New York legalizes infanticide

Why should we trust New York abortion doctors to make an extremely limited and conservative "rational" definition of "health" effects? There are numerous abortion activist doctors out there performing these types of abortions before this law, and now all of a sudden we are supposed to "trust abortion doctors" to be rational?

This is an excellent point as well. It seems obvious to me that the point of the bill was to make a late term abortion easier to get and it's really weird to me that people are disagreeing with that

Like you said over 10 times, if the old law was sufficient for rational health reasons, why make a change in the law?

If you enjoy comedy, this guy has a few words to say about this new law.

And again - you confuse the meaning of “Risk to the mothers health” to be “any impact on mothers health” - that’s just nonsense, and you keep repeating this error over and over again in response to me pointing out that out.

You're claims that this would lead to abortion on demand is nonsense - and based on this dishonest portrayal: the pretence that any event could be semantically haggled to allow the abortion - which it can not.

These types of abortions are already pretty rare, and it’s likely not going to materially effect the number of these types of abortions as a result based on the existing exemptions.

I presented a very specific example of an example - which you ignored, even when I pointed out several times - a page or so back, and I asked you about 5 times to provide a plausible and realistic example of how you feel it sould

be abused - and silence.

Sure, here is how it would be abused: any late term abortion being allowed for one of the following: all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age 

As I suspected, your interpretation of the bill is wrong for demonstrable reasons that I hope you will read and at least think about; because you are now the second person I've seen have something approximating emotional outrage in response to this particular bill.  

This is the bill:

While I grant you that this is one of the broadest protections for the right to an abortion in the country, there is absolutely nothing here to indicate that late term abortion was unambiguously legalized.  I have read a lot of the news nonsense from the right, including the most inept analysis of the same from the so called Christian Broadcasting Network, and the universe of all outrage seems to emanate from basic ignorance of what constitutes "reasonable and good faith professional judgment" in addition to what it means to be "necessary" to protect a "patient's life or health".  

It is true that an abortion may be performed where a licensed person competent to make a reasonable and good faith professional judgment deems an abortion necessary to protect a patient's health, but it is not at all the case that emotional anxiety or stress (as you and others seem to mistakenly believe) would be enough to satisfy the criteria of "necessary" to protect "a patient's ... health".

Given that we're in NY, NY state law would apply as to what counts for being "necessary" to protect "a patient's ... health"; not vague or free floating notions of "health" as generally construed by, among others, the easily agitated right wing.  From a facial reading alone, the (frivolous) interpretation that "emotional stress" would be enough to pass that test is rendered obviously false, because that would not be a good faith professional decision.  It would be judgment made in bad faith, which would expose someone performing that abortion to at least professional sanctions if not criminal liability.  

NY State Law has interpreted the meaning of that language pretty consistently since the 1970s; and while the caselaw does not specify every specific case in which abortion would be legal if performed after 24 weeks or the point of medical viability, the conditions under which a late term abortion would be necessary to protect a patient's health is not changed for late term versus pre-viability abortions. 

Generally, what it means to be "necessary" to protect a patient's health requires at the very least: (a) an identifiable medical (not psychiatric or psychological) condition; (b) that places a woman's physical health in danger; (c) in ways that would result in irreversible harm; (d) if the pregnancy were allowed to be carried to term. 

An example of that would be peripartum cardiomyopathy, which is a weakness of the heart muscle that by definition begins sometime during the final month of pregnancy through about five months after delivery, without any other known cause.  This is a condition that, if it were to develop in the final month of pregnancy, could very likely result in a mother's (and child's death).  

But, what does it mean to be "necessary" to protect a mother's health?  It means that the abortion must be performed and there are no other alternatives, like induced labor.  So, if you had a woman pregnant at 24 weeks who presented to a hospital with signs and symptoms of peripartum cardiomyopathy, and she asked for an abortion, what are the options? 

At 24 weeks the fetus isn't only a fetus anymore; it's medically viable, with the implication that labor CAN be induced which would likely ameliorate the threat to a woman's life presented by peripartum cardiomyopathy.  So, that means that an abortion performed at 24 weeks was NOT necessary to protect the woman's health; which means that such a late term abortion would NOT be permitted under NY State law. 

I use peripartum cardiomyopathy as a baseline example because it's not a trivial -- but in fact a quite serious -- medical condition.  It's more serious than pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, and a variety of other third-trimester and/or late term medical complications that can be life threatening.  But, even then, if there IS an alternative to abortion, that means that an abortion is NOT necessary to protect health. 

I read a sadding statistic that if you are a black fetus, you have a greater chance of being aborted than being born if you happen to be alive in New York.

Why was the old law insufficient for rational health reasons?

