Jump to content

ANDY'S NEW ABORTION LAW


Recommended Posts

I dont know what to say. Read the highlights, this bill is so extreme I dont know how ANYBODY can think this is ok. This isn't a religious issue, per se as it is more of an issue of right and wrong

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/24/8-shocking-facts-about-new-yorks-radical-abortion-law/

From the article:

Here are eight facts about New York’s new abortion law:

– The “fundamental” right to abortion is enshrined in the New York Constitution. “Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion, pursuant to this article,” the law states.

– The law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. “A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion,” the law states.

– The law allows abortion through the third trimester, including up to birth. “Third-trimester abortion will be allowed under the new law when a preborn child is diagnosed with a condition that will cause him or her to die at or shortly after birth,” Live Action reported.

– The law removes protections for babies who survive an abortion procedure. “The new law removes protections for babies born alive after an abortion — meaning they could be left to die after birth — by rescinding a portion of New York’s public health law,” Live Action reported. Late-term abortions, until now, were illegal in the state of New York.

– The law prevents pregnant women whose babies are killed in an attack on the mother from seeking justice and could result in infanticide by repealing the requirement for a second physician to be on hand in case an attempted abortion past 20 weeks yields a live infant.

– The law states that an unborn child cannot be a victim of homicide if he dies while in the womb following an attack on the mother. “‘Person,’ when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive,” the law states.

– Pro-abortion advocates said the law would protect legal abortion even in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision to make abortion legal — a decision that did no go as far as the New York law. “[The law] not only increases access to abortion across the board, including late-term abortions but also goes beyond Roe, which left some limits in place,” Catholic News Service reported.

– The law is to “prevent the enforcement of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman’s health that burden abortion access.”

 

Now Catholics are calling for Andy to be excommunicated. Bishop of Albany very upset, as he should be.

 

https://www.nyscatholic.org/2019/01/statement-on-passage-and-signing-of-abortion-expansion-legislation/

 

https://evangelist.org/Content/Default/Homepage-Rotator/Article/Bishop-writes-open-letter-to-Gov-Cuomo-/-3/141/27245

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CapDistPatriot said:

I dont know what to say. Read the highlights, this bill is so extreme I dont know how ANYBODY can think this is ok. This isn't a religious issue, per se as it is more of an issue of right and wrong

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/24/8-shocking-facts-about-new-yorks-radical-abortion-law/

From the article:

Here are eight facts about New York’s new abortion law:

– The “fundamental” right to abortion is enshrined in the New York Constitution. “Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion, pursuant to this article,” the law states.

– The law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. “A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion,” the law states.

– The law allows abortion through the third trimester, including up to birth. “Third-trimester abortion will be allowed under the new law when a preborn child is diagnosed with a condition that will cause him or her to die at or shortly after birth,” Live Action reported.

– The law removes protections for babies who survive an abortion procedure. “The new law removes protections for babies born alive after an abortion — meaning they could be left to die after birth — by rescinding a portion of New York’s public health law,” Live Action reported. Late-term abortions, until now, were illegal in the state of New York.

– The law prevents pregnant women whose babies are killed in an attack on the mother from seeking justice and could result in infanticide by repealing the requirement for a second physician to be on hand in case an attempted abortion past 20 weeks yields a live infant.

– The law states that an unborn child cannot be a victim of homicide if he dies while in the womb following an attack on the mother. “‘Person,’ when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive,” the law states.

– Pro-abortion advocates said the law would protect legal abortion even in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision to make abortion legal — a decision that did no go as far as the New York law. “[The law] not only increases access to abortion across the board, including late-term abortions but also goes beyond Roe, which left some limits in place,” Catholic News Service reported.

– The law is to “prevent the enforcement of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman’s health that burden abortion access.”

 

Now Catholics are calling for Andy to be excommunicated. Bishop of Albany very upset, as he should be.

 

https://www.nyscatholic.org/2019/01/statement-on-passage-and-signing-of-abortion-expansion-legislation/

 

https://evangelist.org/Content/Default/Homepage-Rotator/Article/Bishop-writes-open-letter-to-Gov-Cuomo-/-3/141/27245

Those highlights are not entirely accurate. It's actually a worse picture than they paint it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the third trimester up to the actual birth, the pregnancy can be terminated because of  a danger to the life or health of the mother. 

