New York State abortion bill now allows babies, At any point of pregnancy, to be aborted

[bilzfancy]

6 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

A nod to Planned Parenthood, who undoubtedly paid for the NY majority needed to pass the law to increase their customer base.

 

More money to PP = more money to the Dem campaign coffers. Think of all the fresh, young body parts they can sell.

 

Where are you PPP leftists? Share your joy with the rest of your party.

Doesn't PP get a lot of their funding from taxpayers?

[IDBillzFan]

2 minutes ago, bilzfancy said:

Even liberals have to be offended by this, what's next, euthanasia for the elderly because they've become a burden? 

 

They're not offended by this. They're overjoyed. They are all literally celebrating this. There is too much money slicing up babies for them to worry about ethics. Even the "Catholics."

[Gugny]

22 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

@Gugny. Try reading this. We can go back to class tomorrow, I'll let you know what time it'll begin. We can only hope you learn something from the better man (me).

 

Glad you missed the gleeful shoutbox lowIQ crowd this evening.

 

When I'm registered like you, we can compare our manhood.  Until then, I win, Gary Glitter.

[boyst]

Just now, Gugny said:

 

When I'm registered like you, we can compare our manhood.  Until then, I win, Gary Glitter.

I'm not registered, idiot.  Get yourself up to speed. You'd be amazed at how actually ***** perfect I am.

 

But, avoid the actual article. Avoid learning and intelligence. Continue on NPCGugny.  Your overlords Gov Coumo and Schumer love you.

[IDBillzFan]

Just now, bilzfancy said:

Doesn't PP get a lot of their funding from taxpayers?

 

Yes. We all pay for them to provide the abortions. And then they charge on top of that. That money goes straight to the Dem politician campaigns. They all but paid for Kamala Harris to get elected. They own her after she raided the house pf the guy who had undercover video of their body selling scheme.

[Q-baby!]

7 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Yes. We all pay for them to provide the abortions. And then they charge on top of that. That money goes straight to the Dem politician campaigns. They all but paid for Kamala Harris to get elected. They own her after she raided the house pf the guy who had undercover video of their body selling scheme.

Wow, that didn’t take long for you to go off on your evil dems crusade!! 

[row_33]

Reason 103,257 that Trump won

 

 

[KD in CA]

41 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

I'm not sure, but I know our local State Senator, Cathy Young, tried to sponsor an add-on bill that would exempt the situation, where a domestic violence victim lost the baby.

 

but the democrats said no.

 

 

.

 

Sorry, but battered women are far below abortion on the left wing pecking order.

[IDBillzFan]

4 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

Sorry, but battered women are far below abortion on the left wing pecking order.

 

Unless you beat the woman to abort the baby. The Democrats two-fer in NY. Now if they can just find a way to make money off it.

[KD in CA]

7 minutes ago, BigMcD said:

Wow, that didn’t take long for you to go off on your evil dems crusade!! 

 

So....you can’t refute anything in his post?

[Q-baby!]

4 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

So....you can’t refute anything in his post?

I don’t know. He didn’t post anything.

[KD in CA]

3 minutes ago, BigMcD said:

I don’t know. He didn’t post anything.

 

Yet you felt compelled to respond to his lack of posting?  Odd.

[TakeYouToTasker]

18 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

Sorry, but battered women are far below abortion on the left wing pecking order.

 

Which is ridiculous because battered women are delicious.

[Numark3]

Here is the actual text:

 

 

Quote

  Section  1.  Legislative intent. The legislature finds that comprehen-
sive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion,  is
a  fundamental  component of a woman's health, privacy and equality. The
New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect  a  woman's
fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion, courts have repeatedly
reaffirmed  this  right and further emphasized that states may not place
undue burdens on women seeking to access such right.
  Moreover, the legislature finds, as with other medical procedures, the
safety of abortion is furthered by  evidence-based  practices  developed
and  supported  by medical professionals; any regulation of medical care
must have a legitimate purpose. Abortion is one of  the  safest  medical
procedures  performed  in  the  United States; the goal of medical regu-
lation should be to improve the quality and availability of health  care
services.
  Furthermore,  the legislature declares that it is the public policy of
New York State that every individual possesses a  fundamental  right  of
privacy  and  equality with respect to their personal reproductive deci-
sions and should be able to safely effectuate those decisions, including
by seeking and obtaining abortion care, free from discrimination in  the
provision of health care.
  Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to prevent the enforce-
ment  of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate
state interest in protecting  a  woman's  health  that  burden  abortion
access.