This is the only relevant portion in your wall of text. As I've said repeatedly, our rulers on the Supreme Court have made it clear that "health" in the context of abortion means the following: "All factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age." It says nothing about your interpretation about what constitutes medical necessity. 

Give me an example of a case where late term abortion would be morally justified that was prohibited by the previous bill. The entire point of this legislation was to increase access to late term abortion, don't really see why everyone is arguing against that. 

You obviously didn't read; for if you did, you would have gotten the point, which you are certainly capable of doing.

The criteria is "necessary" to protect a patient's health.  That means that the abortion must be performed in order to avoid a risk to health; because there are no non-abortive alternatives.

The mere fact that a mother's health might be protected if an abortion were performed does not mean that the abortion was "necessary".

So, if you want to be outraged over something that is objectively and verifiably wrong; by all means, but your interpretation that this bill legalizes infanticide is provably wrong. 

And the definition of health is "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age"

So if a woman makes it very clear that having a live baby and giving it up for adoption would harm her mental health, by the standards you yourself laid out the abortion would be permitted. The entire point of the bill was to liberalize the abortion law.

What is an example of a late term abortion that would be morally justified but that was not allowed by the previous law? If you cannot think of any, what was the point of the new law if not to increase access to abortion?

Why was the old law insufficient for rational health reasons?

Because it is the mothers choice, not yours or any immoral trumpanzees who keept attempting to stick their immoral noses *v* into a pregnant woman body business.

Read my lips/text, and get your friggin nose out of their body business, that you have not any moral right to impose on any pregnant woman.What a sad :--(  lack of moral integrity.

Here is a photo of a hybrid Franken-Trumpanzee. https://www.debate.org/Greyparrot/ Do they look pregnant to you?

Why was the old law insufficient for rational health reasons?

The change is in the criteria for what kind of a threat is necessary to permit a late term abortion; whereas before, a threat to the mother's life in which an abortion was necessary to deal with the threat was required, now, a threat to health where the abortion is necessary to deal with the threat is enough.

Here is an example:

Before this law, if a late term pregnancy at, say, 23 weeks could be induced were the only risk to the mother in conducting that procedure was permanent disability (such as irreversible brain damage from an eclampsia associated stroke), but it was more likely than not that the woman would still live even if it was more likely than not that she would be brain dead for the rest of her life; a late term abortion would still be illegal.

After this law, a late term pregnancy can be terminated after the point of viability where the alternatives to abortion would expose the woman to a threat of something less than death, such as permanent brain damage, as I have described above.  

Seems fair legally. It's too bad there is no legal language saying late term abortion should be used as a last resort after live birth is ruled out.

Again, for the 4729175th time, you are being deliberately dishonest.

The key is Risk to the woman’s health: this requires there to be a Risk to the woman’s health. The mere presence of physical, emotional, psychological, familiar or ages issues are not in and of themselves a risk to the woman’s health. You’re argument is that situations that no rational human being would ever consider as a risk to a woman’s health will be considered to be risks to a woman’s health - because you are repeatedly and dishonestly confusing the criteria and that may be considered with whether the severity and Impact are sufficient to be a risk to the woman’s health. 

I feel I have to put “risk to a mothers health in bold”, because you appear not to understand what that is. if a rational human being wouldn’t consider it a risk to a woman’s health - it’s not going to be legal.

So again, can you quit trying to stoke your own outrage, stop triggering yourself on semantic insanity and actually try and apply a rudimentary understanding of basic concepts here. It will serve you greatly.

I hope you’re right. YYW and I had a long private conversation about this. I still believe I’m right about the law but it’s possible that my knee jerk reaction was wrong, and I really really hope it was 

Your interpretation is less wrong than Thett's, but the law is clear in terms of what it says.

It is not only that there be a risk to a woman's health, but that where the abortion would otherwise be illegal (e.g., post-viability, and/or post-24 weeks); but that alleviation of the risk by means of a late-term post-viability abortion be necessary (meaning that there is not another non-abortive alternative). 

This is significant because in the past, where the only risk was to health AND NOT to LIFE, even if abortion was the only option, it would have still been illegal under the prior law. 

Consequently, there is a greater restriction to abortion even than you are interpreting there to be.  Presumably the law was written that way to make it seem like the law was going further than it was.  But, it's not. 

After reading over this thread, and doing so in the context of having already read over a bunch of nonsense from the evangelical right, and more nonsense from other people; it appears to me that -- while the meaning is obvious to me -- that meaning is not obvious to a majority of the people who seem to have opinions about the law. 

Perhaps it is unreasonable of me to expect lay people to be able to read laws; but again, I think that once explained, most should be able to understand it.  I know thett certainly is; as are many others, some of whom have posted in this thread interpretations not consistent with what reality is. 

