It's now easier to perform an abortion in the state of New York than to legally apply a tattoo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-passes-abortion-bill-late-term-if-mothers-health-is-at-risk-today-2019-01-23/



If you dive inti the text of the bill, it becomes apparent that it's so much more than just a full term abortion law. It also effectively allows for post birth abortion, and removes medical qualifications for those people who perform abortions.

It's now harder to be a tattoo artist in NY than perform an abortion.




Is this what we want?

It allows nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants to perform some abortions. How is being in one of those categories “easier” than being a tattoo artist?

Being a licensed midwife is just a matter of paying the license fee and passing a simple test.

It's harder to be a tatto artist

That’s a flat out lie. You have to complete a rigorous program at the minimum of a master’s degree level with stringent requirements. Read the education requirements.

http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/midwife/midwifelic.htm

Hogwash.

I personally know two midwifes in Virginia, and neither of them even finished high school.

Don't give this nonsense about "Master's" equivalency.

Ok, but what are the licensing requirements in New York State? Or do you not understand that states have different licensing requirements for health care professionals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-passes-abortion-bill-late-term-if-mothers-health-is-at-risk-today-2019-01-23/



If you dive inti the text of the bill, it becomes apparent that it's so much more than just a full term abortion law. It also effectively allows for post birth abortion, and removes medical qualifications for those people who perform abortions.

It's now harder to be a tattoo artist in NY than perform an abortion.




Is this what we want?

Did not bother to read the link yet although I probably will check, but the reasoning seems pretty damned obvious:

In order to perform an abortion, surgical or medication, one must be a licensed medical provider, which means one is subject to all the training, licensing, etc requirements and in addition any facility is subject to such requirements.

So if you think this is irrational policy, let me ask: would you prefer your child's tonsils be removed by a tattoo artist or an MD? Since a tattoo artist is subject, you know, to more stringent regulation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The new Temple of Moloch is in Albany.

I had to google what "Moloch" was.

You sound like a religious nutter. Who even knows about stuff like this today? Are you like some cray-cray brianiac or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-passes-abortion-bill-late-term-if-mothers-health-is-at-risk-today-2019-01-23/

If you dive inti the text of the bill, it becomes apparent that it's so much more than just a full term abortion law. It also effectively allows for post birth abortion, and removes medical qualifications for those people who perform abortions.

It's now harder to be a tattoo artist in NY than perform an abortion.

Is this what we want?

Did not bother to read the link yet although I probably will check, but the reasoning seems pretty damned obvious:

In order to perform an abortion, surgical or medication, one must be a licensed medical provider, which means one is subject to all the training, licensing, etc requirements and in addition any facility is subject to such requirements.

So if you think this is irrational policy, let me ask: would you prefer your child's tonsils be removed by a tattoo artist or an MD? Since a tattoo artist is subject, you know, to more stringent regulation?

Can we please drop the BS tattoo artist comparison? Midwives have stringent education, examination and licensure requirements in New York State. The link has been posted multiple times. These are not Duggar-style CPMs in Arkansas. Midwives in New York are licensed and permitted to deliver babies, which is a hell of a lot more dangerous for a woman than abortion. Yet no one seems to have a problem with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, how many right wing evangelicals are going to step up to adopt the desperately ill children that they don't want aborted?

Some of whom may only survive for days or weeks, or cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep alive for a couple years.

***crickets***

But they are all on social media moaning.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump

“Abortions that occur at this stage in pregnancy are often the result of tragic diagnoses and are exactly the scenarios wherein patients need their doctors, and not obstructive politicians,”

Case #1
"Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain.

What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth.
Kate asked her doctor: “What can a baby like mine do? Sleep all the time?
“Babies like yours are not generally comfortable enough to sleep,” the neurologist said.

Case 2
The diagnosis came in the form of a dense two-page MRI report. The fast-growing, inoperable tumor had grown into her brain, heart, and lungs. It had wrapped around her neck, eyes, and deep into her chest. It was so invasive, it was pushing her tongue out of her mouth.
Her chances of living to the age of viability or birth were slim. Lindsey and Matt made the heartbreaking decision to follow through with an abortion at about 24 weeks.

