Cuomo: Put abortion rights in NY constitution

[Madmallard]

Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants to amend the state constitution to protect abortion rights in New York if a conservative Supreme Court curtails them nationally.

Cuomo on Monday proposed installing Roe v. Wade rights into the state constitution, a measure intended to fortify a woman's ability to obtain an abortion in New York.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com...ts/2017/01/30/cuomo-abortion-rights/97250020/

 

[kev74]

Gun rights are already in there and look how much good it did for us.

 

[stuck in ny]

Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants to amend the state constitution to protect abortion rights in New York if a conservative Supreme Court curtails them nationally.

Cuomo on Monday proposed installing Roe v. Wade rights into the state constitution, a measure intended to fortify a woman's ability to obtain an abortion in New York.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com...ts/2017/01/30/cuomo-abortion-rights/97250020/

Remember folks, chopping infants into little bloody pieces is a HUMAN RIGHT. You are a felon, though, to have 11rd magazines.
Humanity has lost its mind some time ago.

 

[speedkills27]

How bout you follow the laws already in there, Tyrant

 

[GOYABEAN]

How bout you follow the laws already in there, Tyrant

like that will ever happen FUAC

 

[Automan21]

Man is he trying to solidify another term

 

[Deplorable Me]

I suppose they have to put something there to replace the Second Amendment they deleted.

Hey Andy: Roe vs Wade wasn't a boating accident!

 

[Dr. Evil]

Can we backdate it to his mothers pregnancy? Talk about late term abortion.

 

[islandman]

How about a Constitutional Carry Amendment in our State Constitution? The Right to bear arms is under Civil Rights in our State Constitution. Funny, listed under CIVIL RIGHTS, so one of our civil rights is being violated, amongst many others. Split NY up!

 

[Celt]

I think there are certain circumstances in which abortion is okay. For example the victim of a rape or incest or any type of sexual abuse. Also if it is detected within the first 3 months that the baby will be not normal then I would be okay with that.. Otherwise after the first three months I am absolutely against it.

 

[Dr. Evil]

I think there are certain circumstances in which abortion is okay. For example the victim of a rape or incest or any type of sexual abuse. Also if it is detected within the first 3 months that the baby will be not normal then I would be okay with that.. Otherwise after the first three months I am absolutely against it.

A woman who used to work for me was pregnant and during an exam, her doctor determined that the baby had a genetic condition that would lead to deformity and recommend ending the pregnancy. Needless to say they were freaked out. The doctor was adamant about it and even pressured them but they weren't buying it and held their ground and got a different doctor. She is now the mother of 2 healthy, normal kids.

 

[islandman]

I think there are certain circumstances in which abortion is okay. For example the victim of a rape or incest or any type of sexual abuse. Also if it is detected within the first 3 months that the baby will be not normal then I would be okay with that.. Otherwise after the first three months I am absolutely against it.

I totally agree, there should also be more of an emphasis on adoption as well. To outright ban this, is wrong, especially when incest and rape are involved. Morally it is wrong to force a women to have a baby that was due to incest and rape. Yet, the morals in this country have become passe.

 

[Uzi]

I think there are certain circumstances in which abortion is okay. For example the victim of a rape or incest or any type of sexual abuse. Also if it is detected within the first 3 months that the baby will be not normal then I would be okay with that.. Otherwise after the first three months I am absolutely against it.

I agree.

I don't want to pick sides on this topic because I'm not very well educated on the subject. In my opinion from what I gather, it seems like the biological, not moral aspect of fetal growth is, well, somewhat subjective. I mean after a certain amount of months the baby is a human being. However, I also believe that the person that is creating another person as a mother is inclined to make that decision because it is part of their body during early stages. There are so many variables that I just don't think it's a yes or no for me. After an X amount of time through pregnancy, I think the decision is clearer.

 

[islandman]

A woman who used to work for me was pregnant and during an exam, her doctor determined that the baby had a genetic condition that would lead to deformity and recommend ending the pregnancy. Needless to say they were freaked out. The doctor was adamant about it and even pressured them but they weren't buying it and held their ground and got a different doctor. She is now the mother of 2 healthy, normal kids.

Always get a second opinion, no matter what the medical issue might be. There are many doctors out there that are not open minded. This doctor seems to be on the train of "A Brave New World". If the women wants to have the baby, even if there is a chance of a defect, it is here choice. Hey, that baby might become a CEO, inventor, or something else.

