Posts Tagged ‘Abortion Law’

No Justice for Unborn Victims

Monday, February 11th, 2019

The falsehoods about the radical new abortion law keep coming, only now they’re highlighted by an unspeakable tragedy.

Last week, in Queens, a man brutally attacked his girlfriend who was five months pregnant. He clearly targeted the unborn child in her womb, and the result was that the mother and child both died. Prosecutors first sought to bring charges against the man for criminal abortion, as well as for murdering the mother. But thanks to the Governor’s abortion expansion bill, the crime of abortion no longer exists in New York, so there will be no justice for that poor unborn child who was brutally killed.

This should shock the conscience of everyone. 38 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government already authorize a criminal prosecution for killing or harming an unborn child. New York is the outlier on this — even super-liberal California has a law that protects unborn children from violence. But not here. We’re the radicals now.

Abortion advocates display either appalling ignorance or disingenuousness when they reply to the outrage over the new law’s decriminalization of murder. For example, one of the sponsors of the Reproductive Health Act recently opined that “Physical assault resulting in the loss of pregnancy qualifies as first-degree assault”.

Do they even read the law before making those kinds of ridiculous statements? The offense of Assault in the First Degree, Penal Law 120.10, requires that “serious physical injury” be caused to a “person”. Since an unborn child is not a “person” in New York law, you would have to prove that the assault caused that kind of grave injury to the mother. But there’s no way that a forced miscarriage could possibly qualify under the definition of “serious physical injury”. Penal Law 10.00(10) defines that as “physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.”

You don’t have to be a lawyer to see that an attack on an unborn child doesn’t fit that definition. So it’s no accident that there is no reported case of any prosecutor in New York ever bringing a charge like that for an attack on an unborn child. That’s because the bill sponsor’s claim is nonsense, and she just doesn’t want to admit the fatal flaw in her bill.

It also isn’t good enough to say that “oh well, he’ll be prosecuted for murdering the mom so that’s enough punishment”. Would it be enough to say that the Parkland murderer should only face one charge, instead of being held responsible for killing each and every one of those children? Or should we now revise the 9/11 memorial in lower Manhattan to erase the unborn children who died in that attack? Aren’t those children mourned by their parents and relatives just as much as anyone else who died?

Not only that, but there are many instances where an assault on the unborn child results in no injury to the mother, but death to the child. Just last year, a doctor was sentenced to 20 years in prison for using an abortion pill to cause the death of an unborn child. A quick Google session found several other instances in the last few years in which a man secretly gave a pregnant woman the abortion pill in an effort to kill the unborn child. One of them took place right here in New York in 2014.

None of these men could be prosecuted in New York now, because the pills didn’t cause any kind of injury to the mother. So these kinds of criminals are now being given a free shot at hurting or killing an unborn child — one who is wanted by her mother.

Fixing this should be a ground ball. It has nothing to do with affecting legalized abortion in any way. Every version of an Unborn Victims of Violence Act that’s been offered here in New York makes that clear. The amendments that were offered before the Reproductive Health Act was passed also made that clear. But the pro-abortion ideologues who pushed the Governor’s bill are unwilling to budge an inch from their refusal to recognize any intrinsic value in the life of an unborn child. For goodness sake, even Roe v. Wade recognized the legitimate state interest in protecting the life of an unborn child, particularly after viability. Why can’t the pro-abortion movement even give a bit of legal recognition and protection to babies that are wanted by their mothers?

That voice you hear is from a baby who was brutally killed in her mother’s womb in Queens. She cries out to God for justice. There is none for her in New York.

Here’s What the New Abortion Law Really Says

Wednesday, January 30th, 2019

We are frequently questioned or challenged to substantiate the arguments that we have been making about the effect of the Reproductive Health Act. People keep asking us to show them “where in the bill does it say that”?

Here is a detailed explanation of how the bill (now the law) does precisely what we have accused it of doing. The language of the bill is in italics, followed by the legal analysis.

§ 2599-aa. Policy and purpose. The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care is a fundamental component of every individual’s health, privacy and equality. Therefore, it is the policy of the state that:

1. Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization.

2. Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion, pursuant to this article.

The term “fundamental right” is extremely significant. This language incorporates the constitutional law principle that “fundamental rights” cannot be regulated except for compelling state interests and in the most narrow way possible. Virtually no regulations of abortion survive this “strict scrutiny” standard.

3. The state shall not discriminate against, deny, or interfere with the exercise of the rights set forth in this section in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services or information.