Exactly what is a danger to the health of the mother? medical health? emotional health? mental health?  Let's say the pregnancy is at 38 weeks. the mother and father have a huge falling out and the mother wants the pregnancy terminated becasue she can't emotionally bare to have "that man's" child. A baby that could easily live outside the womb is terminated in a procedure that is no less risky to the mother than actually giving birth. 

The baby can be injected with poison and the next day labor induced to deliver the dead baby. Labor can be induced and the spine cut at the base of the skull when the head come out of the birth canal. Labor can be induced and when the skull crown coming through the uterus an instrument can be used to actually crush the baby's skull.  Think I am exaggerating and these are things that could never happen in the US? Read up on it. This is pure evil and there is NO justification for it in my book. Especially since at this point in the pregnancy the procedure to terminate is basically the same as actually giving birth. 

Edited by Culvercreek hunt club
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was okay with abortion up to 20 weeks.  At which point, there is an increase of brain activity in the fetus and thus it is a conscious baby.  At 24 weeks, the baby can live outside of the womb.  After 24 weeks, it's murder.  At that point you have the chance to save a living person and you chose not to.

And to top it off, the fact that a criminal can attack a pregnant woman who had every intention of keeping the baby won't be considered homicide if the baby dies?  That's just all kinds of wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Elmo said:

I was okay with abortion up to 20 weeks.  At which point, there is an increase of brain activity in the fetus and thus it is a conscious baby.  At 24 weeks, the baby can live outside of the womb.  After 24 weeks, it's murder.  At that point you have the chance to save a living person and you chose not to.

And to top it off, the fact that a criminal can attack a pregnant woman who had every intention of keeping the baby won't be considered homicide if the baby dies?  That's just all kinds of wrong.

Wrap your head around this one. The same state that is saying it is ok to drive a needle into a baby about to be born and give it a lethal injection, says it is immoral and illegal to to it to a convict that has mass murdered or any host of capital offenses.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE PATIENT IS WITHIN

47 TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN

48 ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE

49 PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

 

So basically it's only ok past 24 weeks if the baby isn't going to make it (I'm okay with that) or abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or heath.(oohh...this one is sketchy.)

Pregnant women do get weird thoughts and irrational fears so she told me once when she was pregnant with our first child. "If anything happens, let me die and save our baby."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Elmo said:

THE PATIENT IS WITHIN

47 TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN

48 ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE

49 PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

 

So basically it's only ok past 24 weeks if the baby isn't going to make it (I'm okay with that) or abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or heath.(oohh...this one is sketchy.)

Pregnant women do get weird thoughts and irrational fears so she told me once when she was pregnant with our first child. "If anything happens, let me die and save our baby."

I guess it depends on the definition of fetal viability. Is it the medically traditional that the baby would not survive when born? or it has a condition that makes surviving unlikely?  I get that. But I didn't see it defined anywhere, did you? What if a mother missed the early testing and it isn't until week 24 or later that she finds out that the baby has downs or a condition like that?  Could that be viewed as not being viable? To me this whole thing just swung the door open to whatever the mother and her doctor (or not even a doctor per this law) wants to do. And since there is no longer abortion in the penal code there is no possible punishment for operation outside what you quoted. Let's say 10 out of 10 doctors say the fetus WAS viable and shouldn't have been aborted in week 30.  What's the charge? There aren't any anymore. 

Edited by Culvercreek hunt club
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CapDistPatriot said:

I dont know what to say. Read the highlights, this bill is so extreme I dont know how ANYBODY can think this is ok. This isn't a religious issue, per se as it is more of an issue of right and wrong

 

let no one doubt any longer  that literal demons walk among us and rule us. The whooping and clapping after the bill's passage was a manifestation of pure evil and sickness of mind.

Edited by The_Field_Ager
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is a damn good father, husband and man.

https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2019/01/23/former-nfl-player-ben-watson-passage-ny-abortion-law-it-is-sad-evil-day/

Quoted from link:

On June 1, 2018, Watson and his wife, Kristen, donated an ultrasound machine to Maryland’s Severna Park Pregnancy Clinic.

 

Ben and Kristen Watson currently have five children and are expecting twins in the spring. In the past, the former tight end challenged more men to take responsibility for the children they father so less women have abortions.

 

“[A] lot of the women wouldn’t be having abortions if the men would step up and be a part of what they are already biologically a part of,” Watson posted on Facebook on August 4, 2016.

