(05-17-2019 03:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 02:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 01:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  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.

Does it need to be a "massive uptick" for you to object? Some things are bad even in moderation.

I would certainly not be in favor of ANY level of increase in 3rd trimester abortions in healthy fetuses where the pregnant woman is not at risk.

As I understand it, the law is trying to make it so pregnant women in their 3rd trimester with nonviable fetuses or real threats to the woman's health can more easily obtain an abortion. Women dying due to complications of pregnancy is also bad even in moderation.

Then why not enact an exemption to the previous third semester abortion statute which says 'Abortions of non-viable fetuses are exempted.'?

Sorry '93, I really dont think how you 'understand it' tells the full story.

The NY Legislature could have put 'non-viable' into a penalty-bearing statute. They *chose* not to.

They could have exempted *non-viable* procedures into the then standing statute. They *chose* not to.

What they *did* choose to do is simply 'make third semester abortions' *far* easier to obtain overall *and* with *zero* punishment for a provider that violated the provision.

Your 'understanding' and what the actions of Legislature were, and what the previous law *was* are simply not on the same level.

I dont think you fully understand the impact of a law with *zero* civil or criminal penalties, nor what that zero penalty stance says about the full intent of Legislature.

The simple fact is the NY Legislature may have wanted easier access to non-viable and health complication their semester abortions -- what they did is make *any* and *all* third semester abortions okey dokey. The lack of a penalty speaks volumes about their true intent.