Do you know Dr. Shaym?  You remind me of him.

I don't disagree that the late-term abortion process could be labeled as barbaric. I would still have qualms about limiting it to the 24 week statute, and limiting abortion in general. I don't care much for the explosive rhetoric that political pundits are dispensing. Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that the people who are burdened most by limitations on abortion law would be poor people. This peer-reviewed study from the American Journal of Public Health sums up my point excellently:

"Turnaway–births’ (people who were denied an abortion or 'turned-away') average household income was at 110% of the FPL compared with 144% among near limits (near limits presented for abortion up to 2 weeks under the facility’s gestational age limit and obtained wanted abortions) at 6 months with 61% of turnaway–births and 45% of near limits below the FPL. At 6 months, turnaway–births had almost 4-times-higher odds of being below the FPL (AOR = 3.77; 95% CI = 1.96, 7.25), a difference that persisted through 4 years" (1)

Perhaps this study is not a good representation of actual abortion data, but I would be willing to bet that people who were turned way, and then subsequently birthed a child, were more likely to be strapped for cash in caring for the child. The foster care system is overwhelmed, and unlikely to provide much restitution for the children. The opiod crisis, which has contributed to a significant rise in adult drug abuse, led to many being placed in the system, overburdening the system as there are nearly a half-million children in foster care (2). Moreover, abuse is common within foster care families. The US Committee on Finance probed one of the most successful for-profit foster care centers called MENTORS. They found that over a 10 year period, over 80 kids died in their facilities. Only 13 were investigated. Also, pending autopsies were excluded from internal reports, and there were documented cases in which the foster care system placed children in the homes of past-kidnappers and drug offenders (3) (4). Adding to this, a disproportionate amount of people in foster care end up being homeless, or behind bars (5).

I don't think a child growing up in a household living in impoverished circumstances would turn out any better. Regardless, you stated that there was no reason that a child should not be placed within the foster care system as opposed to being aborted. Actually, more parents are giving up babies for abortion. Actually, more infants are landing themselves in foster are systems. In 2016, nearly 20% of new foster care children were babies (2). This may not be because of abortion at all, but I figured I should mention it.

Also, abortion rates are generally falling in the US (6). Reasons for this includes an increase in the use of effective birth control (7), and unintended pregnancies being less likely to be aborted (8).

I seem to have not worded this carefully enough in my previous post. I can see why people would describe the practice as barbaric, but I do not see this having wide-spread impacts to the point that people have abortions for emotional reasons. Given the social stigma against women who have abortions, it seems that psychological issues afterwards would outweigh any emotional issues that a woman would have. Also, as clearly shown, economic reasons seem to be a chief concern for those that abort. 

The SCOTUS precedent may protect the right to have an abortion for emotional reasons, but it is usually up to the individual judge as to what that pertains. Minor emotional damage could, in come cases, could be completely ignored. In fact, as thett repeatedly cited:

"We agree with the District Court, 319 F.Supp. at 1058, that the medicaljudgment may be exercised in the light of all factors --physical, emotional,psychological, familial, and the womanʹs age -- relevant to the wellbeing ofthe patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attendingphysician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it isroom that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnantwoman."

We aren't just considering emotional or physical damage, but all damage. This allows the physician to make a better medical decision. If a case of a wrongful abortion, or abortion-on-demand, went to court, then it would be up to the judge presiding over the case to see what qualifies as legitimate emotional damage, and what does not. The person who chooses federal judges happens to be President Trump. Another barrier that prevents abortion-on-demand would be the provider simply refusing to perform an abortion. New York as well as 44 other states allow providers to refuse access to an abortion (9). 

The most important question to me, though, is simple:

Is there a demand for late-term abortions?

Not really. Only 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks according to CDC data (10). 

I will never claim to know everything about abortion law or legal definitions. In fact, my opinion is still that of apathy toward all of politics. I can see why someone would support the bill though, and I don't think that calling people who have abortions "filth" provides an honest conversation about abortion. 

You're a nice guy, Thett. I don't mean to piss you off if that is what I am doing. Don't respond to me if that is the case and I'll take the hint.

You certainly clarified the legal wording for me. As a layperson, I understood your clear example of the differences between the old law and the new law.

Right off the bat, I disagree with late-term abortion for non-medical reasons. But what's the actual rationale behind the legalization?

A vast majority of the left would agree with me by the way. 

I love how every abortion means one less kid in poverty. No one over dirt poor gets abortions huh? LOL 

The governor stated it's a push back on Washington DC policy of revoking Roe v. Wade 

They shouldn't play politics with this sort of stuff. Although I doubt people will proceed with late-term abortion. I guess we'll have to see.

Have no idea who that is.  Is that a real person?