The problem 93, is in the way the phrase 'the health of the mother is threatened'.

The NY lawmakers *could* have rephrased that to 'the life', or even to 'the physical health'. Think about the differences.

Had they done either of those two I probably would be fine with that portion of the NY bill. But, 93, I hate to tell you that legally "words matter", both their *inclusion* and to their *exclusion*.

But, even worse, and fatal to the 'gee its okay' in its own right, follows.

The second issue is that the actual bill is worded in the positive:

Quote:A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI-
FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-
IN 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.

Their is no penalty for violating the 'allowance'. Again -- the state of New York has *zero* penalty for violating Section 2599. Lets get down and dirty -- New York has enacted a regime that has removed *all* civil and criminal liability for performing an abortion up until delivery.

So yes --- it is extremist as fk when you actually understand what it has put into place. And to be blunt, it is fking horrific.

In short, this bill allows what Kermit Gosnell did for years with zero penalty. Literally. Are you actually good with that? While there is a (not explicit but implicit) proscription against third term viable pregnancy abortions, a violation of that proscription has zero consequences -- either civilly or criminally.

No offense 93 -- read the bill and understand all of its implications before opining on it.