Jump to content

ANDY'S NEW ABORTION LAW


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Storm914 said:

The dems are very good at handouts with other people's money  until the check comes and we are all stuck paying the bill . 

There is going to come a time( and I believe soon) that the dems are going to run out of the" other people's money" and then wait and see what happens.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does legalized murder end?  

Today its the murder of unborn babies called "abortion".   Who is the next inconvenient unwanted person?  The elderly?  Disabled veterans?

Adolph Hitler. Mao, Stalin and many other evil leaders had their list of "undesirables" that were murdered.  All were innocent, but they were exterminated.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just crazy so if a women 1 day before or after the baby is do .  Gets into a fight with there husband boyfriend they can just kill the baby to get even ?

Talk about cold hearted crap .

I don't like abortion  but if someone has one at least do it before the baby is formed . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2019 at 9:07 AM, Storm914 said:

That's just crazy so if a women 1 day before or after the baby is do .  Gets into a fight with there husband boyfriend they can just kill the baby to get even ?

Talk about cold hearted crap .

I don't like abortion  but if someone has one at least do it before the baby is formed . 

jesus man. It's "due" and "their". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

sorry, thought it was a general comment

it is in a way. The percentage of the state in the 6.57% and up tax bracket is pretty small. The percentage of us paying $8k+ in property tax is pretty small relatively speaking. The city also has their own tax codes which are greater than upstate. 

The real concern should be the corporate tax code and that they are the ones essentially who are paying for most of this. And guess what? They keep leaving. That's who pays and we all lose.

https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/state-taxes-new-york.aspx

and of course the saddest thing of all is when you adjust for overall tax and cost of living, we're second only to Hawaii and well, Paradise or single digits? take your pick there

https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer/2416/

10 minutes ago, Storm914 said:

Stop deflecting from the topic belo .

You are not fooling anyone. 

I'm not deflecting. But none of your arguments will ever hold weight with grammar and spelling like that. Want to have an intelligent debate? You need to speak intelligently. I have too many friends and relatives on Facebook ranting and raving about shit they haven't researched with spelling and grammar that is embarrassing. 

The point is, on many of the topics I agree with you and them. But their shitty way of handling it furthers the stereotype of backwoods hicks who don't know anything. My poking for you to better yourself is because you have some good ideas that many of us share, but you're not helping the argument.

 

Edited by Belo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 9:07 AM, Storm914 said:

That's just crazy so if a women 1 day before or after the baby is do .  Gets into a fight with there husband boyfriend they can just kill the baby to get even ?

Talk about cold hearted crap .

I don't like abortion  but if someone has one at least do it before the baby is formed . 

I'm just curious.  For those of you repeating or promoting this fallacy, have you been duped or are you trying to dupe others?  The new law clearly states that late term abortions are for special circumstances where the pregnancy is endangering the life of the mother or where the baby is not viable.  Even the Fox News articles on the subject include that information.  It's only echo chamber blogs that conveniently leave it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Belo said:

it is in a way. The percentage of the state in the 6.57% and up tax bracket is pretty small. The percentage of us paying $8k+ in property tax is pretty small relatively speaking. The city also has their own tax codes which are greater than upstate. 

The real concern should be the corporate tax code and that they are the ones essentially who are paying for most of this. And guess what? They keep leaving. That's who pays and we all lose.

https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/state-taxes-new-york.aspx

and of course the saddest thing of all is when you adjust for overall tax and cost of living, we're second only to Hawaii and well, Paradise or single digits? take your pick there

https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer/2416/

i'm not deflecting. But none of your arguments will ever hold weight with grammar and spelling like that. Want to have an intelligent debate? You need to speak intelligently. I have too many friends and relatives on facebook ranting and raving about shit they haven't researched with spelling and grammar that is embarrassing. 

The point is, on many of the topics I agree with them. But their shitty way of handling it furthers the stereotype of backwoods hicks who don't know anything. My poking for you to better yourself is because you have some good ideas that many of us share, but you're not helping the argument.