  §  2. The public health law is amended by adding a new article 25-A to
read as follows:
                              ARTICLE 25-A
                         REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT
SECTION 2599-AA. ABORTION.
  § 2599-AA. ABORTION. 1. 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.
  2.  THIS  ARTICLE  SHALL  BE CONSTRUED AND APPLIED CONSISTENT WITH AND
SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE LAWS AND  APPLICABLE  AND  AUTHORIZED  REGULATIONS
GOVERNING HEALTH CARE PROCEDURES.


  § 3. Section 4164 of the public health law is REPEALED.


  § 4. Subdivision 8 of section 6811 of the education law is REPEALED.


  §  5.  Sections 125.40, 125.45, 125.50, 125.55 and 125.60 of the penal
law are REPEALED, and the article heading of article 125  of  the  penal
law is amended to read as follows:
                 HOMICIDE[, ABORTION] AND RELATED OFFENSES


  § 6. Section 125.00 of the penal law is amended to read as follows:
§ 125.00 Homicide defined.
  Homicide  means  conduct  which  causes  the  death of a person [or an
unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more  than  twen-
ty-four  weeks] under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in
the first degree, manslaughter  in  the  second  degree,  OR  criminally
negligent  homicide[,  abortion  in the first degree or self-abortion in
the first degree].


  § 7. The section heading,  opening  paragraph  and  subdivision  1  of
section 125.05 of the penal law are amended to read as follows:
  Homicide[,  abortion]  and  related  offenses;  [definitions of terms]
DEFINITION.
  The following [definitions are] DEFINITION IS applicable to this arti-
cle:
  [1.] "Person," when referring to the victim of  a  homicide,  means  a
human being who has been born and is alive.


  §  7-a.  Subdivisions  2  and 3 of section 125.05 of the penal law are
REPEALED.


  § 8. Subdivision 2 of section 125.15 of the penal law is REPEALED.


  § 9. Subdivision 3 of section 125.20 of the penal law is REPEALED.


