• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Your thoughts on Cuomo's reproductive health act?

Curious George

Veteran Member
many

see Cuomo's Proposal for "Moment of Birth Abortions" Is Back in the News - www.independentsentinel.com

quote
The Reproductive Health Act seeks to have abortion declared a ‘fundamental right’ in New York State which would result in the following:

  • It would prohibit even basic and widely supported protections, such as parental consent and limits on government funding of abortion
  • The law would allow any “health care practitioner” to perform an abortion
  • It enshrines late-term abortion in New York State law
  • Jeopardizes any agency that does not refer for abortion and
  • Seriously threatens conscience protections for hospitals and medical professionals
quote
You seem scattered. I was asking if you had specific concerns about the classification of locations in which abortions are performed.

Instead, you give me generalised points that are closer to a response to my first post than related to my second which you quoted. Nonetheless, let us go over your points.

  • It would prohibit even basic and widely supported protections, such as parental consent and limits on government funding of abortion
Why should parental consent matter here? We are not discussing little kids. Regarding funding, you have no argument. It is cheaper to pay for an abortion than it is to pay for medical treatment through and after pregnancy.
  • The law would allow any “health care practitioner” to perform an abortion
I agree that such a term is ill defined. I would agree that a better definition of who can perform an abortion and reasonable requirements should be used if that is indeed in the text. However, I do not think there is a current problem with untrained or ill-prepared individuals performing abortions. Nor do I know of any law that prevents negligence cases against those unskilled individuals who do perform abortions.
  • It enshrines late-term abortion in New York State law
Not really. It allows for such when qualified medical professionals agree that such a course is the healthiest and least harmful option.
  • Jeopardizes any agency that does not refer for abortion and
If agencies are negligent in their care, they should be jeopardized.
  • Seriously threatens conscience protections for hospitals and medical professionals
How so?
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The medical necessity of abortion tends to include way more than preventing death from giving birth. Medical emergencies, for example, can make an abortion necessity as a pregnancy is too much to handle as her body attempts to also recover from the trauma.
Which has no bearing on whether we should track post-abortion maternal deaths.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
And when there is a baby in the fallopian tube, I have no problem with trying to save the mom by removing the baby.

My point is simply--try to save both and the mother but there is absolutely no reason for the current law of a 9 month baby inside the womb being allowed to simply snuff out the life.

I really know of no one who has a problem, within the context of saving at least one life, has a problem with removing the baby.

"At birth, Rumasia weighed just 260 grams, or 8.6 ounces—about the size of a small cell phone."\

Shouldn't "try to save a baby and the mom" be our main concern? Whenever possible?
Yes there are good reasons , some of which I just showed you and you are currently trying to brush off.

What's your problem with letting a woman and her doctor decide what is best for her, in what is a very difficult situation to begin with? It has nothing at all to do with you. You have no say in anyone else's medical decisions and I'm not sure why you think you should.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Wow... you sure got testy there after a real honest "please let me know" to learn.
I didn't get testy. You quoted from a Right Wing Conservative paper. I suggested you broaden your horizons a little. There are articles about "The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)" all over the internet.

How would I know what to google?

The same thing I Googled. The same thing we have been discussing - "The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)". AKA Death Panels, AKA Obama Lies - Grandma Dies.




Ok... that's good... but where does "It may cost more but the parents or the family who has the authority over the patient think it needs to continue" portion?

I have no idea what you are referring to. Please put it in context or at least show where your quote came from.



If it is all about just the cost because it exceeds costs, where is the help for the one outside that boundary?

Again, it would be helpful if you put that in context. The IPAB was designed to help keep the system from going broke. It does not refer to individuals.




OK... wait a minute. You are going to take me to task because of Washington Times and you are going to take the NY Times as gospel?
Do you see anything wrong with that?
If you had searched "The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)" you would have come up with many sources. The NYT is just one.

However, I was easily able to spot RightWing propaganda in your Washington Times article. Did you find anything in the NYT article that was untrue?