This language poses a direct threat to religious freedom and conscience rights. It gives the state the authority to deny licenses to individuals and institutions that do not provide or cooperate with abortion.

§ 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law,

To understand the significance of this, you have to understand that the Education Department oversees all the licensed professions like doctors, physician assistants, nurses, and others. So this provision authorizes the Education Department to permit non-doctors to do abortions and to set the limits on what they can do. So it’s entirely in their discretion to allow non-doctors to do surgical abortions like early suction aspiration abortions – where a vacuum is inserted into the womb and the baby is sucked out, often being dismembered in the process of being killed.

acting within 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:

This means that the application of this law is entirely in the discretion of the abortionist. Since there are no penalties for violating the law, this standard is meaningless.

the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or

This means abortion on demand for any reason at all for the first twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, including times when the infant has a heartbeat (about eight weeks), and can feel pain (about twenty weeks).

there is an absence of fetal viability, or

This term is undefined in the law, meaning that it is entirely up to the abortionist to determine the application of the law, with no third party (e.g., another doctor) having to concur. The doctor can therefore decide that an infant isn’t “viable”, for example, because she has a developmental problem that would require medical treatment for her to survive – in other words, virtually any kind of disability.

the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.

This is the heart of the matter. This term “health” has been defined by the Supreme Court as meaning “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient” ( Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade). In effect, it means any reason whatsoever, if the woman and the abortionist consider it relevant to her emotional or psychological or family health. Notice also that the bill considers only the mother to be a “patient”. The unborn child is a target.

§ 3. Section 4164 of the public health law is REPEALED.

This provision repeals the law that gave full civil rights protection to a child born accidentally in a post-twenty-week abortion, required that such abortions be done in a hospital, and that a second doctor be available to provide care to the infant. By repealing it, the bill guarantees that the infant will receive no care and will be allowed to die untreated. After all, the infant isn’t the doctor’s patient – just the mother. And the doctor has no obligation to provide treatment that he considers futile. And in the end, the entire purpose of the abortion is to produce a dead baby, so this part of the bill guarantees that.

§ 5. Sections 125.40, 125.45, 125.50, 125.55 and 125.60 of the penal law are REPEALED

This provision repeals all the criminal statutes that would penalize illegal abortions. It thus would prevent a serious criminal prosecution for a direct attack on the unborn child, an abortion by an unlicensed person (the “back-alley” practitioner), and a coerced abortion.

Many of the advocates for this bill – including the Governor and other elected officials – continue to spread falsehoods and deny what it really does. So let’s turn the question around on them. Take our worst-case scenarios, and ask, “where in the bill does it prohibit that?” The fact is, there is absolutely nothing in the bill, or the state of the law after its enactment, that would prohibit any of these following things.

  • Abortion up until the moment of birth for any reason – because of the broad definition of “health” that could include virtually anything the mother and the abortionist want it to mean.
  • Non-doctors doing surgical abortions (e.g. vacuum aspirations) – because it repeals the physician-only provision of the old law and leaves it entirely up to the Education Department to decide who can do abortions.
  • Pharmaceutical abortions prescribed online (the term is “telemed”) – again, because the scope of practice of the abortionist is entirely in the discretion of the Education Department.
  • New York becoming an abortion destination – because we will be one of the few states in the nation that permits late-term abortions for any reason without any regulation.
  • Aborting an infant with a disability who would need medical care to survive out of the womb – because of the vagueness of the term “viability”, and also because of the broadness of the term “health”.
  • Not treating an infant born alive accidentally – because it repealed the law that granted legal protection to such children, and because abortionists are not going to treat the child that they were in the process of killing in the womb moments earlier.
  • Prosecutions of non-licensed persons performing abortions (the old “back-alley” abortion) – because prosecuting the offense of practicing medicine without a license is up to the discretion of the Education Department and the Attorney General, and it’s very unlikely that New York’s staunchly pro-abortion government is going to do much about this.
  • An attack on an unborn child that does no harm to the mother but causes a miscarriage – because the unborn child is not a “person” under our law, the only possible crimes to prosecute might be misdemeanor assaults on the mother, a woefully inadequate remedy for such a heinous offense.

Much has been made of the idea that this bill only “codified Roe v. Wade“. But here’s what the Supreme Court actually said in Roe:

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion

This new law rejects the idea that the state has any interest whatsoever in protecting the life or health of an unborn child at any stage, much less the time when the baby can survive outside of the womb. That is a gross dereliction of one of the fundamental duties of any government, and it marks a return to barbarism.

That’s what the law says.  It is perverse to claim otherwise.