  § 10. Paragraph (b) of subdivision 8 of section 700.05 of the criminal
procedure law, as amended by chapter 368 of the laws of 2015, is amended
to read as follows:
  (b) Any of the following felonies: assault in  the  second  degree  as
defined  in section 120.05 of the penal law, assault in the first degree
as defined in section 120.10 of the penal law, reckless endangerment  in
the  first degree as defined in section 120.25 of the penal law, promot-
ing a suicide attempt as defined in section 120.30  of  the  penal  law,
strangulation  in  the second degree as defined in section 121.12 of the
penal law, strangulation in the  first  degree  as  defined  in  section
121.13  of  the  penal  law, criminally negligent homicide as defined in
section 125.10 of the penal law, manslaughter in the  second  degree  as
defined  in  section  125.15 of the penal law, manslaughter in the first
degree as defined in section 125.20 of the  penal  law,  murder  in  the
second  degree  as defined in section 125.25 of the penal law, murder in
the first degree  as  defined  in  section  125.27  of  the  penal  law,
[abortion in the second degree as defined in section 125.40 of the penal
law,  abortion  in  the first degree as defined in section 125.45 of the
penal law,] rape in the third degree as defined in section 130.25 of the
penal law, rape in the second degree as defined in section 130.30 of the
penal law, rape in the first degree as defined in section 130.35 of  the
penal law, criminal sexual act in the third degree as defined in section
130.40  of  the  penal  law, criminal sexual act in the second degree as
defined in section 130.45 of the penal law, criminal sexual act  in  the
first degree as defined in section 130.50 of the penal law, sexual abuse
in  the  first  degree  as  defined  in section 130.65 of the penal law,
unlawful imprisonment in the first degree as defined in  section  135.10
of  the penal law, kidnapping in the second degree as defined in section
135.20 of the penal law, kidnapping in the first degree  as  defined  in
section 135.25 of the penal law, labor trafficking as defined in section
135.35  of  the  penal  law,  aggravated labor trafficking as defined in
section 135.37 of the penal law, custodial  interference  in  the  first
degree  as  defined  in section 135.50 of the penal law, coercion in the
first degree as defined in section 135.65 of  the  penal  law,  criminal
trespass  in  the first degree as defined in section 140.17 of the penal
law, burglary in the third degree as defined in section  140.20  of  the
penal law, burglary in the second degree as defined in section 140.25 of
the penal law, burglary in the first degree as defined in section 140.30
of  the  penal  law, criminal mischief in the third degree as defined in
section 145.05 of the penal law, criminal mischief in the second  degree
as  defined in section 145.10 of the penal law, criminal mischief in the
first degree as defined in section 145.12 of  the  penal  law,  criminal
tampering  in the first degree as defined in section 145.20 of the penal
law, arson in the fourth degree as defined  in  section  150.05  of  the
penal law, arson in the third degree as defined in section 150.10 of the
penal  law,  arson  in the second degree as defined in section 150.15 of
the penal law, arson in the first degree as defined in section 150.20 of
the penal law, grand larceny in the fourth degree as defined in  section
155.30 of the penal law, grand larceny in the third degree as defined in
section  155.35  of the penal law, grand larceny in the second degree as
defined in section 155.40 of the penal law, grand larceny in  the  first
degree  as defined in section 155.42 of the penal law, health care fraud
in the fourth degree as defined in section  177.10  of  the  penal  law,
health  care  fraud  in the third degree as defined in section 177.15 of
the penal law, health care fraud in the  second  degree  as  defined  in
section  177.20  of the penal law, health care fraud in the first degree
as defined in section 177.25 of the penal  law,  robbery  in  the  third
degree  as  defined  in  section 160.05 of the penal law, robbery in the
second degree as defined in section 160.10 of the penal law, robbery  in
the first degree as defined in section 160.15 of the penal law, unlawful
use  of  secret  scientific material as defined in section 165.07 of the
penal law, criminal possession of stolen property in the  fourth  degree
as  defined  in  section 165.45 of the penal law, criminal possession of 
stolen property in the third degree as defined in section 165.50 of  the
penal  law,  criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree
as defined by section 165.52 of the penal law,  criminal  possession  of
stolen  property in the first degree as defined by section 165.54 of the
penal law, trademark counterfeiting in the second degree as  defined  in
section  165.72  of the penal law, trademark counterfeiting in the first
degree as defined in section 165.73 of the penal  law,  forgery  in  the
second  degree as defined in section 170.10 of the penal law, forgery in
the first degree as defined in section 170.15 of the penal law, criminal
possession of a forged instrument in the second  degree  as  defined  in
section 170.25 of the penal law, criminal possession of a forged instru-
ment  in the first degree as defined in section 170.30 of the penal law,
criminal possession of forgery devices as defined in section  170.40  of
the  penal  law,  falsifying  business  records  in  the first degree as
defined in section 175.10  of  the  penal  law,  tampering  with  public
records  in  the  first degree as defined in section 175.25 of the penal
law, offering a false instrument for  filing  in  the  first  degree  as
defined  in section 175.35 of the penal law, issuing a false certificate
as defined in section 175.40 of the penal  law,  criminal  diversion  of
prescription  medications  and  prescriptions  in  the  second degree as
defined in section 178.20  of  the  penal  law,  criminal  diversion  of
prescription  medications  and  prescriptions  in  the  first  degree as
defined in section 178.25 of the penal law, residential  mortgage  fraud
in  the  fourth  degree  as  defined in section 187.10 of the penal law,
residential mortgage fraud in the third degree  as  defined  in  section
187.15 of the penal law, residential mortgage fraud in the second degree
as  defined  in  section  187.20  of the penal law, residential mortgage
fraud in the first degree as defined in section 187.25 of the penal law,
escape in the second degree as defined in section 205.10  of  the  penal
law,  escape  in  the  first  degree as defined in section 205.15 of the
penal law, absconding from temporary release  in  the  first  degree  as
defined  in section 205.17 of the penal law, promoting prison contraband
in the first degree as defined in  section  205.25  of  the  penal  law,
hindering  prosecution in the second degree as defined in section 205.60
of the penal law, hindering prosecution in the first degree  as  defined
in  section  205.65  of  the  penal  law,  sex trafficking as defined in
section 230.34 of the penal law, criminal possession of a weapon in  the
third  degree  as defined in subdivisions two, three and five of section
265.02 of the penal law, criminal possession of a weapon in  the  second
degree  as  defined  in  section  265.03  of  the  penal  law,  criminal
possession of a weapon in the first degree as defined in section  265.04
of  the penal law, manufacture, transport, disposition and defacement of
weapons and dangerous instruments and appliances defined as felonies  in
subdivisions  one,  two,  and  three of section 265.10 of the penal law,
sections 265.11, 265.12 and 265.13 of the penal law, or  prohibited  use
of  weapons as defined in subdivision two of section 265.35 of the penal
law, relating to firearms and other dangerous  weapons,  or  failure  to
disclose  the  origin  of  a recording in the first degree as defined in
section 275.40 of the penal law;



