of a fetus aside from an allowed- abortion.

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.

(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:  

(05-20-2019 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Their reasoning was simple. To make actions like Gosnell's legal. There can be no other logical rationale.

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?

(05-22-2019 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Furthermore, NY law still defines a person as “a human being that has been born and is alive,”

Interesting, They define a person as a human being, with some qualifiers.

That implies that human beings who do not meet the qualifiers are not persons, but still human beings.

So a human being who is alive but not yet born is not a person.

Does this definition suffice for each of us? Is an unborn human being not a person?

It never occurred to me to define a human being as not a person. I know it has been done before - Nazis defined Jews as subhuman, slavery advocates defined blacks as not human, etc. Seems odd that a segment of our society would follow this path. Especially the segment that prides itself on protecting the weak and disadvantaged.

In some jurisdictions, killing a pregnant woman is considered a double murder.

I think the child is human from conception. But that does not mean I want to blanket ban abortion. It means the ethical principles are murky to me.

(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?

(05-22-2019 08:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Furthermore, NY law still defines a person as “a human being that has been born and is alive,”

Interesting, They define a person as a human being, with some qualifiers.

That implies that human beings who do not meet the qualifiers are not persons, but still human beings.

So a human being who is alive but not yet born is not a person.

Does this definition suffice for each of us? Is an unborn human being not a person?

It never occurred to me to define a human being as not a person. I know it has been done before - Nazis defined Jews as subhuman, slavery advocates defined blacks as not human, etc. Seems odd that a segment of our society would follow this path. Especially the segment that prides itself on protecting the weak and disadvantaged.

In some jurisdictions, killing a pregnant woman is considered a double murder.

I think the child is human from conception. But that does not mean I want to blanket ban abortion. It means the ethical principles are murky to me.

In the eyes of the law in New York (irrespective of this abortion law) they have defined a person as such, and yes, an unborn human in that case wouldn't be a human in the eyes of the law.

(05-22-2019 09:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 08:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Furthermore, NY law still defines a person as “a human being that has been born and is alive,”

Interesting, They define a person as a human being, with some qualifiers.

That implies that human beings who do not meet the qualifiers are not persons, but still human beings.

So a human being who is alive but not yet born is not a person.

Does this definition suffice for each of us? Is an unborn human being not a person?

It never occurred to me to define a human being as not a person. I know it has been done before - Nazis defined Jews as subhuman, slavery advocates defined blacks as not human, etc. Seems odd that a segment of our society would follow this path. Especially the segment that prides itself on protecting the weak and disadvantaged.

In some jurisdictions, killing a pregnant woman is considered a double murder.

I think the child is human from conception. But that does not mean I want to blanket ban abortion. It means the ethical principles are murky to me.

In the eyes of the law in New York (irrespective of this abortion law) they have defined a person as such, and yes, an unborn human in that case wouldn't be a human in the eyes of the law.

It would be a human, just not one born yet and therefore not a person. In New York, that is.

I don't give a FF about what the law in NY says. What does Lad say?
What does 93 say? Is an unborn baby human? Is it a person? If not, when does it become so - in your opinion, not NY's.

(05-22-2019 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 09:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 08:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Furthermore, NY law still defines a person as “a human being that has been born and is alive,”

Interesting, They define a person as a human being, with some qualifiers.

That implies that human beings who do not meet the qualifiers are not persons, but still human beings.

So a human being who is alive but not yet born is not a person.

Does this definition suffice for each of us? Is an unborn human being not a person?

It never occurred to me to define a human being as not a person. I know it has been done before - Nazis defined Jews as subhuman, slavery advocates defined blacks as not human, etc. Seems odd that a segment of our society would follow this path. Especially the segment that prides itself on protecting the weak and disadvantaged.

In some jurisdictions, killing a pregnant woman is considered a double murder.

I think the child is human from conception. But that does not mean I want to blanket ban abortion. It means the ethical principles are murky to me.

In the eyes of the law in New York (irrespective of this abortion law) they have defined a person as such, and yes, an unborn human in that case wouldn't be a human in the eyes of the law.

It would be a human, just not one born yet and therefore not a person. In New York, that is.

I don't give a FF about what the law in NY says. What does Lad say?
What does 93 say? Is an unborn baby human? Is it a person? If not, when does it become so - in your opinion, not NY's.

From a legal perspective, I think that definition makes sense. I also think it makes sense to start the definition at viability.

If it is different, you open up a whole host of legal issues that you are seeing play out in states where heartbeat bills are being introduced.

(05-22-2019 09:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 09:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 08:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Furthermore, NY law still defines a person as “a human being that has been born and is alive,”

Interesting, They define a person as a human being, with some qualifiers.

That implies that human beings who do not meet the qualifiers are not persons, but still human beings.

So a human being who is alive but not yet born is not a person.

Does this definition suffice for each of us? Is an unborn human being not a person?

It never occurred to me to define a human being as not a person. I know it has been done before - Nazis defined Jews as subhuman, slavery advocates defined blacks as not human, etc. Seems odd that a segment of our society would follow this path. Especially the segment that prides itself on protecting the weak and disadvantaged.

In some jurisdictions, killing a pregnant woman is considered a double murder.

I think the child is human from conception. But that does not mean I want to blanket ban abortion. It means the ethical principles are murky to me.

In the eyes of the law in New York (irrespective of this abortion law) they have defined a person as such, and yes, an unborn human in that case wouldn't be a human in the eyes of the law.

It would be a human, just not one born yet and therefore not a person. In New York, that is.

I don't give a FF about what the law in NY says. What does Lad say?
What does 93 say? Is an unborn baby human? Is it a person? If not, when does it become so - in your opinion, not NY's.

From a legal perspective, I think that definition makes sense. I also think it makes sense to start the definition at viability.

If it is different, you open up a whole host of legal issues that you are seeing play out in states where heartbeat bills are being introduced.

From the standpoint of what makes a human a human, I don't care about legal standpoints. The nazis used legal standpoints, as did the slave states. Laws can be used to deny rights.

My opinion is that they are human from the standpoint of conception. I am backed up by science on this. A cell sample at any point when tested in a lab will come back as human. Good enough for me.

When is it a person? I don't know. I guess that is more of a legal definition. As in the NY law, a person is defined as a human being who also meets other criteria.

Viability? That is a moving target. Is a baby viable on its own 3 months after birth? Leave it in the park for three weeks and see what happens. OTOH, early babies continue to push back the envelope. when I was young, a 6 month fetus was not viable. Now it is. And even earlier babies survive.

Viable or not, it is still human - just maybe not a person protected by law from other persons.