Let's be clear, your personal interpretation, supposition and conjecture, revisionist assesment and essential wishful thinking is no substitute for the plain FACTS. For the objective reader, who reads carefully and comprehensively: PolitiFact | This Facebook post about New York’s abortion law is still wrong New York’s Reproductive Health Act says that a health care practitioner "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." Previously, women in New York could only get abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if their lives were threatened, according to Justin Flagg, a spokesman for Democratic state Sen. Liz Krueger, who sponsored the legislation Under the new law, women can also get an abortion after 24 weeks if their health is threatened or the fetus isn’t viable, Flagg said. He added that this was the standard set by the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade but that the discrepancy between the state and federal laws "meant that many women have been forced to go out of state to get necessary medical care after 24 weeks."
No, it doesn't. But all the other posts in this thread do. But I have gone to great lengths to explain how the law will have that effect, and how the law was probably intended to have that effect. People should realize that the phrase "protect the woman's health" is a very vague and nebulous concept when put into actual practice. Again, need I remind you a doctor is not actually the one making this decision here, under this new law? The fact that that wasn't good enough should tell you something about this new law. Okay, fine, that's not too unreasonable, but I strongly suspect that part about the fetus not being viable is just a total red herring and had little to do with the primary purpose of this law. If it was only about that, they could have just changed that part. For the objective reader "who reads carefully and comprehensively" they'll find that a real doctor is no longer required to either perform the late-term abortion, or to determine the reasons why it was performed.
Women being harmed during rape is still irrelevant to whether a late-term abortion is needed. Okay, tell you what, how about a special exception in the law where the woman can get her late-term abortion in the case of rape, but only if she was unconscious / unable to communicate before, and that was the reason for her not getting an abortion earlier? That will be such a tiny percentage, it will hardly matter. I have no doubt the majority of pro-lifers would be willing to concede that to you.
1. Actually, you've gone to great lengths to try and pass off supposition and conjecture as an inevitable conclusion. In order to do that you have to IGNORE THE BASIC LANGUAGE OF THE LAW. Politi-Fact demonstrated how you are wrong. That you insist other wise is just stubbornness on your part. 2. Protecting a patient's life and health are not "vague" terms. We're not talking about temporary pain or discomfort that is common among all births. There have been/are cases where complications in bringing a pregnancy to term can be fatal to the woman or cause irreparable damage to her internal organs or brain (i.e., coma). Again, you do not read carefully and comprehensively, as the excerpt refers to the HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER, not the patient. 3. You falsely make an insinuation that the new law addition is insidious and unnecessary. All one has to do is read carefully and comprehensively to see your error. 4. You contradict yourself, as you concede that there's nothing "unreasonable" with the addition, then you go off the deep end with yet another of your attempts to pass off supposition and conjecture as an inevitable conclusion that it's NOT reasonable. Now you keep making assertions and allegations, but provide NOTHING in terms of quotes from the law and how it fits into your revisionist narrative. Some substance other than your opinions, please. 5. More opinion-only blather from you. The readers get it, you don't like abortions. Fine, you and yours don't have to get one. It's called CHOICE. The point of contention here is that YOU in conjunction with the OP made a statement that does not stand up to fact based scrutiny...your insipid stubbornness non-withstanding. Carry on.
What you keep ignoring is that the basic language of the law doesn't actually tell you what the law will do. You have to read the language of the law and then use some basic thinking to figure out what will happen due to the new change. The law doesn't actually have to say "Late-term abortion is now legalized and women can get one for any reason they choose" for the law to do exactly that.
I have not ignored the basic language of the law, in fact I've shown how the language of the law does exactly that. Like saying a woman has a right to get abortion in a law that's specifically about late-term abortion. I mean, what type of message do you think that language sends?
No, I conceded that it wasn't unreasonable to allow the woman to abort if the fetus was non-viable. And that if that was the only part in this new law I would not be complaining. I quoted sections of the law in this thread: New York legalizes really late term Abortion and celebrates like it's the Super Bowl (page 2, post #42)
I want to clarify I may have been very mistaken there. I had assumed "fetus being aborted for non-viability" meant we were talking about a fetus after 24 weeks that had some medical condition that would prevent it from surviving long-term. I see now that they might have just simply been referring to any fetus less than 24 weeks gestation. Thank you chris155au for pointing that out to me. If by "fetus isn't viable", we are only talking about fetuses less than 24 weeks, then didn't the previous law in New York already allow that? So this new law would not have changed that. It's a little unclear to me exactly what Justin Flagg was referring to here.