  § 11. Subdivision 1 of section 673 of the  county  law,  as  added  by
chapter 545 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows:
  1.  A  coroner  or  medical examiner has jurisdiction and authority to
investigate the death of every person dying within his county, or  whose
body is found within the county, which is or appears to be:
  (a)  A violent death, whether by criminal violence, suicide or casual-
ty;
  (b) A death caused by unlawful act or criminal neglect;
  (c) A death occurring in a suspicious, unusual or unexplained manner;
  (d) [A death caused by suspected criminal abortion;
  (e)] A death while unattended by a physician, so far as can be discov-
ered,  or  where  no  physician  able  to  certify the cause of death as
provided in the public health law and  in  form  as  prescribed  by  the
commissioner of health can be found;
  [(f)]  (E)  A death of a person confined in a public institution other
than a hospital, infirmary or nursing home.



  § 12. Section 4 of the judiciary law, as amended by chapter 264 of the
laws of 2003, is amended to read as follows:
  § 4. Sittings of courts to be public.  The  sittings  of  every  court
within  this  state shall be public, and every citizen may freely attend
the same, except that  in  all  proceedings  and  trials  in  cases  for
divorce,  seduction,  [abortion,]  rape,  assault  with intent to commit
rape, criminal sexual act, bastardy or filiation, the court may, in  its
discretion,  exclude  therefrom  all persons who are not directly inter-
ested therein, excepting jurors, witnesses, and officers of the court.



  § 13. This act shall take effect immediately.

 

 

 

So I only skimmed this and I don't get the outrage.  It strips criminal punishments for abortion-related stuff, okay that's fine.  That's not what you all are chirping about.

 

But now it adds late-term abortions based on the viability of the fetus or the health of the woman.  Where are you getting it that they can now kill a baby right before delivery for no reason...?  Now an abortion can be done late term, but under only two scenarios.  Unless I am missing something, which please tell me!

 

 

EDIT:  I get that if you are pro-life you would be upset at this, but there isn't anything ghoulish or radical about this law.  

Edited January 24, 2019 by Crayola64

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, Bray Wyatt said:

Question - so if a pregnant lady is murdered does that mean a guy can’t be charged with two counts of murder now? (Not that that’s an important part of this, just wondering if that not a live until born could have other implications)

 

Never could in NY.

[Q-baby!]

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Which is ridiculous because battered women are delicious.

But they are not as tender. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

Here is the actual text:

 

 

 

 

So I only skimmed this and I don't get the outrage.  It strips criminal punishments for abortion-related stuff, okay that's fine.  That's not what you all are chirping about.

 

But now it adds late-term abortions based on the viability of the fetus or the health of the woman.  Where are you getting it that they can now kill a baby right before delivery for no reason...?  Now an abortion can be done late term, but under only two scenarios.  Unless I am missing something, which please tell me!

 

"Health" isn't defined within the law to any degree of exclusivity, which makes in entirely subjective; which means it will be defined as broadly as possible upon interpretation because there were no legal limits placed on a broad definition.

 

As to late term abortions for physical health reasons?  There is no reason to kill a viable baby for the physical health of the mother.  The baby is viable so you deliver it.  This equally protects the life of the mother, and doesn't result in the unnecessary death of an infant.

Edited January 24, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker

[Numark3]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

"Health" isn't defined within the law to any degree of exclusivity, which makes in entirely subjective; which means it will be defined as broadly as possible upon interpretation because there were no legal limits placed on a broad definition[/quote].

 

As to late term abortions for physical health reasons?  There is no reason to kill a viable baby for the physical health of the mother.  The baby is viable so you deliver it.  This equally protects the life of the mother, and doesn't result in the unnecessary death of an infant.

 

No no no.  You are conflating the two scenarios.

 

First, a late-term abortion can be done for if "there is an absence of fetal viability," as determined by a "practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment."  Two, a late-term abortion can be done if it is to protect the patient's life or health, as determined by a "practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment."

 

 

So a practitioner must determine, in the professional judgment, if one of those scenarios apply.  And of course it is subjective, nor would health ever be defined in this context.  We let doctors make these determinations, we do not let legislators define what these two scenarios are.  

