Cuomo Bucks Tide With Bill To Ease Limits On Abortion

And it continues....

 

Wait, isn't this the same guy that said he would pass tougher gun laws even if it saved only one child? I guess that only applies to guns...

 

All part of the left's new "evolution" or "progressive" way of thinking..

More abortion, more gun control, ladies in the front line, gay marriage - all things that will get us back on track as a country...

 

So the law changes nothing except putting the NY law in line with Federal Court rulings. Not sure this is anything to get upset about since it changes absolutely nothing.

 

I concur. Of much more concern is Cuomo's 7 bullet magazine limitation, Bloomberg's soft drink ban, and Bernie Sanders's carbon tax. I notice none of these lunatics are rushing to get Facebook to pay an effective tax rate above zero.

 

So, since Roe v. Wade states that late-term abortions are illegal, Cuomo doesn't support Roe v. Wade.

 

You need to actually read the news to understand, not just cherry pick words and try to make them fit what you hope it means. This news article is speaking about the law under Roe, and trying to make NY law compliant with it. Currently, NY law prohibits more than Federal law and since there is a conflict, Federal law prevails. Roe already allows for "late-term abortions to protect a woman’s health, even if her life is not in jeopardy" and this proposed law would make NY agree with Federal law on that issue.

 

I did read it.

You are wrong. It absolutely does not allow for later-term abortions and anyone that claims that proves they have not read the Decision.

You need to actually read Roe v Wade to understand. Read it. Included was a case of a woman who wanted an abortion on the basis of having a child would cause her undue emotional stress. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision to deny her an abortion, as she was obviously gaming the system.

I'm willing to bet that I'm the only person in this thread that has read the entire text of Roe v. Wade.

 

I have read it, and also understand the Federal Court cases that have come after it. Again, what I said was:

So, do you deny that late-term abortions are currently allowed to protect a woman’s health? The law is defined by Roe and the cases that came after it. Those cases, together with Roe, make it clear that late-term abortions are perfectly legal when the health of the mother is at issue.

Let's not lose sight of the issue here. You stated:

And that is simply not true because, as I stated, the law allows late-term abortions to protect a woman’s health. This is the state of the law under Roe, which has not been overturned.

 

Ha ha ha. If I were in charge of tea party /conservative PR I would do anything I could to keep Corwin from uttering public comments. I can't recall anyone combining being completely 100% wrong on so many issues with so much emphasis and assuredness. Nobody comes close to winning the buffoon horses @ss award for being so wrong and so emphatic in his/her wrongness.

Easily one of the prime examples of the idiocy of tea party thinking wherein someone continuously repeats things with cocksuredness that is easily proven wrong again and again and again and again.

Any reading of 35 years of abortion issues and controversy one recognizes that late term abortions have been a fact of life in the US for the past many decades, albeit representing a very small number of total abortions. A very small number of abortion clinics specialize in late term abortions and have for many decades, causing the highest level of consternation and controversy, let alone doctors who perform late term abortions have been shot.

How could so many decades of this practice proceed so long without there being protections under the law set in stone with Roe vs. Wade.

Whether one supports or attacks abortions the absurdity of Corwin's claims on this issue in this thread is still one more example of an overly loud mouth without substance.

 

My guess is, you are one of the millions of liberals who is "cock sure" that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house, and have repeated that particular untruth on more than one occasion.

I don't say this to disparage you, as your comments directed at Corwin(and the tea party??!!!) appear to do. I only bring it up to illustrate the fact that there is a LOT of bad information/omission of information perpetuated by the blogosphere, that goes a long way to perpetuating beliefs that are not entirely grounded in fact. When you consider that the liberal main stream media often go the distance in purposefully spreading similar misinformation, it is no wonder that liberals are, on the whole, much less informed than conservatives. Like mushrooms, liberals actually thrive on bullshit.

 

o-nation: are you "cocksure" she didn't say that? are you "cocksure" she sees better with her glasses or not? and are you "cocksure" that Roe vs Wade made late term abortions illegal across the land as your colleague in political thought "cocksuredly" informs us with all the absolute definitiveness at his disposal.

 

Yes. I am.

This is your golden moment. Here you could embarrass me by digging out the video footage of her saying that. Go ahead. You've doubled down by questioning again whether she said it. Back your assertion.

As I'm sure you know, there are large collections of videos out there, anecdotally examining what liberals "know", sampling both liberals who consider themselves educated, and some of the not so educated. They are comedy gold.


Beyond the anecdotal evidence, there are a bevy of scientific polls conducted on the subject. By a margin of more than 10%, liberals are more likely to have their heads lodged firmly up their collective asses when opining on political topics.

 

o-nation: quit changing the topic.

1. I made no assertion. I asked a question re: Palin.
2. Are you able to read and understand English? It appears that you are having troubles in that regard.
3. Here is another question. When I brought it up before you both ignored it and changed the topic.
4. Do you agree with Corwins emphatic claim that Roe vs Wade banned late term abortions in the US?

 

Again, reframing the conversation. Let me replay it for you.

• You berated Corwin for being out of touch with reality vis-a-vis his understanding of Federal abortion law.
• I berated you for being out of touch with reality vis-a-vis your belief that Palin once said she could see Russia from her house
• Without denying said belief, you questioned whether I was sure she didn't say such a thing.
• I pointed out that your questioning of the facts is a form of doubling down on misinformation
• Now you deny you ever made such an assertion in the first place

As I am sure you are aware, questioning the truth of a thing which you know to be true is the same thing as lying about it. Mikael/Solar products uses a similar tactic when he questions whether we are really sure 5 million jews were killed in the Holocaust.

No, but the fact I have to constantly replay these conversations for you concerns me about your understanding of the written English word.

 

I never denied that. The point I made, with the example cited, is that Roe states that there must be a clear danger to the mother's health. "Emotional stress" is not a danger.

It's important to note that terminating a late-term pregnancy to protect the mother's heath is extremely rare - and late-term a premature birth is often an option. Blackmun made it very clear that he had no patience for anyone trying to game the system. After all, he wrote in the decision "the potential of unborn life must be protected" thirteen times.

In 1992, a group of Ireland's top gynaecologists wrote: "We affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child." (John Bonner, Eamon O'Dwyer, David Jenkins, Kieran O'Driscoll, Julia Vaughan, 'Statement by Obstetricians', The Irish Times 1 April 1992)
http://www.spuc.org.uk/youth/student_info_on_abortion/mothers

BTW, it's extremely clear that Earl is ignorant about Roe v Wade. That's why he's so easily manipulated by left's rhetoric, and incapable of participating as well as browntwn is.

 

Obviously she didn´t read the opinion of the "top gynecologists" and didn´t know that she shouldn´t die.
It is always a source of an amusement to watch the right-wing republicans (guys with small peni*es) so desperately trying to control women and start wars that they are too scared to participate in.