 

[Phazer]

Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants to amend the state constitution to protect abortion rights in New York if a conservative Supreme Court curtails them nationally.

Cuomo on Monday proposed installing Roe v. Wade rights into the state constitution, a measure intended to fortify a woman's ability to obtain an abortion in New York.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com...ts/2017/01/30/cuomo-abortion-rights/97250020/

Frankly, for or against abortion, this is actually the way all of the states should address abortion "rights."

Roe v. Wade is flawed because there is no U.S. Constitutional right to an abortion. So, according to the 10th amendment, the power to legalize abortion resides with the states....and not the federal government.

 

[C3D]

Gun rights are already in there and look how much good it did for us.

In fact they are not in the NYS Constitution. They were moved out and replaced with Article II, Section 4 of the Civil Rights Law, which has the same text as the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Unsurprisingly and without exception every challenge ever brought for the RKBA under AII, S4 has been denied in the NYS courts.

 

[dsdmmat]

Frankly, for or against abortion, this is actually the way all of the states should address abortion "rights."

Roe v. Wade is flawed because there is no U.S. Constitutional right to an abortion. So, according to the 10th amendment, the power to legalize abortion resides with the states....and not the federal government.

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Abortion is a medical procedure, the people have the right to seek medical help. The state has the right to regulate/grant the licenses of the doctors to work in the state but, they do not have the right to tell the people what medical procedures they can or cannot have. Individual rights> States rights.
Ninth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

 

[livingston]

 

[Phazer]

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Abortion is a medical procedure, the people have the right to seek medical help. The state has the right to regulate/grant the licenses of the doctors to work in the state but, they do not have the right to tell the people what medical procedures they can or cannot have. Individual rights> States rights.
Ninth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

States have decided that capital punishment is illegal at a state level despite being found not to be necessarily "cruel and unusual" at the federal level. So, states seem to have the right to punish as they see fit, or not to.

States do not have to allow, or fund, procedures which the citizenry of that state find violate their collective morality. Similarly, states may choose to allow such procedures if their citizenry finds those same procedures acceptable. As long as we have federalism, individuals are free to move to states that allow/disallow capital punishment and that allow/disallow abortion.

 

[pmcjuryny]

From a moral aspect, all abortion seems wrong to me, but I can not see a complete legal ban ever being successfully implemented. I do firmly believe there needs to be far more restrictions on it though. For example late term abortions an abomination and should be outlawed. There needs to be a clear legal threshold that once crossed deems the unborn child a person with legally protected rights not the double standard we have today.

The fact that we have laws on the books today that treat a fetus as a person, while at the same time allowing for abortion is a blatant double standard.

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

An unborn child is a person with rights or it is not.

The best time to draw the line would seem to be the age of viability, ie the time during the pregnancy that the child could be delivered and expect to live. If the child could be delivered and no longer needs the care and protection of the mothers womb, it is no longer her body or her choice.

I also believe that the consent of the father should be required. The mother certainly did not become pregnant on her own, and if we, as a society want to hold men accountable for their children, then they need to have a say in the matter.

This also means that legally men should be able to completely walk away from a woman and their unborn child if he wants to abort the child and the mother refuses. This also means that if a father refuses to consent to the abortion, that at the time of birth the mother needs to be able to secede all parental rights and responsibilities as well.

If we ignore cases of rape and sexual assault, ever child conceived is the result of two consent adults having sex. Placing the power to make all legal decisions regarding the result of that sex with a single party is wrong

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[dsdmmat]

States have decided that capital punishment is illegal at a state level despite being found not to be necessarily "cruel and unusual" at the federal level. So, states seem to have the right to punish as they see fit, or not to.

States do not have to allow, or fund, procedures which the citizenry of that state find violate their collective morality. Similarly, states may choose to allow such procedures if their citizenry finds those same procedures acceptable. As long as we have federalism, individuals are free to move to states that allow/disallow capital punishment and that allow/disallow abortion.

States don't have to fund it and they can regulate doctor's licensing. They cannot tell an individual what medical care they can and cannot seek.

Collective morality is a code word for religious dictatorship, mob rule (51%) and dictatorship. None of which is valid in a constitutional republic. Abortion is a medical procedure that is between the patient and the doctor, the government has no authority or right to be in the conversation or the decision of a free people.

The red is a violation of the 14th amendment (equal protection). Just because our republic has been assaulted from the left and the right equally does not mean any of those restrictions on the people are constitutionally sound or valid.