 

If you are contesting that a late-term abortion can never be done to protect the health of the patient, then you are suggesting a medical practitioner could never find scenario 2 applicable.  But, no offense, I am going to trust a doctor's judgment on that, not yours...?  

 

 

The suggestion that a healthy fetus can be killed minutes before birth, at the whim of the woman, is false.  

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Crayola64

[Numark3]

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

Apologists will argue that the new law only makes late-term abortion legal in cases where it will save the mother's life. The problem with this argument is that it is false on every conceivable level. First, the law allows for abortions to protect the woman's life "and health." What does "health" mean? Well, anything. The law conspicuously avoids defining the term. It seems that any kind of health concern would qualify — physical health, emotional health, psychological health, financial health.

 

The point is that the "life and health" stipulation will not effectively prevent any woman from getting an abortion for any reason at any time.

 

 

This is false.  One, health would never be defined in any context like this when it comes to a practitioner making medical decisions.  Two, it cannot be used for a woman to "get an abortion for any reason at any time," It requires a medical practitioner to determine the abortion is neccessary to protect her life or health.  A practitioner would never do that based on emotional/financial health, give me a break.  When we make laws like this in the united states, we trust that our doctors will comply with thier rules.  It is a self-regulated profession.  When your argument against a law is, essentially, that doctor will not comply with it, then you are complaining about doctors, not the actual law.  

 

Quote

 

Second, late-term abortion is never necessary to protect a woman's life or health. No late-term abortion has ever been committed for the sake of saving a woman's life. It has never happened and will never happen.

 

I repeat: there is never any circumstance, ever, where a late-term abortion is medically necessary. It could be necessary, in the case of some kind of cataclysmic complication, to remove the child from his mother's womb. But it is never necessary to kill the child before removing him. There is no medical reason to take that extra step of preemptively killing the child.

 

 

 

Um you have to cite this.  You are essentially saying that a doctor can never make the medical determination that an abortion is needed to protect a woman's life or health.  

 

 

EDIT: Something else I will note is that these two scenarios likely go hand-in-hand: a fetus is not going to be viable, and carrying it to term will be a danger to a mother's life.  If you're angry at the second scenario, it's just the other side of the coin.  

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Crayola64

[B-Man]

19 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

 

This is false.  One, health would never be defined in any context like this when it comes to a practitioner making medical decisions. 

 

Two, it cannot be used for a woman to "get an abortion for any reason at any time," It requires a medical practitioner to determine the abortion is neccessary to protect her life or health.  A practitioner would never do that based on emotional/financial health, give me a break.  When we make laws like this in the united states, we trust that our doctors will comply with thier rules.  It is a self-regulated profession.  When your argument against a law is, essentially, that doctor will not comply with it, then you are complaining about doctors, not the actual law.  

 

 

 

No it is Not.

 

if a health-care practitioner deems it necessary for the mother’s life or health — the exception that was defined in Roe companion case Doe v. Bolton as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” In other words, abortion will be available to women essentially on demand up to the point of birth.

 

Quote

  A practitioner would never do that based on emotional/financial health, give me a break. 

 

No.

 

Your are being undeniably naive 

 

I have 4 decades of Hospital experience

 

Quote

 

 

When your argument against a law is, essentially, that doctor will not comply with it, then you are complaining about doctors, not the actual law.  

 

 

They are obeying the law, it is written vaguely on purpose, so that terminating the pregnancy can ALWAYS be justified,

while letting a risky pregnancy go to term is the feared outcome.

 

 

 

. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by B-Man

[Numark3]

7 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

No it is Not.

 

if a health-care practitioner deems it necessary for the mother’s life or health — the exception that was defined in Roe companion case Doe v. Bolton as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” In other words, abortion will be available to women essentially on demand up to the point of birth.

 

 

No.

 

Your are being undeniably naive 

 

I have 4 decades of Hospital experience

2

 

Yes, as they relate to health (but certainly not financial, that was where my annoyance came from, that is ridiculous).

 

Oh and really, you have seen a late-term abortion determination made based on the financial health of a woman (let's not pull the experience card on this issue, when it really doesn't get to the point at all.  I too have experience working with doctors, and specifically as to their medical judgments)?  I am naive for thinking that is ridiculous, and even if it happened, would be beyond rare and an anomaly...

 

 

Sorry, but this law requires a medical determination that it is necessary for the woman's life (or a lack of viability of the fetus).  There is nothing inherently ridiculous about that.  If you think there are doctors who will allow late term abortions based on financial concerns, then that's on you.  In my opinion, that's near a conspiracy level.  

