New York State Senate Passes Bill Permitting Abortions up to Birth

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

No, I am quoting from the OP.  Who here would post drivel from a biased website?

 

Ok, so now it is legal for a woman to abort a fetus 60% of the way into her pregnancy and it not be called homicide.  Plus or minus about 2-4 weeks, of course.  

 

  I think that's what you are missing. It's not now legal. It has been since 1973. The gestation age limit for which an abortion can be performed without conditions did not change from 24 weeks. Saying that is too late is acceptable for debate. I would say 21 and everyone would probably have a different limit as Ori said. However saying the current legislation changed that date is not true. It is and has been 24 weeks in New York.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

Some legality for your pleasurable reading:

 

 

 

So an abortional act can be performed on a woman who is pregnant or not.  Hmmmm.

 

 

Paragraph 3. Says it’s justifiable for a woman to abort herself if her physician tells her it will preserve her life.  Not save her life, but preserve it.  Seems like a potentially broad definition that can be abused if a person so desires. Preserving her life could be construed to mean keeping the status quo, as opposed to all the life changes brought about by the birth of an unwanted rug rat.  But perhaps that’s just me.

 

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article125.htm#p125.05

 

  That is the penal code section of the law. It is saying a woman and/or a physician cannot be charged with murder for a justified abortion. It is not listing the conditions which would qualify as "justified". That is outlined in the act,  which is a broad definition, but not  unlimited.

Edited February 3, 2019 by Steeleballz

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

30 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  That is the penal code section of the law. It is saying a woman and/or a physician cannot be charged with murder for a justified abortion. It is not listing the conditions which would qualify as "justified". That is outlined in the act,  which is a broad definition, but not  unlimited.

I read both.  I think what I quoted is what  was amended by the act.  Correct me if I am wrong.

 

As for before the HRA, from what I gather, abortion was not legal under NY law, in spite of R vs. W.  Now it is legal, up to 24 weeks by a proper medical authority.  By the mom, I think there is some wiggle room.  But I never saw the law before it was amended, just found a couple of sites talking about the HRA.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I read both.  I think what I quoted is what  was amended by the act.  Correct me if I am wrong.

 

As for before the HRA, from what I gather, abortion was not legal under NY law, in spite of R vs. W.  Now it is legal, up to 24 weeks by a proper medical authority.  By the mom, I think there is some wiggle room.  But I never saw the law before it was amended, just found a couple of sites talking about the HRA.

 

  It was legal up to 24 weeks before. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,386]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  It was legal up to 24 weeks before. 

6 months is a bit past my comfort zone, unless its a non viable fetus or the health of the mother is in question. 

 

I am not God. If I was a parent who was going to deliver a severely handicapped child, who would have no quality of life  ???

 

I just would hate to be in that postion and would not want to make that decision for them it has to be awful to be in that position. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

6 months is a bit past my comfort zone, unless its a non viable fetus or the health of the mother is in question. 

 

I am not God. If I was a parent who was going to deliver a severely handicapped child, who would have no quality of life  ???

 

I just would hate to be in that postion and would not want to make that decision for them it has to be awful to be in that position. 

 

  Same here. I really think the laws should be adjusted as medical advances decrease the limit of viability. At the time of Roe v Wade, 24 weeks was generally the lower limit of viability that a premature infant could survive, which is why they chose that number. Medical advances have lowered that now. That's why I would say 21 weeks as the limit if I was writing the law.  They don't need to be stuck in 1973 on that aspect of the law.

 

   I feel fortunate not to have ever been in a position to have to make a decision like that. One of the people(s) I know who had to were an older couple and the genetic screen had several abnormalities. They did not want to leave there child needing permanent caregivers if something happened to them. They really wanted to have a child, so it was a difficult decision. They actually did have a healthy child a couple of years later.   

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  It was legal up to 24 weeks before. 

I am a confused.   If it was legal up to 24 weeks before the RHA, and it's still legal up to 24 weeks, what has changed?  Why all the noise about RHA?