I support abortion, if nothing else it reduces poverty and crime rates. If someone wants that procedure it is not my place to stand in their way.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Abortion is absolutely horrific.

I'm so sick of these selfish (unts running around with their pussy hats whinning about their body, their choice. What about the helpless person living inside of you!! Do they get a say if they are brutally killed and sucked from their mother? Where are their rights?

Life is precious and it should be treated as such.

The only thing I might be convinced on is in cases of rape or sex assault to very early on terminate the pregnancy since it was not consensual and would be distressing to the woman. Other than that, suck it up butter cup. Put your big girl pants on and show some responsibility.

Abortion is morally reprehensible. I challenge any of you on the fence or just never thought about it to actually watch or research for yourself what it actually entails and consists of.

Its appalling in a civilized country we allow this.

 

[pmcjuryny]

States don't have to fund it and they can regulate doctor's licensing. They cannot tell an individual what medical care they can and cannot seek.

Collective morality is a code word for religious dictatorship, mob rule (51%) and dictatorship. None of which is valid in a constitutional republic. Abortion is a medical procedure that is between the patient and the doctor, the government has no authority or right to be in the conversation or the decision of a free people.

The red is a violation of the 14th amendment (equal protection). Just because our republic has been assaulted from the left and the right equally does not mean any of those restrictions on the people are constitutionally sound or valid.

I support abortion, if nothing else it reduces poverty and crime rates. If someone wants that procedure it is not my place to stand in their way.

That is all true, if you assume that an unborn child has not legal protection. That is not the case under current us law. Us law says that it is illegal to kill a child in the womb, but in the same section excludes abortion. This legal double standard is the problem. A mother can not waive her child's right to life.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[dsdmmat]

That is all true, if you assume that an unborn child has not legal protection. That is not the case under current us law. Us law says that it is illegal to kill a child in the womb, but in the same section excludes abortion. This legal double standard is the problem. A mother can not waive her child's right to life.

Until Roe v Wade is overturned it is what it is. In further examination of the red text, when are the moral police going to start arresting and convicting pregnant women for "endangering the welfare of a child" due to drinking, smoking, not eating healthy while pregnant?

 

[pmcjuryny]

Until Roe v Wade is overturned it is what it is. In further examination of the red text, when are the moral police going to start arresting and convicting pregnant women for "endangering the welfare of a child" due to drinking, smoking, not eating healthy while pregnant?

An unborn child's right to life is protected under federal law, but the mother and abortion providers are exempted from the law. That is the problem, an unborn child can not have a right to life in some situations, and yet allow the mother to waive that right. A person either has the right to life, or they do not, no one can waive another's right to live.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[dsdmmat]

An unborn child's right to life is protected under federal law, but the mother and abortion providers are exempted from the law. That is the problem, an unborn child can not have a right to life in some situations, and yet allow the mother to waive that right. A person either has the right to life, or they do not, no one can waive another's right to live.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

please post a link to that law, I would like to read it.

 

[pmcjuryny]

please post a link to that law, I would like to read it.

Posted up above, but here you go
18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[dsdmmat]

Posted up above, but here you go
18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

thanks


The law as written only serves to add additional charges for a person that assaults a pregnant person and causes the baby harm/death. So since assault is illegal, assaulting a pregnant woman is doubly illegal. I see nothing that constitutes protection in that code.

Seems like it is written the same way and in the same spirit as the NY SAFE act, another charge to throw at you.

 

[GOPerfect]

Cuomo is an idiot. All he is doing is feeding the Trolls and his own screwed up base!

Cuomo's proposal Monday goes a step further by changing the state constitution, a move that would be much harder to overturn.

But approving a constitutional amendment is no easy lift in New York: Absent a constitutional convention, it requires approval from consecutively elected sessions of the Legislature, as well as a public referendum. The earliest that could happen is 2019.

 

[dsdmmat]

Cuomo is an idiot. All he is doing is feeding the Trolls and his own screwed up base!
Cuomo's proposal Monday goes a step further by changing the state constitution, a move that would be much harder to overturn.
But approving a constitutional amendment is no easy lift in New York: Absent a constitutional convention, it requires approval from consecutively elected sessions of the Legislature, as well as a public referendum. The earliest that could happen is 2019.

Once a pander always a pander. He also knows he is never going to be held accountable for anything he says.