Section 2 of the bill creates a new Article 25-A of the Public Health
Law (PHL), which includes section 2599-aa, Policy and Purpose, and
section 2599-bb, Abortion, which states that an abortion may be
performed by a licensed, certified, or authorized practitioner within 24
weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of
fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's
life or health.
Of course they didn't. Every time there's an outrageous headline on /pol/, five minutes of digging is all it takes to see that it's almost always overblown and/or boiled down.
Here's what 'health' means in the case of abortion, as defined by the US Supreme Court (which I believe is also the UN definition):
all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient.
physical/the woman's age
Seems obvious. Pregnancy is a fairly taxing process even for an able-bodied woman. If pregnancy presents a greater-than-average chance to kill her, it makes sense to terminate.
emotional/psychological
I'm rolling these into one because they're close enough. Having to deliver a rapist's baby, a stillborn, or a braindead child would probably fall under this quite easily.
familial
I'm less clear on this one. The best interpretation I can give is power-of-attorney in cases where the pregnant woman doesn't have the mental strength needed to understand the consequences of having sex and can't provide for herself, which would put the burden of a child on the family.
So, 'health' doesn't here mean what it means in a colloquial sense. Women can't get late-term abortions because they're a little more tired than usual. They can only get them when their life is in the balance, they have a drastic change in standard-of-living (e.g. homelessness), or there's a serious issue with the fetus that only shows up near the end. All of these must be verified by a licensed practitioner.
Of course, that doesn't mean doctors won't take under-the-tale payments to "verify" these things in the same way it doesn't stop pharmacists from doing the same thing for prescription drugs. There's also a lack of data on the reasons for late-term abortions specifically, and trying to extrapolate from a broader set isn't helpful given that the vast majority (~80%) are first-trimester.
So, 'health' doesn't here mean what it means in a colloquial sense. Women can't get late-term abortions because they're a little more tired than usual. They can only get them when their life is in the balance, they have a drastic change in standard-of-living (e.g. homelessness), or there's a serious issue with the fetus that only shows up near the end. All of these must be verified by a licensed practitioner.
So from what I understand about the law, it strips abortion from the penal code making it impossible to prosecute someone who abuses a woman and causes the death of the baby. That is now considered a "forced" abortion and is considered a health issue. You cannot use the fact of a mother miscarrying after being abused in court for prosecuting a man with domestic abuse. Even if you prove abuse in these cases, these people will get less time in jail because if the child in 24 weeks or younger its not considered homicide.
Also, the abortion up to the day of birth is worded so fucking slimey. On first read, it seemed like it was only if the baby was not viable and was going to die shortly after birth that they could terminate that late; or the mothers life was in danger. But then I reread it. Its not just her life, we now consider if her HEALTH will be negativley effected. Idk if you guys have seen or cared for a woman after giving birth but they almost always have negative health effects after this very physically, traumatic experience. It is meant veil that you can actually terminate a perfectly healthy child if the mother doesn't feel like giving birth to it.
[–] 16344247? ago
It isn't that big of a deal.