LOL, you answered your own questions: ""a fetus after 24 weeks that had some medical condition that would prevent it from surviving long-term."" But at least you answered a question !!
All you're doing is just regurgitating the same old guff that I logically deconstructed earlier. #107 (politicalforum.com) In effect, your stubbornness has reached the level of insipidness.
Stop feigning ignorance here, or if genuine, let me clarify. This is an addendum to the original Roe vs. Wade decision. Capice'? If not, look up the word in a dictionary. Again and again, you keep inserting your "what if's", "could be", "will almost certainly be" blather as if it's fact or a certainty. We've done this dance, and you just keep being stubborn. Once more for the cheap seats; Previously, women in New York could only get abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if their lives were threatened, according to Justin Flagg, a spokesman for Democratic state Sen. Liz Krueger, who sponsored the legislation Under the new law, women can also get an abortion after 24 weeks if their health is threatened or the fetus isn’t viable, Flagg said. Plain and simple, no symantic gymnastics required for understanding. You don't like it, fine. That's your perrogative. But DON'T come here LYING about the law or making misleading statements, as the subject title and OP did.
I'm going to point out that you did nothing to clarify the situation. All you did was quote someone else's partial explanation of the law. On top of that, you also seem to have completely ignored post #111 (which was only 5 posts ago) which discussed how a part of that statement was very semantically ambiguous.
In other words, you're saying that just because this law "could" do something, doesn't mean it will do something, and therefore it was disingenuous for me to claim that the law would do that thing. But what about the law could easily do something? I actually think it's disingenuous of you to accuse me of being disingenuous here, considering what the context of this thing is. Imagine if you cut my brakes and then accused me of being disingenuous when I accused you of trying to cause me to crash and get hurt. That would obviously be disingenuous (of you). It's a similar thing here. Think about. Suppose the state wants to "enforce" the law. Who's going to get prosecuted? The person who decided the woman "needs" a late-term abortion doesn't have a clue and has very little background to be capable of really making a sound judgement about that. The law is also so vague, it's going to be very difficult to prove some flimsy stupid made-up reason doesn't constitute a valid reason under the law. There's going to be plenty of plausible deniability. There won't even be a chain of responsibility here. You could prove with complete certainty who the person was who performed the late-term abortion, who the doctor in charge of overseeing the operation of the clinic was, and that the abortion was not done for a valid health reason, but that would still not be enough to prosecute any of them. They might have designated responsibility for filling out the form to some other person there. The one who did the abortion will say it was only their job to do the abortion, it wasn't their job to determine if the abortion was done for valid reasons. The doctor will claim he never examined the woman, and that the law did not require him to. If they are even able to find the person who signed off on the form, they could claim someone else there told her to write. They do not remember who, and the law does not require them to keep any records. It's going to be very hard to prosecute someone when they had no idea whether what they were doing was legal or not, and can claim they were only doing their job, and it was not their job to know.
I wonder if there's some sort of way for the federal authorities to crack down. Maybe start enforcing the ban on totally elective abortions after 24 weeks if the woman travels with her unborn baby from out of state. Prosecute the person who performed the late-term abortion to the maximum extent of the law, even if they claim it wasn't their job or duty under the law to know if it was actually legal or not. And prosecute the employer that hired that abortion worker, for paying them to do abortions, knowing that some of them would likely not be legal, because there were no safeguards in place.
Now you want women banned from interstate travel ??? Is there ANYTHING about women you like? Where is your proof they aren't enforcing the law now? Yup, like all your other claims no shred of proof will be found..
My, but you are insipidly stubborn when faced with being dead wrong. Your first paragraph is a lie, as I stated time and again in no uncertain terms what the law states and how YOU keep trying to insert other meanings ("in other words"), supposition and conjecture. If you can't accept what you read as what the writer means, then don't waste time and space spinning your revisionist screeds. The chronology of the posts supports what I say here to the objective reader. This is about the 3rd time you've rambled on with a "suppose" scenario. I won't indulge you there, because YOU create your own conclusions by rewriting what the law states and what it specifically pertains to. We've done this dance, no sense in repeating it. The chronology of the posts clearly states my position. So unless you've got something new, I'd say we're done here.