Edited January 24, 2019 by Crayola64

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, BigMcD said:

Wow, that didn’t take long for you to go off on your evil dems crusade!! 

 

Prove me wrong. 

 

Does Planned Parenthood receive US taxpayer money?

 

Does that money not allow them to perform abortions?

 

Do they not also charge to perform abortions?

 

Do they not also fund Dem campaigns?

 

Did Kamala Harris not collude with Planned Parenthood to raid the house of David Daleiden? Did that not lead to PP buying her election to the Senate?

 

C'mon. Prove me wrong. Support your argument. If I'm really just on a crusade, even a freaking Canadian could prove me wrong.

 

We'll wait.

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, bilzfancy said:

Doesn't PP get a lot of their funding from taxpayers?

Yes.  About 41% comes from federal grants and reinbursements (medicaid, title x), but that money can't be used towards abortions.  They get the rest from patients private insurance companies and private donations. 

 

The abortion rate in the US is the lowest since Roe v. Wade and teen pregnancy is at the lowest level ever recorded.  A lot of that has do to access to contraceptives and increased sex education for young people which planned parenthood provides.  The argument is since PP still uses 3% of their budget on abortion services, should it receive federal funding even if that funding isn't being used for abortions?  Just given these statistics, I can't justify defunding it at a federal level as it saves taxpayers money in the long run.

[row_33]

With RBG almost done they are shoring up this right against any SCOTUS decision, but the Top 3 states by volume, NY being one, already have safeguarded this no matter what happens.

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

5 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

 

Sorry, but this law requires a medical determination that it is necessary for the woman's life (or a lack of viability of the fetus).  There is nothing inherently ridiculous about that.  If you think there are doctors who will allow late term abortions based on financial concerns, then that's on you.  In my opinion, that's near a conspiracy level.  

 

You know what they say about opinions.

 

"Oh but doctor, my mental health won't allow me to care for this baby!"

 

" Well, fair enough, Susie! Let me go get my forceps."

 

Quote

"Person," when referring to the victim of  a  homicide,  means  a
human being who has been born and is alive.

 

 

THIS is problematic. So, a genetically unique individual in his or her mother's womb is not REALLY a person.

 

Really.

 

To whom does this "reproductive justice" apply, exactly? Certainly not the baby. The mother? Not so sure, either.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Joe in Winslow

[boyst]

@Gugnyclass will begin in a few hours. Read up so you can account for your belief this is a good thing and understand this is part of the American genocide of the lower class and minorities.

 

[Q-baby!]

6 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Prove me wrong. 

 

Does Planned Parenthood receive US taxpayer money?

 

Does that money not allow them to perform abortions?

 

Do they not also charge to perform abortions?

 

Do they not also fund Dem campaigns?

 

Did Kamala Harris not collude with Planned Parenthood to raid the house of David Daleiden? Did that not lead to PP buying her election to the Senate?

 

C'mon. Prove me wrong. Support your argument. If I'm really just on a crusade, even a freaking Canadian could prove me wrong.

 

We'll wait.

Links? Make sure you prove how the abortion money goes straight into dems campaigns and prove the undoubtedly part as well. 

 

How many millions are we talking about? How about 2018 for example? Surely we must be talking NRA type money for you to be this outraged? 

 

Oh yeah and ***** you from Canada. 

 

 

48 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

@Gugnyclass will begin in a few hours. Read up so you can account for your belief this is a good thing and understand this is part of the American genocide of the lower class and minorities.

 

Hey, less Mericans is a good thing! 

Edited January 24, 2019 by BigMcD

[Gugny]

18 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

@Gugnyclass will begin in a few hours. Read up so you can account for your belief this is a good thing and understand this is part of the American genocide of the lower class and minorities.

 

 

I've not said once how I feel about this new law.  You can run to PPP and Breitbart to find out what to say in the shoutbox, but they won't be able to tell you my stance on this, or any, topic.

 

You've gotten schooled by multiple people over the last few weeks in the shoutbox.  It's been entertaining and I look forward to the next episode.

 

I'll give you a preview:

 

• You'll go into the shoutbox, in which the discussion is not about politics at that time.
• You'll say something about either don or Hillary Clinton.
• A controversial topic will come up.
• You'll speak very confidently, as if you have an ounce of a clue as to what you're talking about.
• Someone in the shoutbox actually WILL know about that topic and call you out on it.
• You'll respond with names, or reminding us who lives in the white house.
• Then you'll disappear for about an hour.   We like to call this, "Boyst's homework time," which means you're googling and going to PPP trying to "educate yourself."
• Armed with half of the facts, you'll re-enter the shoutbox.
• You'll get schooled again, but (this is my favorite part) you'll claim, "victory," and leave.