 

What do you think everyone    has  the time to proof read everything they  say on here people are busy doing other things working as they are  blabbing on  the internet. Use you head guy you act as if we are writing news  columns or something.  You are just being  prick is what it come down to .  But it's ok,  keep it up you are not going to stop me from talking . Socialism never worked right in any country its  been tried long term,  it's a ponzi scheme.  There should be laws against politicians trying to get elected  from trying to bribe voters with promises of FREE stuff that they know dam well ARE  not free !!  

That being said I'm not against some form of social programs just have to watch the books be responsible. 

Are politicians are not is the problem.  They make promises they can't keep long term .

 

Edited by Storm914
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, virgil said:

I'm just curious.  For those of you repeating or promoting this fallacy, have you been duped or are you trying to dupe others?  The new law clearly states that late term abortions are for special circumstances where the pregnancy is endangering the life of the mother or where the baby is not viable.  Even the Fox News articles on the subject include that information.  It's only echo chamber blogs that conveniently leave it out.

You missed a whole part. Is a danger to the life or "health" of the mother.  What kind of health? Emotional health? Mental Health? Financial health? This was an area they  purposely painted gray. It sin't defined and since it doesn't have to be a doctor performing the procedure is doesn't have to bea a doctor to agree with the mother. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the actual text.

2599-BB. ABORTION.  1.  A  HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, 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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, Culver.  Who do you think will be performing the procedures?  The new law doesn't make it legal for just anyone to perform abortions- only licensed medical professionals like physician assistants, midwives, or nurse practitioners- all of whom have the same legal standards for performing the procedure as a doctor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, virgil said:

Come on, Culver.  Who do you think will be performing the procedures?  The new law doesn't make it legal for just anyone to perform abortions- only licensed medical professionals like physician assistants, midwives, or nurse practitioners- all of whom have the same legal standards for performing the procedure as a doctor.

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 .

 

 

Edited by Storm914
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes 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 .

 

 

If there is a legitimate reason, there's nothing to investigate.  If there's not a legitimate reason, there's no procedure.  And, any practitioner who'd be willing to do it illegally under the new law, would probably have been willing to do it illegally under the old one.  Right, isn't that a concept that's been agreed upon on this forum, criminals don't follow laws?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, virgil said:

If there is a legitimate reason, there's nothing to investigate.  If there's not a legitimate reason, there's no procedure.  And, any practitioner who'd be willing to do it illegally under the new law, would probably have been willing to do it illegally under the old one.  Right, isn't that a concept that's been agreed upon on this forum, criminals don't follow laws?

Honestly, why should there ever be a LEGITIMATE reason to abort a child that 7, 8 or 9 months along in a pregnancy?  Premature infants have survived being born quite early, so if the mother's life is somehow endangered, why not attempt a C-section and remove the child alive?  If the baby dies at least an effort was made.  You will be amazed how many of these infants will survive, yet some people think nothing of aborting this far along in a pregnancy.  If an infant can survive being born at 7 months or even earlier, how is it not murder if you abort at this stage?  Is terminating an infant while it's still inside it's mother any more acceptable than having it come out naturally and terminating it then?  I am not writing this from a religious perspective here, but from a ethical and biological one.  For those with an open mind, I would suggest people give this subject some serious contemplation before they think any of what Cuomo now enacted into law is a good thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, virgil said:

Come on, Culver.  Who do you think will be performing the procedures?  The new law doesn't make it legal for just anyone to perform abortions- only licensed medical professionals like physician assistants, midwives, or nurse practitioners- all of whom have the same legal standards for performing the procedure as a doctor.

I totally understand who will be doing them. My issue is the protect the "health" of the mother part. This is not to protect her life in this part becasue that is specifically noted separately. So what is the definition of protection her health in you view? 

  • 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 .

 

 

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. 

  • Like 1
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...