Also from article:

I do know that blacks kind of represent a large portion of the abortions, and I do know that honestly the whole idea with Planned Parenthood and [Margaret] Sanger in the past was to exterminate blacks, and it’s kind of ironic that it’s working,

 

We (as minorities) support candidates, and overwhelmingly support the idea of having Planned Parenthood and the like, and yet, that is why she created it. We are buying it hook, line, and sinker.

 

If you are someone who cares about life period, then you have to care about it from conception all the way up to death. To me, being pro-life means that you hold all life very dear and you understand that all life was created by God and that because of that, life has intrinsic value.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CapDistPatriot said:

If that is true, he is a f*cking revolting human being.

Tip of the iceberg. Harvey Weinstein was the sacrificial scapegoat, designed to keep people from looking too deeply into Hollywood's satanic levels of degeneracy . If people new what Hollywood is ( a huge pedo party) they would never step inside a theater again. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be stopped pretty quick because a few highly-motivated (Thank Dr. Ford for that), conservative, Trump Supreme court picks.  Odds are there will be at least one more of those before 2020.   Roe vs Wade is on very thin ice right now.  After that is overturned, there is nothing our governor will be able to do to keep up abortions in NY.  It will be just like when Arkansas tried to keep those black kids out of the Little Rock school back in the 1957.  

States are powerless against the army which is under the control of the President.   Just like Eisenhower sent the troops in to get them kids into that school, Trump will send them into NY to stop the baby murders.   Starting with Lincoln, Republicans Presidents have a long history in this country of righting the wrongs of democrats.     

Edited by wolc123
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The_Field_Ager said:

Tip of the iceberg. Harvey Weinstein was the sacrificial scapegoat, designed to keep people from looking too deeply into Hollywood's satanic levels of degeneracy . If people new what Hollywood is ( a huge pedo party) they would never step inside a theater again. 

The reason why Hollywood and many Democrats hate and do anything to discredit all Religion, they can not reconcile their Sodom and Gomorrah lifestyles with any Religion.

Al

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My disgust with Cuomo goes well beyond the Safe Act.  He is as vile as one can get.  It absolutely boggles my mind that people in this state can't see it.  He obviously hasn't given one minutes thought to what actually happens when a fetus gets aborted.   How could anyone who HAS given it a minutes thought be OK with such a law?  All in the name of protecting a woman's right to choose??  Unbelievable. 

I would absolutely be overjoyed if the Catholic church would excommunicate Cuomo.  Not that Cuomo or the idiots who keep voting him in would give a hoot, but the public shaming would at least give me some satisfaction here.  Unfortunately the church has enough of it's own baggage where something like excommunication of a sitting Governor probably wouldn't hold much water anymore, but any effort to call this guy out is surely welcomed by me.  It obviously seems like no one else out there is willing to stand up to this tyrant which is a crying shame in my opinion.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By mike rossi
      http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/politics/cuomo-finds-endorsement-decision-in-grisanti-panepinto-race-difficult-20140919
       
    • By NFA-ADK
      They can create all the Illegal laws they want, it has been proven that gun owners would rather become felons with guns than to be victims of a corrupt Government that want to take away our rights.  Facts do not lie and we will not comply! 
       
      http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhallmagazine/2014/04/12/the-assault-weapon-rebellion-n1822409?utm_source=ArticleFeelingsWidget
       
      What is Cuomo going to do?  NOTHING!!!  He should stick to banning soda to save us.  So effective!  True savior of NY, LMAO.  Funny how abstract they get when power is at hand, like thinking you have a ticket to heaven on the fast track because you banned soda or guns.  That is a good one!
       
      Funny how he has guns to protect him at all times yet he feels it is OK to take away your guns.  Double standard?  You better believe it!
       
       
       
       
       
    • By mike rossi
      Obama endorses Chinese proposal for an exception to his own executive order to protect wildlife?
      Obama issues executive order to protect wildlife; then backs a proposal from China to make an exception????? If you read the following two articles both which surfaced today, that seems to be the case....
       