 

Even though I know this is how it will play out (it always does), it's still very fun to watch go down.

[GG]

I'm guessing Rae Carruth is now looking for a home in NYS?

[Tiberius]

Oh boy, where was all this outrage when children were (still are) being warehoused at the border? 

 

Or when Trump tried to send real live, already born, asylum seekers back to death in the country they ran away from? 

 

 

[boyst]

57 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I've not said once how I feel about this new law.  You can run to PPP and Breitbart to find out what to say in the shoutbox, but they won't be able to tell you my stance on this, or any, topic.

 

You've gotten schooled by multiple people over the last few weeks in the shoutbox.  It's been entertaining and I look forward to the next episode.

 

I'll give you a preview:

 

• You'll go into the shoutbox, in which the discussion is not about politics at that time.
• You'll say something about either don or Hillary Clinton.
• A controversial topic will come up.
• You'll speak very confidently, as if you have an ounce of a clue as to what you're talking about.
• Someone in the shoutbox actually WILL know about that topic and call you out on it.
• You'll respond with names, or reminding us who lives in the white house.
• Then you'll disappear for about an hour.   We like to call this, "Boyst's homework time," which means you're googling and going to PPP trying to "educate yourself."
• Armed with half of the facts, you'll re-enter the shoutbox.
• You'll get schooled again, but (this is my favorite part) you'll claim, "victory," and leave.

 

Even though I know this is how it will play out (it always does), it's still very fun to watch go down.

Bullet points make it fun.

 

I don't go to Breitbart. In fact, the first time I've know myself to go there was yesterday when news.google had an article I thought was interesting and lead me there.  

 

I of course approach this with confidence - like I do anything. And the shoutbox is full of idiots who really just spout off at the mouth with no intellectual premise or anything beyond emotions. Shady, Mike, flaz, many are of this ilk. Their low denominator conversations are of rhetoric that is #orangemanbad and NPC filters that do not actually have resonance beyond the already obvious #orangemanbad and saying mean and stupid things.  It's immature.

 

No one has made an effort to actually pose an argument. Hopeful attempted and was as intellectually dishonest as it can be with strawmen and red herring arguments that were absurd.

 

Whoever "we" is can say all they want as I deal with responsibilities that take me away from my mobile to resolve issues at work, go about my life, and do things which better myself to be the better person than you and the shoutbox denizens of low merit.

 

And, you'd have a point that I Google things but, as I am sure youre thinking after I read this: I don't cite *****. In fact - I tell others to and no one does.

 

And my leaving "drop the mic" ***** is just to get under your skin and others and it works.  It's usually when I leave to go home from work, I'm at the gym for a few hours, banging my girlfriend, or going to sleep... Or any number of interests which disengage me from the internets.

 

Now, I'll drop the mic and ask you to state your case on why I was wrong about this horrible law your ***** state passed to kill people.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

37 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Oh boy, where was all this outrage when children were (still are) being warehoused at the border? 

 

Or when Trump tried to send real live, already born, asylum seekers back to death in the country they ran away from? 

 

 

Alternate Facts.    Get with the MAGA program.  

 

Can I add  - 

Homeless Americans (some former military) are dying of hypothermia and drug related issues on the streets.

 

$5 billion will go a long way to help saving some lives. 

13 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

1) And the shoutbox is full of idiots who really just spout off at the mouth with no intellectual premise or anything beyond emotions. Shady, Mike, flaz, many are of this ilk.

 

2) And, you'd have a point that I Google things but, as I am sure youre thinking after I read this: I don't cite *****. In fact - I tell others to and no one does.

1) The Alpha male has spoken. 

All bow down to his intelligence. 

Speaking of intelligence in the Shout Box....   Why would anyone openly admit in the shout box that they are a Felon?  

 

I often find that people that have to brag that they are superior are often inferior.  JMO.  

 

2)  You claimed the shutdown doesn't effect the local and State gov't.  I provided you with a story that proved otherwise.  I never got a response.

 

Why don't you state your point and not get into insulting other for their thoughts and ideals.  Life would be so much simpler.  

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by ShadyBillsFan

[Bray Wyatt]

8 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Never could in NY.