 

The way I am reading it, women could be criminally prosecuted for having an abortion prior to. RHA.  So it wasn't legal, as you stated above?

Edited February 3, 2019 by ALFKAD

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

I am a confused.   If it was legal up to 24 weeks before the RHA, and it's still legal up to 24 weeks, what has changed?  Why all the noise about RHA?

 

The way I am reading it, women could be criminally prosecuted for having an abortion prior to. RHA.  So it wasn't legal, as you stated above?

 

  That is the crux of Roe vs Wade. States cannot restrict the right to an abortion prior to when the fetus is viable and can survive outside the womb. That age was generally held as being 24 weeks at the time of the SC decision. It has not changed from that in NY. States also cannot regulate the right to an abortion after viability when the mothers life is at risk. The Yew York law has added the wording life or health is at risk.

 

  As far as I can tell from further reading, this risk is determined medically, by the physician. It is not defined in the law (that I could find). We could guess that the change is that before this, if an abortion was performed after 24 weeks and the mothers health was at risk but her life was not, the doctor was at risk of prosecution. The law also changed that if the fetus is non viable (cannot survive), the abortion can be performed after 24 weeks, whereas that would not have been an option before.  

 

   

[Dashinka 24,888]

9 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  That is the crux of Roe vs Wade. States cannot restrict the right to an abortion prior to when the fetus is viable and can survive outside the womb. That age was generally held as being 24 weeks at the time of the SC decision. It has not changed from that in NY. States also cannot regulate the right to an abortion after viability when the mothers life is at risk. The Yew York law has added the wording life or health is at risk.

 

  As far as I can tell from further reading, this risk is determined medically, by the physician. It is not defined in the law (that I could find). We could guess that the change is that before this, if an abortion was performed after 24 weeks and the mothers health was at risk but her life was not, the doctor was at risk of prosecution. The law also changed that if the fetus is non viable (cannot survive), the abortion can be performed after 24 weeks, whereas that would not have been an option before.  

 

   

The question I have is if a baby is viable and the mother’s health or life are in jeopardy, wouldn’t an emergency c-section be the better option for all?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

9 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  That is the crux of Roe vs Wade. States cannot restrict the right to an abortion prior to when the fetus is viable and can survive outside the womb. That age was generally held as being 24 weeks at the time of the SC decision. It has not changed from that in NY. States also cannot regulate the right to an abortion after viability when the mothers life is at risk. The Yew York law has added the wording life or health is at risk.

 

  As far as I can tell from further reading, this risk is determined medically, by the physician. It is not defined in the law (that I could find). We could guess that the change is that before this, if an abortion was performed after 24 weeks and the mothers health was at risk but her life was not, the doctor was at risk of prosecution. The law also changed that if the fetus is non viable (cannot survive), the abortion can be performed after 24 weeks, whereas that would not have been an option before.  

 

   

Seems pretty silly to me, really.  The RHA changed nothing but the penal code, right?  As in now a woman and her doctor cannot be prosecuted for an abortion?  

 

But according to this site, abortions in NY state since 1970 have ranged from 110,000 to 300,000 per year.  

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/usa/ab-usa-NY.html

 

I don’t think anyone was being prosecuted for the “crime” of abortion in NY state, ever.  Doing some quick math, that’s around 8 million abortions in 48 years (3 years prior to RvW), or an average of 169,000 per year.  Just in NY state.  That’s a lot of dead babies.  I really wish the CDC would record the reasons for aborting, but that will never happen, I am sure.

 

 

From the CDC, here are some quick stats that show when most abortions are performed.  Bear in mind, states are not required to report to the CDC, so the numbers are likely severely skewed (just comparing the NY numbers above to the total US numbers that the CDC has compiled; my estimate on the skewing)

 

Quote

Women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions in 2015 and throughout the period of analysis. The majority of abortions in 2015 took place early in gestation: 91.1% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.6%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2015, 24.6% of all abortions were early medical abortions (a non-surgical abortion at ≤8 weeks’ gestation). The percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 114% from 2006 to 2015, with an 8% increase from 2014 to 2015. Source: Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015. MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-13).