So folks, Catholics and Evangelicals, step up and absorb the coats of having these children. Invite the mom to live with you, and take care of her, so the dad can work.

Step up and pay their hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills.

If you think these women are "whores" who just can't be bothered to have a baby, you are 100% wrong.

It doesn't take much time to moan on social media though.

Any comments conservatives? Anyone? Anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If OP is so concerned about full term abortions, then OP really really needs to focus on WV, MS and AK -- states that allow for full term abortions regardless of the mother's health. NY only allows for it when the mother's health is in danger.

NY used to allow for it when the mother's life was at risk. Now it is simply when her health is endangered.

I wonder how often a woman's mental health will be what is said to be endangered going forward. My mental health is endangered when my kids leave their crap all over the house or an asshole cuts me off in traffic.

People like you are fomenting a problem where it doesn't exist.

Women don't get late-term abortions willy-nilly. They are heartbreaking events for the women who seek them out for very painful reasons, and FU for making light of them.

Most women don’t. Don’t tell me you know what happens in every situation because you don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

Because beyond being a mom, I am a person, and my own health and life has innate value.

This is part of why NY is a maker state, not a failed red state, by the by: equality for adults leads to better outcomes for all families and children over longer terms.

1) more people are fleeing NY than moving in.

2) being aborted is not a "better outcome" if you happen to be the one getting aborted.

Note that the PP said her own health and life has innate value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If OP is so concerned about full term abortions, then OP really really needs to focus on WV, MS and AK -- states that allow for full term abortions regardless of the mother's health. NY only allows for it when the mother's health is in danger.

NY used to allow for it when the mother's life was at risk. Now it is simply when her health is endangered.

I wonder how often a woman's mental health will be what is said to be endangered going forward. My mental health is endangered when my kids leave their crap all over the house or an asshole cuts me off in traffic.

If your mental state is that tenuous maybe having a baby isn't the best idea for you then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If OP is so concerned about full term abortions, then OP really really needs to focus on WV, MS and AK -- states that allow for full term abortions regardless of the mother's health. NY only allows for it when the mother's health is in danger.

NY used to allow for it when the mother's life was at risk. Now it is simply when her health is endangered.

I wonder how often a woman's mental health will be what is said to be endangered going forward. My mental health is endangered when my kids leave their crap all over the house or an asshole cuts me off in traffic.

People like you are fomenting a problem where it doesn't exist.

Women don't get late-term abortions willy-nilly. They are heartbreaking events for the women who seek them out for very painful reasons, and FU for making light of them.

Most women don’t. Don’t tell me you know what happens in every situation because you don’t.

Why do you think a woman should be forced to go to 40 weeks with a non-viable fetus? Why do you think a woman whose health is endangered by her pregnancy should be forced to go through it until she delivers, if it might kill her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

Because beyond being a mom, I am a person, and my own health and life has innate value.

This is part of why NY is a maker state, not a failed red state, by the by: equality for adults leads to better outcomes for all families and children over longer terms.

1) more people are fleeing NY than moving in.

2) being aborted is not a "better outcome" if you happen to be the one getting aborted.

Note that the PP said her own health and life has innate value.

Exactly. Malignant narcissism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

Because beyond being a mom, I am a person, and my own health and life has innate value.

This is part of why NY is a maker state, not a failed red state, by the by: equality for adults leads to better outcomes for all families and children over longer terms.

1) more people are fleeing NY than moving in.

2) being aborted is not a "better outcome" if you happen to be the one getting aborted.

Note that the PP said her own health and life has innate value.

Exactly. Malignant narcissism.

NP

For a woman to suggest that her own life does, indeed, have some innate value on its own -- this is malignant narcissism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If OP is so concerned about full term abortions, then OP really really needs to focus on WV, MS and AK -- states that allow for full term abortions regardless of the mother's health. NY only allows for it when the mother's health is in danger.

