What are everyone’s opinions on the news of New York’s passing full term abortion legislation? Mine in one word: horrified. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan 23 by BCgradnurse Let's be clear about this. The legislation states late term abortions are only permitted if the mother's health or life is endangered. An abortion would be permitted at any stage if the fetus is not viable. It is NOT a free for all, abortion for any reason, at any time law. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/426533-new-york-passes-bill-expanding-abortion-access 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan 23 by guest52816 1 hour ago, BCgradnurse said: Let's be clear about this. The legislation states late term abortions are only permitted if the mother's health or life is endangered. An abortion would be permitted at any stage if the fetus is not viable. It is NOT a free for all, abortion for any reason, at any time law. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/426533-new-york-passes-bill-expanding-abortion-access Seems like common sense legislation to me, after reading the story you attached, BC. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan 23 by nursej22, MSN, RN I haven't read the bill, but if BC's characterization is correct, I believe that the government should not interfere with this very personal decision. My preference is that birth control be freely available and science-based reproduction education be provided in school. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan 24 by chare Differences between this bill and the current law are explained in this article. Historic NY abortion vote: How law will change, what it means for women 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan 24 by guest52816 1 hour ago, chare said: Differences between this bill and the current law are explained in this article. Historic NY abortion vote: How law will change, what it means for women Thanks for sharing that article, Chare. I stand by my original statement. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan 25 by elkpark I'm delighted. I hope more states will follow suit. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan 25 by CBlover In response to what BC said regarding this legislation to “save mothers”... Edited Jan 25 by CBlover 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan 25 by CBlover 1 hour ago, elkpark said: I'm delighted. I hope more states will follow suit. Wow. Just wow. Delighted in murder of full term infants. Special person you are. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan 25 by toomuchbaloney 1 hour ago, CBlover said: Wow. Just wow. Delighted in murder of full term infants. Special person you are. trolling or trapping 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan 25 by herring_RN, ASN, BSN Quote The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Oct. 19, 2012: “Contrary to the inaccurate statements made yesterday by Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event, particularly for many women with chronic medical conditions. Despite all of our medical advances, more than 600 women die each year from pregnancy and childbirth-related reasons right here in the US. In fact, many more women would die each year if they did not have access to abortion to protect their health or to save their lives.” https://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/the-life-of-the-mother/ An opinion: Quote Is Abortion Ever Necessary to Save the Life of the Mother? ... The abortion procedure is not – ever – necessary to save the life of a mother. There are, however, maternal health risks that require a treatment that cause the unfortunate, indirect, and unfortunate, indirect, and unintentional death of an unborn child. For instance, in life-threatening ectopic pregnancies that require removal of a Fallopian tube, the pregnancy (including the unborn child) will be removed along with the Fallopian tube. The intention in this procedure is first and foremost to save the life of the mother, and in order to do so, a physician must perform a procedure that indirectly causes the death of her unborn child. This is not an abortion. Furthermore, a true abortion – in which the direct intention is to end the life of a human being – is not a treatment for any type of maternal health risk. Abortions never save mothers, but procedures which by their nature may indirectly lead to a child’s death sometimes save the life of the mother... https://www.lifenews.com/2013/10/11/is-abortion-ever-necessary-to-save-the-life-of-the-mother/ I am pro life. I do think it is most important to be factual. OB is not my area of expertise. Maybe something in the ACOG position will be helpful to one of us. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan 25 by CBlover I am just not seeing anything stating wherein a FULL TERM infant should be aborted to save a mother. Of course in ectopic pregnancy the contents of conception are lost. These are extremely early on in gestation. Like so early they probably barely knew they were pregnant. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