 

 

(Not putting these factoids out for you, cuz I imagine you have more experience with abortions than most of us, based on your history; rather, just putting them out there for all.)

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

41 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The question I have is if a baby is viable and the mother’s health or life are in jeopardy, wouldn’t an emergency c-section be the better option for all?

Up to the mother, obviously.  And from my interpretation above, life does not have to be in jeopardy to be allowed to abort.  The woman just has to perceive that it “preserves her life”.  Which can have MANY meanings, IMO.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

29 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The question I have is if a baby is viable and the mother’s health or life are in jeopardy, wouldn’t an emergency c-section be the better option for all?

 

   I'm not sure if it could be an option. I'd like to think physicians would suggest that as an option if it was possible.

 

    Like I said, I don't think it's a case of people changing their minds at the last minute. If it's a health issue, it's hard to say if the mother would be healthy enough for a c-section. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Seems pretty silly to me, really.  The RHA changed nothing but the penal code, right?  As in now a woman and her doctor cannot be prosecuted for an abortion?  

 

But according to this site, abortions in NY state since 1970 have ranged from 110,000 to 300,000 per year.  

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/usa/ab-usa-NY.html

 

I don’t think anyone was being prosecuted for the “crime” of abortion in NY state, ever.  Doing some quick math, that’s around 8 million abortions in 48 years (3 years prior to RvW), or an average of 169,000 per year.  Just in NY state.  That’s a lot of dead babies.  I really wish the CDC would record the reasons for aborting, but that will never happen, I am sure.

 

 

From the CDC, here are some quick stats that show when most abortions are performed.  Bear in mind, states are not required to report to the CDC, so the numbers are likely severely skewed (just comparing the NY numbers above to the total US numbers that the CDC has compiled; my estimate on the skewing)

 

 

 

(Not putting these factoids out for you, cuz I imagine you have more experience with abortions than most of us, based on your history; rather, just putting them out there for all.)

 

  I think the risk of prosecution was there. They cited one of the reasons for the change in the law is that women with health risks after 24 weeks often went to other states to have an abortion performed.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I think the risk of prosecution was there. They cited one of the reasons for the change in the law is that women with health risks after 24 weeks often went to other states to have an abortion performed.

Gotcha.  But with 8 million successful abortions performed in that time frame, I saw nothing indicating women were being prosecuted, at all.  But whatever.  If that’s what NY wants, they got what they wanted.  I have far too many reasons NOT to live in NY state for this to even factor into a decision to move there.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Up to the mother, obviously.  And from my interpretation above, life does not have to be in jeopardy to be allowed to abort.  The woman just has to perceive that it “preserves her life”.  Which can have MANY meanings, IMO.

 

  More correct would be that a physician makes the evaluation that her life is in danger. If the woman perceives there is a health risk she would go to her doctor, not to an abortion clinic.

 

  If you have ever been at a hospital when a code white (L+D emergency) is called, it's a pretty grim situation. Not to overstate "health risks" of pregnancy, but it's not a trivial thing either when something goes wrong. Deliveries can go south in a heartbeat when something happens. And often it's not a surprise. The physician and nursing team often knows a difficult delivery is coming. They are ready with coolers of blood products, plasma, surgical teams and resuscitation teams standing by. Sometimes they cant do anything.

 

  I trust the physician to make the determination of health risk. Ultimately the woman will then decide what to do. You are not going to get an abortion at 24 weeks because you have a runny nose. If you have cancer and you are not going to make it another 12 weeks to the delivery date, the doctor can make that determination, and the woman will have to decide whether to risk the death of herself and the baby or not. If you search for cancer during delivery, there are an overwhelming number of heartbreaking cases where neither the mom or the baby made it.