Jump to content

ANDY'S NEW ABORTION LAW


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

Even if they did investigate I have no idea what they would charge someone with since, as part of this law, abortion was removed from all aspect of criminal charges. Since the legal definition of a person was changed to be born and alive not of the abortions (right to wrong) can be prosecuted under these criminal statutes. 

Doctors in general are given the benefit of  doubt , doctor says well its because of health reason nobody will question it . .its alway been that way  and this law just makes it more so looks like . 

Who is going to question them ?   Seems like these laws make  it way to easy to kill  ,   if you ask me something  like that should be made harder to do not easier if legal at all .

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Storm914 said:

They will go doctor shopping find the doctor who will do it even  up to the  same day it was supposed to be born . Who is  going to investigate  if there is really a legitimate reason for a late term abortion  for heath reasons .

 

 

mother mary and joseph. Do you have kids? A wife? A girlfriend? My wife had a miscarriage in her first trimester. That procedure required anesthesia and a night in the hospital. You're talking about a final term abortion like it's a Walgreens pharmacy drive-through. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Belo said:

mother mary and joseph. Do you have kids? A wife? A girlfriend? My wife had a miscarriage in her first trimester. That procedure required anesthesia and a night in the hospital. You're talking about a final term abortion like it's a Walgreens pharmacy drive-through. 

Yea ok they made the law for legitimate reason . 

Who  would ever question a doctor if there was a legitimate reason to do it  before this law anyway .

That law was created to protect the ones just doing  late term abortions on demand I believe. 

 

 

Edited by Storm914
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Storm914 said:

Yea ok they made the law for legitimate reason . 

Who  would ever question a doctor if there was a legitimate reason to do it  before this law anyway .

That law was created to protect the ones just doing  late term abortions on demand I believe. 

 

 

Storm, you clearly have no idea about the paperwork, scrutiny, and documentation involved in all aspects of healthcare.  It's absurd to imply that medical practitioners have no oversight.  As Belo pointed out, late term abortions are not done in drive-through facilities.  They're serious medical procedures that are not being done in alleys and basements.   It seems obvious that you're really not interested in knowing much about this subject beyond the fact that you're opposed to abortion and don't want people to have access to them.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Belo said:

mother mary and joseph. Do you have kids? A wife? A girlfriend? My wife had a miscarriage in her first trimester. That procedure required anesthesia and a night in the hospital. You're talking about a final term abortion like it's a Walgreens pharmacy drive-through. 

I think you are reading him wrong. I think he is talking about shopping for a Dr. that will give justification for the procedure. Not one that will do it out of the back seat of his car. The triggering clause for this to happen after 24 weeks (and right up until he actual birth) is that the procedure is needed to protect the mothers life or health. If you shop doctors there will be some of the "opinion" that health could mean many things. It is just their professional opinion that is needed. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

I think you are reading him wrong. I think he is talking about shopping for a Dr. that will give justification for the procedure. Not one that will do it out of the back seat of his car. The triggering clause for this to happen after 24 weeks (and right up until he actual birth) is that the procedure is needed to protect the mothers life or health. If you shop doctors there will be some of the "opinion" that health could mean many things. It is just their professional opinion that is needed. 

A practitioner's State Practice Act, as well as his/her malpractice insurance provider, and his practice location (Hospital, clinic, etc.) will have strict guidelines that define when a medical 'opinion' may be justified.  Doctors do not have freedom to make illegal or unethical decisions and simply state that their 'opinion' justified their actions.  They are required to base their opinions on sound clinical decision making and ethical standards, using evidence-based practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, virgil said:

Storm, you clearly have no idea about the paperwork, scrutiny, and documentation involved in all aspects of healthcare.  It's absurd to imply that medical practitioners have no oversight.  As Belo pointed out, late term abortions are not done in drive-through facilities.  They're serious medical procedures that are not being done in alleys and basements.   It seems obvious that you're really not interested in knowing much about this subject beyond the fact that you're opposed to abortion and don't want people to have access to them.

Virgil,

 

The procedure is complex and it sure would have massive amounts of documentation becasue I am sure it will involve a hospital stay. BUT the trigger to the entire process is the health care professional's opinion about the mother's view of her health as well as document-able things like Say it's a case of toxemia developed just before a due date. Many times that would trigger an induction of labor to deliver the baby, even if premature. This can happen in 1 out of 10 pregnancies and usually after 20 weeks. Under the "health" clause of this law it would be justification for an abortion. I don't even know how a professional could refuse the mother if the justification was mental or emotional health. I know we can sit here an say "they are professionals, they take an oath, they would never push this over a line" But thin about how many Dr.'s wrote scripts for opiates that may not have been needed. You can shop a Doctor to find one that will do it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, virgil said:

A practitioner's State Practice Act, as well as his/her malpractice insurance provider, and his practice location (Hospital, clinic, etc.) will have strict guidelines that define when a medical 'opinion' may be justified.  Doctors do not have freedom to make illegal or unethical decisions and simply state that their 'opinion' justified their actions.  They are required to base their opinions on sound clinical decision making and ethical standards, using evidence-based practices.