 

Didnt know that, thanks for the info 

[The_Dude]

Liberals, like this monster  LOVE abortions.  

[boyst]

23 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Alternate Facts.    Get with the MAGA program.  

 

Can I add  - 

Homeless Americans (some former military) are dying of hypothermia and drug related issues on the streets.

 

$5 billion will go a long way to help saving some lives. 

1) The Alpha male has spoken. 

All bow down to his intelligence. 

Speaking of intelligence in the Shout Box....   Why would anyone openly admit in the shout box that they are a Felon?  

 

I often find that people that have to brag that they are superior are often inferior.  JMO.  

 

2)  You claimed the shutdown doesn't effect the local and State gov't.  I provided you with a story that proved otherwise.  I never got a response.

 

Why don't you state your point and not get into insulting other for their thoughts and ideals.  Life would be so much simpler.  

 

$5b is what you're worried about when it's literally nothing in the budget. That so much more is wasted and this is your focus because... Wait for it... #orangemanbad.

 

And because it's common knowledge. And it's laughable. There are PM's about it frequently among the gossip groups here. It's a sign of immaturity.  I don't judge myself or care about the viewpoints of others who wish to judge me, more importantly.  Why should I?  I'm better than that ... And them.  Guggies is one of those I'm better than.

 

And, trust me, the schtick I'm superior is just for ***** and giggles. 

 

Anyway, your feelings are what you focus on... So to your fact statement

 

It will make many agencies hurt.  I don't remember your article. Meaning I never saw it or it was a moot point of information that isn't anything more than propoganda.  If we are relying on federal workers to get the job done and they're not I say we go private. Let them get real world jobs.  Let them not take advantage of tax payer waste and I bet that $5b would come back quick.

 

I don't insult anyone. I provide colorful verbage in response to inadequate commotion.  You, several others lack any objectional basis to actually provide insight because you despise Trump and are emboldened in your beliefs. It's sad. And when the shoutbox is littered with "waawaa Trump did bad things" all day it's only fun and fair to poke back.  Guess y'all can't take it??‍♂️

[Tiberius]

Late term abortions if health of mother or baby is like a MAGA baby and basically not viable 

[BringBackOrton]

10 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

No matter what your view is on abortion, you shouldn't be cheering any pro abortion law like what was reported.

Why are you so ***** reasonable?

[BringBackOrton]

9 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

 

No no no.  You are conflating the two scenarios.

 

First, a late-term abortion can be done for if "there is an absence of fetal viability," as determined by a "practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment."  Two, a late-term abortion can be done if it is to protect the patient's life or health, as determined by a "practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment."

 

 

So a practitioner must determine, in the professional judgment, if one of those scenarios apply.  And of course it is subjective, nor would health ever be defined in this context.  We let doctors make these determinations, we do not let legislators define what these two scenarios are.  

 

If you are contesting that a late-term abortion can never be done to protect the health of the patient, then you are suggesting a medical practitioner could never find scenario 2 applicable.  But, no offense, I am going to trust a doctor's judgment on that, not yours...?  

 

 

The suggestion that a healthy fetus can be killed minutes before birth, at the whim of the woman, is false.  

 

I can’t think of a single situation in which a fetus would have to be murdered before being delivered to protect a woman’s physical health. 

[boyst]

2 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

I can’t think of a single situation in which a fetus would have to be murdered before being delivered to protect a woman’s physical health. 

What do you have against women?

[Tiberius]

9 hours ago, Crayola64 said:

Here is the actual text:

 

 

 

 

So I only skimmed this and I don't get the outrage.  It strips criminal punishments for abortion-related stuff, okay that's fine.  That's not what you all are chirping about.

 

But now it adds late-term abortions based on the viability of the fetus or the health of the woman.  Where are you getting it that they can now kill a baby right before delivery for no reason...?  Now an abortion can be done late term, but under only two scenarios.  Unless I am missing something, which please tell me!

 

 

EDIT:  I get that if you are pro-life you would be upset at this, but there isn't anything ghoulish or radical about this law.  

The moral outrage is all theatre. The right wing doesn't give a snap about fetuses or anything. They are just latching onto this issue (which I get a lot of other people truly care about) to try and get some moral high ground which they totally lack on almost every other issue. The are pro-life but anti-healthcare, they are pro-life but want to take away asylum seekers rights, they are pro-life but want to put the squeeze on children getting public assistance. Donald Trump is now pro-life, I mean give me a break