      News August 19, 2013
      Obama’s Executive Order to Protect Wildlife
       
      Will US Drones Fight Foreign Poachers?
      August 8, 2013 Sonia Horon
      (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION) President Obama is considering lending U.S. drones to Tanzania in an effort to combat the rapid growth of wildlife poaching. The population of elephants in Tanzania is declining at an alarming rate and wildlife groups estimate ten to twenty-five thousand elephants are killed in Tanzania every year for their ivory tusks. The areas in need of monitoring are too vast for rangers to properly monitor—leaving wildlife at further risk of being killed by greedy poachers. The news comes just weeks after Obama’s executive order to protect wildlife from illegal poaching. Read on to find out how the drones could help during this troublesome time. — Global Animal
      Approximately 10,000 to 25,000 elephants are killed in Tanzania each year. Photo credit: Stock photo
      Washington Times, Ashish Kumar Sen
      Tanzania’s storied wildlife reserves could soon get a watchful, winged inhabitant: U.S. drones.
      On his visit to the East African nation last month, President Obama discussed the possibility of using unarmed, unmanned aircraft to help overstretched park rangers combat the growing problem of elephant poaching in Tanzania’s vast wildlife reserves and national parks, Tanzanian Ambassador to the United States Liberata Mulamula told editors and reporters at The Washington Times this week.
      Wildlife groups estimate that 10,000 to 25,000 elephants are killed in Tanzania each year for their ivory tusks and the number of elephants in southern Tanzania has fallen by more than half. Much of the ivory is shipped illegally to Asian markets.
      “The extent of poaching is very, very, very high,” John Salehe, director of the African Wildlife Foundation’s Maasai Steppe, said in a phone interview from Tanzania.
      There has been sharp increase in elephant poaching over the past year, he said.
      Tanzanian officials say the area that needs to be monitored is vast with too few rangers.
      “There is trafficking, but also there is criminality, so we are fighting both,” said Mrs. Mulamula. “If we can work together, we can put an end to this.”
      That is where drones could play a crucial role.
      “The American administration is ready to put up funds to help us in areas where we think we can be able to work together and put an end to this trafficking and killings,” Mrs. Mulamula said.
      “One area, they said, was training [to] get more rangers. There was even suggestions that the U.S. government can help us with these drones.”
      Mrs. Mulamula said Mr. Obama did not make any commitment to provide drones to Tanzania.
      “But this was being said [in the discussions] that this was one of the possibilities,” she added.
      However, a senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, later said the U.S. is not considering providing drones to Tanzania but declined to elaborate on a meeting between Mr. Obama and Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete in Tanzania on July 1.
      Right after that meeting, Mr. Obama acknowledged the threat posed by poaching and trafficking of animal parts. Mr. Obama issued an executive order to, in part, help foreign governments tackle the problem.
      “[T]his includes additional millions of dollars to help countries across the region build their capacity to meet this challenge, because the entire world has a stake in making sure that we preserve Africa’s beauty for future generations,” Mr. Obama said.
      An official of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also will be assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam to support the Tanzanian government’s efforts to develop a wildlife security strategy.
      A State Department official, speaking on background, said the United States is “concerned by the growing involvement of transnational organized crime and armed militias in poaching and the illegal wildlife trade.”
      “These activities negatively impact economic livelihoods, health, security and the rule of law across the African continent.”
      Tanzania is not the only African nation where drones have been considered to combat the menace of poaching.
      The Ol Pejeta wildlife conservancy in Kenya has teamed up with Airware, a California-based firm, to build drones to protect endangered wildlife, including the northern white rhino, which is hunted for its horn.
      “We see the drone’s uses in three parts: deterrence, observation and tracking,” said Elodie Sampere, a spokeswoman for the Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Nanyuki, Kenya.
      The drones at Ol Pejeta are still in the test phase, but “just the rumor of an eye in the sky and the noise of it flying overhead will serve to deter potential incidents,” Mrs. Sampere said.
      The drones also would allow the conservancy to check on the safety of endangered animals and send critical information to rangers about the number of poachers and whether they are armed, she said.
      Drones also can track radio-frequency tags on endangered species, allowing rangers to monitor their movements.
      Ol Pejeta is looking for “a drone designed for conservation and not just an off-the-shelf ex-military solution,” Mrs. Sampere said.
      Drones have been used to monitor poachers in other parts of Africa as well, including the Kruger National Park in South Africa.
      In December, the World Wildlife Fund received a $5 million grant from Google to develop technological solutions to combat poaching. The project combines the use of drones with animal-tagging technologies and ranger patrols guided by analytical software. The technology will be tested over the three-year grant period in Africa and Asia.
      The illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn is driven by markets in Asia, particularly in China and Japan. Large quantities of ivory originating in Tanzania have been seized in the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan and Hong Kong.
      “The challenges are enormous, especially because they have that huge market in Asia,” Mrs. Mulamula said.
      Although international trade in ivory is banned, a one-time sale in 2008 perpetuated a legal market for ivory in China and Japan, according to the African Wildlife Foundation.
      The Chinese government has not been cooperative in African efforts to reduce the illegal trade in ivory, said Arend de Haas, of the London-based African Conservation Foundation.
      “China should increase law enforcement, coordinate with African governments and consider destroying confiscated ivory stocks to show their commitment to combat the ivory trade,” he said.
      However, Mrs. Mulamula said the Chinese government is sympathetic to Tanzania’s concerns.
      Khamis Kagasheki, Tanzania’s minister of natural resources and tourism, has been spearheading anti-poaching efforts in his country, but wildlife groups say much more needs to be done.
      “The Tanzanian government has not been alert enough [regarding] the rise in elephant poaching in the region and country,” Mr. de Haas said.
      Tanzanian officials announced in July that more than 1,200 poaching suspects were arrested over a 15-month period that ended in March. It was not clear how many were involved in elephant poaching. Two ivory traders were arrested in July.
      Mr. de Haas said official elephant-poaching statistics are lacking.
      “Slow political processes and corruption within local security and conservation institutes are major obstacles to quickly implement effective solutions,” he said
       