NY used to allow for it when the mother's life was at risk. Now it is simply when her health is endangered.

I wonder how often a woman's mental health will be what is said to be endangered going forward. My mental health is endangered when my kids leave their crap all over the house or an asshole cuts me off in traffic.

People like you are fomenting a problem where it doesn't exist.

Women don't get late-term abortions willy-nilly. They are heartbreaking events for the women who seek them out for very painful reasons, and FU for making light of them.

Most women don’t. Don’t tell me you know what happens in every situation because you don’t.

Why do you think a woman should be forced to go to 40 weeks with a non-viable fetus? Why do you think a woman whose health is endangered by her pregnancy should be forced to go through it until she delivers, if it might kill her?

How can your fetus kill you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If OP is so concerned about full term abortions, then OP really really needs to focus on WV, MS and AK -- states that allow for full term abortions regardless of the mother's health. NY only allows for it when the mother's health is in danger.

NY used to allow for it when the mother's life was at risk. Now it is simply when her health is endangered.

I wonder how often a woman's mental health will be what is said to be endangered going forward. My mental health is endangered when my kids leave their crap all over the house or an asshole cuts me off in traffic.

People like you are fomenting a problem where it doesn't exist.

Women don't get late-term abortions willy-nilly. They are heartbreaking events for the women who seek them out for very painful reasons, and FU for making light of them.

Most women don’t. Don’t tell me you know what happens in every situation because you don’t.

Why do you think a woman should be forced to go to 40 weeks with a non-viable fetus? Why do you think a woman whose health is endangered by her pregnancy should be forced to go through it until she delivers, if it might kill her?

How can your fetus kill you?

Let me guess -- you have nothing like medical training, whatsoever.

There are many ways carrying a fetus can be dangerous, even to the point of posing a real risk of death. Will it actually change your mind to get a list of the ways, or will you just double down?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If OP is so concerned about full term abortions, then OP really really needs to focus on WV, MS and AK -- states that allow for full term abortions regardless of the mother's health. NY only allows for it when the mother's health is in danger.

NY used to allow for it when the mother's life was at risk. Now it is simply when her health is endangered.

I wonder how often a woman's mental health will be what is said to be endangered going forward. My mental health is endangered when my kids leave their crap all over the house or an asshole cuts me off in traffic.

People like you are fomenting a problem where it doesn't exist.

Women don't get late-term abortions willy-nilly. They are heartbreaking events for the women who seek them out for very painful reasons, and FU for making light of them.

Most women don’t. Don’t tell me you know what happens in every situation because you don’t.

Why do you think a woman should be forced to go to 40 weeks with a non-viable fetus? Why do you think a woman whose health is endangered by her pregnancy should be forced to go through it until she delivers, if it might kill her?

How can your fetus kill you?

Ask Mrs. Rick Santorum.
https://jezebel.com/rick-santorums-anti-abortion-politics-would-have-killed-5873158

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If OP is so concerned about full term abortions, then OP really really needs to focus on WV, MS and AK -- states that allow for full term abortions regardless of the mother's health. NY only allows for it when the mother's health is in danger.

NY used to allow for it when the mother's life was at risk. Now it is simply when her health is endangered.

I wonder how often a woman's mental health will be what is said to be endangered going forward. My mental health is endangered when my kids leave their crap all over the house or an asshole cuts me off in traffic.

People like you are fomenting a problem where it doesn't exist.

Women don't get late-term abortions willy-nilly. They are heartbreaking events for the women who seek them out for very painful reasons, and FU for making light of them.

Most women don’t. Don’t tell me you know what happens in every situation because you don’t.

Why do you think a woman should be forced to go to 40 weeks with a non-viable fetus? Why do you think a woman whose health is endangered by her pregnancy should be forced to go through it until she delivers, if it might kill her?

Why do you think it's only non-viable babies that would be aborted in a late term abortion? Why are you suggesting late term abortion is only an option if it might kill her? That was the prior law. The current law says it only has to be endangering her health, including her mental health.