(05-17-2019 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 01:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='16102940' dateline='1558102278']
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.

As I read it, there have to be justifiable reasons for performing abortions beyond the second trimester. The justification will be made by the health care provider. If the provider is not meeting the standard care then their license to deliver care would presumably be revoked?

Not under the law in question. There is *no* penalty for violating the section. As in zero, nada, nilch. I find it great that you would welcome any penalty, I am glad you tap your slippers together three times and proffer one, but there is none. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

As for 'justifiable reasons', those reasons include the 'health of the mother'. Not 'physical health', but 'health'. Including 'mental health.' To be blunt, the 'mental health' exception is one that people can drive a fleet of 18 wheelers through for a justification rationale.

Quote:From what I've read, the point of changing the criminal aspect of performing an abortion was to bring this issue from under the umbrella of criminal law and putting it under the umbrella of public health law?

I personally think a 'Gosnell-type' abortion needs to have criminal penalties associated with it. Do you even know who Kermit Gosnell is and why I am referring to him?

[\quote]

yes

Quote:In short, under these provisions, Gosnell and his practices would be untouchable. Not only that but earlier this year the Queens DA pulled off the table a charge under the old 'viability standard' based on the change in law.

Quote:In February 2019, the Queens district attorney's office dropped a charge of second-degree abortion against a man who murdered his pregnant girlfriend, saying their ability to press the charge was repealed by the Reproductive Health Act.

Quote:I may be naive, but I just don't see any scenario where this legislation leads to a massive uptick in questionable abortions. Aborting a 3rd trimester fetus is very unusual and when it happens it is pretty closely scrutinized.

The problem is that this law *allows* literally the murder of a 8.99 month old viable pre-delivery infant. Even if it is 'closely scrutinized'. Being 'closely scrutinized' doesnt really help any viable fetus, does it?

I guess when the standard is 'closely scrutinized' then a law that *allows* and has zero penalty for its violation is okey dokey.

In that case, lets just make, say forcible rape subject to non-penalty bearing standards, since that too should be 'closely scrutinized'. Does that sound fun to you?

In short, this law shuts out *any* penalty for *any* abortion: from an RU-86 clump of cells-cide to as close as you can get for actual murder, to be blunt. I think where there is room in this law for someone like Kermit Gosnell (or the asswipe who knifed his pregnant girlfriend) to avoid not just jail time, but even a gd fine is wrong. Absolutely wrong.

So yes, I still stand by my 'horrific' standard for this law.

I get your opposition to the law as written. Would you be OK with it, then, if it said "physical health"?