That's why so many shop for doctors to write scripts that they don't need. You say they don't have the freedom to make illegal or unethical decisions.  That is the point exactly. This is no longer illegal or unethical in the State of NY. SO they wouldn't be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

That's why so many shop for doctors to write scripts that they don't need. You say they don't have the freedom to make illegal or unethical decisions.  That is the point exactly. This is no longer illegal or unethical in the State of NY. SO they wouldn't be. 

Sorry Culver.  You're taking too giant a leap here.  We complain that gun owners rights are infringed upon by laws meant to protect us from wound-be criminals.  Why do the same here?  Yes, there are doctors that write bogus prescriptions for opiates and similar meds.  That doesn't mean that we should ban opiates.    It's a lot easier for a doctor to get away with writing a bogus prescription than it is to justify an unnecessary surgical procedure.  Pain is entirely subjective- that's why pain medication is so easily abused.  Doctors have no real way of quantifying how much pain a patient is in- therein lies the potential for abuse and plausible deniability.  It's not nearly the same in cases for justified late term abortion.

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

38 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

I think you are reading him wrong. I think he is talking about shopping for a Dr. that will give justification for the procedure. Not one that will do it out of the back seat of his car. The triggering clause for this to happen after 24 weeks (and right up until he actual birth) is that the procedure is needed to protect the mothers life or health. If you shop doctors there will be some of the "opinion" that health could mean many things. It is just their professional opinion that is needed. 

No, he's making it sound like a late term abortion is no big deal for some doctor, when in fact it amounts to a c-section or still birth. It's not anything like early abortions. He doubled down with his use of the term "on demand". Like there will just be these drive through clinics where woman who are 8 months pregnant and perfectly healthy can now just go and kill off their baby.

I'm not even on any side of this argument. I just can't stand ignorance. Especially when it's a grown man (or kid not sure) talking about something he knows nothing about. Notice how he didn't answer my question.

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

Over the weekend I was so twisted about this I decided to finally delve into the Kermit Gosnell movie, streamed on Amazon Prime, starring Dean Kain. As I watched the movie develop, and saw what this guy did, I realized that EVERYTHING he was convicted of, and got a LIFE SENTENCE for, is now perfectly legal in NYS. Seriously, it was almost like Andy watched the movie, took notes and made thos notes into law, from non doctors performing the procedures, to killing the babies on the table.

 

For anyone interested, that movie is $4.99 well spent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone give me legitimate "medical" reasons why an abortion would be done so late in a pregnancy?  I am hearing this "legitimate reasons" language, but maybe someone can enlighten me as to why a pregnancy would need to be terminated if a mothers life was somehow in danger over attempting to induce labor or remove the baby alive via C-section??  To me the legal right to terminate the pregnancy has now been made much too easy.  I would think a doctor would be allowed to save the mothers life in the gravest of circumstances without any such law on the books.  Having the law on the books just opens up an even bigger can of worms where the situation doesn't exactly need to be "grave" for a medical professional to be allowed to perform late term abortions.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

I think you are reading him wrong. I think he is talking about shopping for a Dr. that will give justification for the procedure. Not one that will do it out of the back seat of his car. The triggering clause for this to happen after 24 weeks (and right up until he actual birth) is that the procedure is needed to protect the mothers life or health. If you shop doctors there will be some of the "opinion" that health could mean many things. It is just their professional opinion that is needed. 

Yep exactly,  They obviously where  born yesterday,  and don't  understand even some medical people are corrupt will do it for the money .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, virgil said:

Sorry Culver.  You're taking too giant a leap here.  We complain that gun owners rights are infringed upon by laws meant to protect us from wound-be criminals.  Why do the same here?  Yes, there are doctors that write bogus prescriptions for opiates and similar meds.  That doesn't mean that we should ban opiates.    It's a lot easier for a doctor to get away with writing a bogus prescription than it is to justify an unnecessary surgical procedure.  Pain is entirely subjective- that's why pain medication is so easily abused.  Doctors have no real way of quantifying how much pain a patient is in- therein lies the potential for abuse and plausible deniability.  It's not nearly the same in cases for justified late term abortion.

Ok. A woman walks into a doctors office and says that the pregnancy is causing her too much back pain and she can't deal with it any longer. By the new law that would meet the requirements of the law to conduct the abortion. No? How about the Toximea I mentioned earlier. 38 weeks in and the woman wants to abort because of her "health" condition.  It is legal now by the law. No?  I don't see what the doctor thinks or believes as even being relevant in many of these scenarios. 

The lawmakers must believe that the law needed to be written o give the woman the ability to basically want it on demand (meaning based on what she wants and not needing a doctor to give the green light). If not they would have left the working that the woman's life was in danger. I would think. 