I also noted you still didn't want to acknowledge what the Democrats did. why?

That's right. I'd like to stick to one issue at a time.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Ironically part of the bill is to make it easier to have abortion in non medical facilities. Which is odd if it's a medical issue.
Seems Planned Parenthood often closes its doors rather than raise it's quality and safety to the levels expected for other 'medical procedures' Why is that?

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/18...tually-object-meeting-basic-health-standards/
"....Rather than bring their standards up to match those of health facilities, Planned Parenthood facilities often close instead — that is, if they can’t get themselves out of having to follow the same rules everyone else does. This seems to indicate Planned Parenthood is not really the health champion women need, despite their advertising to the contrary...."

That is the Conservative RightWing take on the situation. In 1973 the US Supreme Court voted to make abortion legal in all States. Ever since then Christian Conservative Right to Lifers have constantly looked for ways to chip away at this basic right. Texas and Missouri have taken primarily a two-pronged approach:

  1. They insist doctors have admitting rights at local hospitals and then they pressure the hospitals to not give the doctors admitting rights.
  2. They insist clinics have the same services and equipment available as hospitals. They do not impose these same requirements on other types of outpatient surgical facilities.
The Right to Lifers may or may not prevail in Texas and Missouri. However, their efforts are having an unintended consequence. More women are turning to Plan C pills and taking matters into their own hands. Some women will probably die because Plan C is their only option.

That will probably not be of concern to the Christian Conservative Right to Lifers who will say it is the women's fault.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Ah, the old “to protect the life of the mother” argument. There an assumption that a woman is more likely to die due to giving birth than as a result of having an abortion. But is that assumption correct? The answer is, we can’t know. And why can’t we know? Because abortion advocates have fought hard to pass legislation to specifically prevent keeping track of abortion related deaths of mothers.
Do you have a reliable source for this or is it just your opinion?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
many

see Cuomo's Proposal for "Moment of Birth Abortions" Is Back in the News - www.independentsentinel.com

quote
The Reproductive Health Act seeks to have abortion declared a ‘fundamental right’ in New York State which would result in the following:

  • It would prohibit even basic and widely supported protections, such as parental consent and limits on government funding of abortion
  • The law would allow any “health care practitioner” to perform an abortion
  • It enshrines late-term abortion in New York State law
  • Jeopardizes any agency that does not refer for abortion and
  • Seriously threatens conscience protections for hospitals and medical professionals
quote
  • Independent Sentinel


Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.


RIGHT BIAS
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
Ah, the old “to protect the life of the mother” argument. There an assumption that a woman is more likely to die due to giving birth than as a result of having an abortion. But is that assumption correct? The answer is, we can’t know. And why can’t we know? Because abortion advocates have fought hard to pass legislation to specifically prevent keeping track of abortion related deaths of mothers.
No. They haven’t. Your information sources are either
1. Low quality.
and/or 2. Purposefully lying to you.

2012 study.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Which has no bearing on whether we should track post-abortion maternal deaths.
I'm not finding anything, other than from biased sources (and even then some obviously biased sources have numbers you claim don't exist), to support your claim there is no tracking of maternal deaths from abortions, and, to the contrary, I'm finding plenty of deaths from organizations such as WHO and NCBI.
And, it's a given there are risks, that can include death, that come with any and all medical procedures. Abortions, when performed in a clean and safe setting, seem to not have a very high risk of death for the mother, though there does seem to be an emphasis on post-abortion care that is apparently lacking according to some sources.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
No. They haven’t. Your information sources are either
1. Low quality.
and/or 2. Purposefully lying to you.