       
      Appeals courts considers shark fin ban
      Obama's staff backs challenge to California law
      Bob Egelko
      Published 5:10 pm, Wednesday, August 14, 2013
       
      With support from the Obama administration, organizations of Chinese American businesses and suppliers of shark fins asked a federal appeals court Wednesday to halt enforcement of a California law banning the possession and sale of the main ingredient of shark fin soup, a traditional Chinese delicacy.
      The law was passed in 2011, but the prohibition on selling and serving shark fin soup took effect only last month. It was sponsored by conservation and animal-protection groups whose stated goals are to stop the cutting of fins from live sharks - a practice already banned in federal waters - and to protect consumers from mercury in the fins.
      But opponents, led by Bay Area Chinese restaurants and their suppliers, argued Wednesday that the law is discriminatory and conflicts with federal management of ocean resources.
      Chinese Americans are "the only community affected," Joseph Breall, lawyer for the Chinatown Neighborhood Association and Asian Americans for Political Advancement, told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
      He said statements by some legislative supporters of the 2011 measure showed an intent to discriminate. For example, Breall said, one lawmaker observed that "we can't police the seas, but we can police Chinatown."
      But at least one member of the three-judge panel seemed unpersuaded. Judge Andrew Hurwitz noted that the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, who in a Jan. 2 ruling left the law in effect, found that it was deigned to promote conservation and public health, and there was no evidence of intentional discrimination.
      "Why isn't that a finding that we have to give deference to?" Hurwitz asked.
      The case took on a new cast July 22 when the Obama administration, in written arguments to the appeals court, said the California law interferes with the underlying purpose of the federal law - to allow commercial shark fishing to continue while prohibiting the "finning" of live sharks.
      By banning the sales of fins from sharks that were caught intact in federal waters, the state law "may effectively shut down shark fishing," Justice Department lawyers wrote. Although the federal law doesn't explicitly forbid such state regulation, they argued, it implicitly bars states from interfering with a healthy market for sharks that were legally caught.
      The National Marine Fisheries Service has proposed a regulation that could limit such laws in California and other states, including New York and Florida, a proposal protested by several dozen members of Congress including Democratic Reps. Jared Huffman of San Rafael and Sam Farr of Monterey.
      The state's lawyer, Deputy Attorney General Alexandra Gordon, said the Obama administration's argument was based on speculation that "something bad could happen in the future."
      "There's no reason to assume that our law will have any more impact on the market for sharks than the federal ban on finning," Gordon told the court.
      If California can't ban the sale of shark fins because of a possible impact on the fishery market, "states could never regulate the sale of wildlife parts," like ivory from elephants, said attorney Ralph Henry, whose clients include the Humane Society of the United States and the Asian Pacific American Ocean Harmony Alliance. He said the latter organization represents a substantial segment of Chinese Americans who support the California law.
    • By mike rossi
      http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/08/pipeline-incidents-since-1986.html
    • By mike rossi
      This video will supposedly be removed soon, so you should watch it soon.
       
      http://youtu.be/AdlVH1IjQu4
       
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...