Virgil, I know we have been on opposite side of some issues over the years but you are always one that can at least have a conversation about it. Thank you. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Belo said:

No, he's making it sound like a late term abortion is no big deal for some doctor, when in fact it amounts to a c-section or still birth. It's not anything like early abortions. He doubled down with his use of the term "on demand". Like there will just be these drive through clinics where woman who are 8 months pregnant and perfectly healthy can now just go and kill off their baby.

I'm not even on any side of this argument. I just can't stand ignorance. Especially when it's a grown man (or kid not sure) talking about something he knows nothing about. Notice how he didn't answer my question.

I think you take the killing of human life  much to easily sounds like .

There is something called  adoption , And also condoms and other birth control .This law 

Seems like way way over kill  pandering to the extreme left .

Sad we do more to protect wildlife in this state then human life .  you have been so brainwashed it's not even funny .

It is one thing to have a abortion the first month when it's not even formed,  but what  that law talks about is disturbing sorry . Having a abortion near the time of birth is murder . And I seriously doubt there is any medical reason with  modern medical technology that would justify that .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Belo said:

No, he's making it sound like a late term abortion is no big deal for some doctor, when in fact it amounts to a c-section or still birth. It's not anything like early abortions. He doubled down with his use of the term "on demand". Like there will just be these drive through clinics where woman who are 8 months pregnant and perfectly healthy can now just go and kill off their baby.

.

in bold. Let's say the late term pregnancy was a a risk to the mother' life or health. (as per the law now). I agree with what you said in bold. to abort that late term it would be killing the baby and either inducing labor to have a still birth or a c-section to remove it. Explain to me how either of those procedures was any less of a risk to the mother whether the child was alive or dead? It's the same procedure isn't it? 

If that is truly the case that it is no different in either instance then the only variable is that the mother just wants the baby dead with the abortion scenario. No? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is a realistic solution that we can do with these unwanted children?  And please, dont say adoption or foster care. Too many kids already never get adopted and grow up in foster care who become menace to society that we complain about having to support due to the tragic events the person endured as a child.

Again easy to point the finger and ridicule, especially for us men, but the solution is not. Its a really sad world. 

I do not agree with the new law, however I don't have a realistic solution. If you make abortion illegal it will still happen. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is a realistic solution that we can do with these unwanted children?  And please, dont say adoption or foster care. Too many kids already never get adopted and grow up in foster care who become menace to society that we complain about having to support due to the tragic events the person endured as a child.
Again easy to point the finger and ridicule, especially for us men, but the solution is not. Its a really sad world. 
I do not agree with the new law, however I don't have a realistic solution. If you make abortion illegal it will still happen. 
 
 

What was the need for this change? If a woman did not want the baby it was legal In the first 24 weeks. What was the need for this abomination?
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Steve D said:

Just my .02 cents but as men I don't think it is any of our business. I know I will never have an abortion and doubt many of you will. That's a discussion women should be having and deciding on not us OR KING CUOMO.

That's a good point but if you see the women that are the most  into the  abortion issues, at those Rally's,    let's just say most aren't exactly very female looking if you know what I mean for some reason .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, virgil said:

A practitioner's State Practice Act, as well as his/her malpractice insurance provider, and his practice location (Hospital, clinic, etc.) will have strict guidelines that define when a medical 'opinion' may be justified.  Doctors do not have freedom to make illegal or unethical decisions and simply state that their 'opinion' justified their actions.  They are required to base their opinions on sound clinical decision making and ethical standards, using evidence-based practices.

Two word response to this post:

Kermit Gosnell

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who believe there is some major surgery required to abort at full term, look into "Partial Birth Abortions" and you will see it being done as the baby is being born.  As long as the head was not out of the woman, it could be aborted.  The doctor jammed scissors into the base of the infant's skull, then sucked it's brains out before letting the head come out of the woman.

This new law in NY will allow the exact same procedure to be legal again.

It also allows it for ANY reason a doctor puts down on paper.

This is pure INFANTICIDE and leftists applauded it in the state house.  God help the USA.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuomo's law also says someone who kills a child in the womb can no longer be prosecuted for killing it, as it was not a "life" in the first place.

One World Trade Center was lit in pink to celebrate the impending deaths of more New York children than ever before. This despite the fact that 11 preborn children lost on 9/11 are lovingly honored at the 9/11 memorial.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the one part I'm confused on.  It states that now, nurse practitioners and even mid-wives can now perform abortions and it's legal after 24 weeks if the fetus isn't viable.  How does a mid-wife make such a determination?

As for doctors who would sign off on it.  My brother who served several tours at one point was deem unfit to return to duty due to PTSD.  He was ordered to take some time off while his bros went.  Three psychiatrist wouldn't sign off on it.  He was vacationing in the Caribbean when one of his buddies called him and told him they found a psychiatrist that was willing to sign off on him.  He ended his vacation early, flew back to the states, got the signature, and went off to Afghanistan.  You don't think you can find a doctor that is willing to deem a fetus unviable?  When for the most part, I would imagine after the abortion is conducted, the evidence would most likely be destroyed anyway.

  • Like 2
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...