2012 study.
From your source, “We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions”. Why did they estimate? Because there is no requirement for abortion providers to report that a patient that dies from complications had an abortion.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'm not finding anything, other than from biased sources (and even then some obviously biased sources have numbers you claim don't exist), to support your claim there is no tracking of maternal deaths from abortions, and, to the contrary, I'm finding plenty of deaths from organizations such as WHO and NCBI.
And, it's a given there are risks, that can include death, that come with any and all medical procedures. Abortions, when performed in a clean and safe setting, seem to not have a very high risk of death for the mother, though there does seem to be an emphasis on post-abortion care that is apparently lacking according to some sources.
There is no onus to have to proof a negative. If your position is that abortion providers must legally track and report maternal deaths then the onus is on you to provide the citation for that law.

Saying that there are reports from WHO or NCBI of post-abortion maternal deaths does not prove that all such deaths are reported. Since the reporting is voluntary for doctors it will only include a partial number.

According to the Center for Disease Control(CDC), reports on abortions, including related maternal deaths, is voluntary and there is no Federal mandate to report them.

Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2009

“Although reporting to CDC is voluntary, most reporting areas do provide aggregate abortion numbers: during 2000–2009, a total of 45 reporting areas provided CDC a continuous annual record of abortion numbers,† and in 2009, CDC obtained aggregate abortion numbers from 48 reporting areas (excludes California, Delaware, Maryland, and New Hampshire). However, the level of detail that CDC receives on the characteristics of women obtaining abortions varies considerably from year to year and among reporting areas. To encourage more uniform collection of these details, CDC has developed a model reporting form to serve as a technical guide (18). However, because the collection of abortion data is not federally mandated, many reporting areas have developed their own forms and do not collect all the information that CDC compiles.”
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
From your source, “We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions”. Why did they estimate? Because there is no requirement for abortion providers to report that a patient that dies from complications had an abortion.
Nice cherry picking. :rolleyes: It sure seems you only read 12 words in, then assumed you knew better than the researchers.
Try again.

We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions in the United States in 1998-2005. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, birth certificates, and Guttmacher Institute surveys. In addition, we searched for population-based data comparing the morbidity of abortion and childbirth.”

Of course that set of CDC and other data is from the period of 1998 through 2005.

Here is another article gathering data from 1988 till 1997, with “Numerator data are from the Abortion Mortality Surveillance System. Denominator data are from the Abortion Surveillance System, which monitors the number and characteristics of women who have legal induced abortions in the United States.”

To summarize, they found the risk of maternal death climbs with gestational age, but overall the risk of death via abortion is still much lower than delivery of a full term infant.
And of course these statistics also serve to prove that the vast majority of women get their abortions early in pregnancy, not as a matter of “convenience” or “whim” later on.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Nice cherry picking. :rolleyes: It sure seems you only read 12 words in, then assumed you knew better than the researchers.
Try again.

We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions in the United States in 1998-2005. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, birth certificates, and Guttmacher Institute surveys. In addition, we searched for population-based data comparing the morbidity of abortion and childbirth.”

Of course that set of CDC and other data is from the period of 1998 through 2005.

Here is another article gathering data from 1988 till 1997, with “Numerator data are from the Abortion Mortality Surveillance System. Denominator data are from the Abortion Surveillance System, which monitors the number and characteristics of women who have legal induced abortions in the United States.”

To summarize, they found the risk of maternal death climbs with gestational age, but overall the risk of death via abortion is still much lower than delivery of a full term infant.
And of course these statistics also serve to prove that the vast majority of women get their abortions early in pregnancy, not as a matter of “convenience” or “whim” later on.
Again, estimated. They admit it is an estimate. They make no claim that the CDC has complete totals. Because the CDC itself acknowledges they don’t. Because the abortion providers are not required to report all abortion related deaths. It is not I that is cherry picking, it is you.

Provide a reference for a Federal requirement that abortion providers report all abortion deaths if you think you can. Since the CDC acknowledges there is no such requirement, good luck with that.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
That is one example of the many things we are talking about.

I know a family who were told their baby had no head and they kept it to term
and... out popped a baby with - in his own words - "a big head" !!

C Section is often a reasonable alternative to a late term and safer OB-GYN to Hillary Clinton: 'No Medical Situation' Requires Late-Term Abortion, C-Section Delivery Is Safer
"As an ob/gyn physician for 31 years there is no medical situation that requires aborting / killing the baby in the third trimester to 'save the mother's life,'" Koning reportedly wrote. "Just deliver the baby by c/section and the baby has 95+% survival with readily available NICU care even at 28 weeks. C/section is quicker and safer than partial birth abortion for the mother."
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
Ah, the old “to protect the life of the mother” argument. There an assumption that a woman is more likely to die due to giving birth than as a result of having an abortion. But is that assumption correct? The answer is, we can’t know. And why can’t we know? Because abortion advocates have fought hard to pass legislation to specifically prevent keeping track of abortion related deaths of mothers.

Do you have a reliable source for this or is it just your opinion?

There is nothing in that paper to support your contention that "abortion advocates have fought hard to pass legislation to specifically prevent keeping track of abortion related deaths of mothers".

Care to try again, or do we just chalk this up to opinion?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Again, estimated. They admit it is an estimate. They make no claim that the CDC has complete totals. Because the CDC itself acknowledges they don’t. Because the abortion providers are not required to report all abortion related deaths. It is not I that is cherry picking, it is you.

Provide a reference for a Federal requirement that abortion providers report all abortion deaths if you think you can. Since the CDC acknowledges there is no such requirement, good luck with that.
You have at least two people who have researched and are not finding your claims hold up. Even sources biased against abortions have numbers for abortion-related deaths.
You'll also find the CDC, and other similar groups, tend to estimate things because no one has the exact numbers. For anything. But the way statistics work, that's ok when they pull from a significantly large enough population to study.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Regarding "admitting privileges"

Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion law as Chief Justice Roberts joins liberal justices in 5-4 ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked Louisiana from enforcing a law that women's groups said would leave only a single doctor legally allowed to perform abortions in the state.

By a 5-4 vote, the court said the restrictions must remain on hold while challengers appeal a lower court decision in favor of the law.
...

Passed by the state legislature in 2014, the measure requires any doctor offering abortion services to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. Two Louisiana doctors and a clinic filed a legal challenge, arguing that it was identical to a Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. In that ruling, joined by Justice Kennedy, the court said Texas imposed an obstacle on women seeking access to abortion services without providing them any medical benefits.​
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I know a family who were told their baby had no head and they kept it to term
and... out popped a baby with - in his own words - "a big head" !!

C Section is often a reasonable alternative to a late term and safer OB-GYN to Hillary Clinton: 'No Medical Situation' Requires Late-Term Abortion, C-Section Delivery Is Safer
"As an ob/gyn physician for 31 years there is no medical situation that requires aborting / killing the baby in the third trimester to 'save the mother's life,'" Koning reportedly wrote. "Just deliver the baby by c/section and the baby has 95+% survival with readily available NICU care even at 28 weeks. C/section is quicker and safer than partial birth abortion for the mother."
Depends on the situation, as per numerous different examples. My argument is that such decisions don't concern anyone else but a woman and her doctor. They are the only ones that need to be concerned about making decisions about what medical procedure is best for the woman, given the specific situation. I'm wondering how anyone could take a different position.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
The most ridiculous thing in this whole pearl clutching outrage is the fact that it relies on the idea that anyone wanting an abortion for anything but the most dire of medical reasons is going to wait until the 9th month to do so. In my experience as a nurse and a private person, people who want abortions to terminate an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy want it as early as possible. Anyone who has a late term abortion, in my experience, does so as an absolute last resort and as something they very much would avoid if they could.

This whole idea that these evil women are going to carry healthy pregnancies to full term only to terminate them at the last second is an utter myth, and an utterly ridiculous one if one thinks about it for the briefest moment.

Honestly. Find me ONE example of a woman voluntarily carrying an unwanted pregnancy almost to term only to terminate it in the last few weeks, just ONE, and I will cheerfully and loudly condemn this law.

I'll even donate $500 to the pro-life charity of your choice. Just one. Come on? Anyone?
 
Last edited:
Top