Abortion – USA Gov Policy

The success Progressives have enjoyed on several fronts may be their undoing. 2019 may, despite of or even because of those successes, prove to be the start of the reversal of the left-wing paradigm.

The Left has dominated the media’s coverage of America’s economic picture. However, despite dire predictions of economic disaster following President Trump’s election in 2016, the U.S. economy has surged ahead, freed of the high taxes, excess regulations, and timid trade policies of the Obama Administration. Stocks posted their best January in thirty years. The Bureau of Labor Statistics issued an excellent January jobs report, indicating that jobs, particularly those in the manufacturing sector, have rebounded. Additionally, thanks to a rejection of restrictions, The U.S. has become a net exporter of energy, further shoring up the financial picture.

The Democrat’s overwhelming obsession with abortion without limits is garnering increased opposition. New York State adopted a measure which essentially justifies infanticide, allowing the destruction of a fully formed, completely viable baby up to the moment of birth. Even while celebrating the victory, many observers realized that the extreme nature of the new law would strengthen opposition to the abortion without limits cause. Virginia attempted to pass a similar piece of legislation, but failed to do so.

In New Jersey, the LGBTQ movement, a bastion of the Progressive movement, has similarly overreached. ABC reports that “New Jersey has become the second state in the nation after California to pass a law requiring schools to teach LGBT history in their classrooms. Under the new measure, public schools must include lessons about the political, economic and social contributions of the LGBT community.” De-emphasizing the teaching of U.S. history which the educational establishment has done, while increasing concentration on this topic may result in substantial blowback.

Two openly anti-Israel Progressives, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, took their place in Congress this year. Combined with other Democrats( such as Keith Ellison who has served as vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee) they have essentially mainstreamed the left’s anti-Semitism. A crucial constituency of the Democrat Party, Jewish voters may well become increasingly alienated. Catholics, too are becoming a target of key Democrats. Senators It helps considerably in increasing the sperm http://downtownsault.org/downtown/nightlife/zims/ viagra samples count in males. Still, there are getting viagra products that even though can’t enlarged, still can make your life more enjoyable. With more blood in sildenafil delivery your penis, you can enjoy a long lasting sensual pleasure during the bedtime activity. The blood flow in the region of male body. http://downtownsault.org/about/about-the-dda/ purchase generic levitra Kamala Harris (D-CA) Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) have essentially questioned the fitness of practicing Catholics to serve on the bench.

It has long been a Democrat Party mantra that claims of voter fraud have been untrue, levied essentially as a means to suppress leftist voting blocks, a position the media generally favors. But on January 25, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reported that “…about 95,000 individuals identified by the Department of Public Safety as non-U.S. citizens have a matching voter registration record in Texas, and roughly 58,000 of them have voted in one or more Texas elections…” Judicial Watch reports that “The integrity of our elections is under systematic assault by leftist activists and politicians whose objective is clearly to manipulate the elections for their own gain… And as Judicial Watch uncovers more and more evidence of the breadth and scale of this effort, it is becoming clear that the objective of what we are seeing is to get leftist candidates elected.”

The left’s advocacy of open borders, its’ attempts to downplay the “caravans” and its staunch opposition to border safeguards is beginning to wear thin in the face of facts. A dramatic combination of crime, cost, health, and population data may begin to convince the U.S. population that illegal immigration is presenting a dangerous and unaffordable challenge to the nation.

As socialism becomes more dominant in the Democratic Party and a key part of the Progressive identity, the manifest failures and dangers of that political philosophy become more evident. Despite the clear disasters caused by the implementation of socialism throughout the world, American socialists continue to push the idea. The latest example of how socialism ruins a nation, Venezuela, may finally awake the public to how bad an idea it really is.

Photo: Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (DNC Photo)

We are pleased to present this guest editorial by the distinguished retired judge John H. Wilson

The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise. The prevalence of high mortality rates at illegal “abortion mills” strengthens, rather than weakens, the State’s interest in regulating the conditions under which abortions are performed. Moreover, the risk to the woman increases as her pregnancy continues. Thus, the State retains a definite interest in protecting the woman’s own health and safety when an abortion is proposed at a late stage of pregnancy.

Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113, 150 (1973)

New York State has changed its law, broadening the right to abortion, while removing language from the Penal Law outlawing the killing of an unborn child more than 24 weeks old. There is no denying that this alteration of New York State’s statutes represents a sharp change, and a new front in the on-going battle in this 45 year old war.

If there was any doubt that Governor Cuomo’s quick signature on the Orwellian-named “Reproductive Health Act” was to be taken as a jab at President Trump and conservatives, the NY Governor removed that doubt with his subsequent remarks; “With the signing of this bill, we are sending a clear message that whatever happens in Washington, women in New York will always have the fundamental right to control their own body…it’s always been the point where the conservatives wave the flag, they want to roll back Roe v. Wade…”

Unfortunately, Governor Cuomo, like most Americans, clearly has not read Roe v. Wade, and has no idea what that case actually held. If he had, he’d understand the radical departure his new law has taken from that intended by the US Supreme Court.

The Roe case famously found a right to abortion in the “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights, in particular the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The decision was the culmination of a series of cases which found individual rights in marriage, procreation and contraception, none of which is mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution. However, as the quote published at the beginning of this article makes clear, these rights are not unbridled and unrestrained freedoms. In fact, when it comes to issues involving the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the state has an absolute right to regulate the exercise of these rights.

New York has done nothing less than abdicate its responsibility to regulate Abortions, and a review of the language of the “Reproductive Health Act” (RHA) will support this interpretation.

The US Supreme Court assumed that an abortion would be performed by a physician, in a medical facility, with “adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise.” Yet, Section 2599-bb of the RHA now allows “a health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice” to perform the procedure. Under Title 8 of the Education law, this includes Physician Assistants, Specialist Assistants, Nurses, Midwifes, and may include such medical professionals as Pharmacists (who may be called upon to administer a drug that would cause an abortion to occur). By limiting the law to health care practitioners acting “within his or her lawful scope of practice,” one can only assume Dentists, Optomologists, Chiropractors and Veterinarians are barred from performing abortions under this new law.

It remains unclear what “adequate provision for any complication or emergency” a patient can find in the office of a health care practitioner who is not a physician.

Further, under the RHA, the unspecified “health care provider” may “perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

None viagra 25mg http://respitecaresa.org/event/big-give-2018/ of these products have ever been though tests to prove they work. This drug has proven to be the respitecaresa.org sildenafil from india best for natural male enhancement purposes. The doctor can help to online levitra canada determine the cause and treatment of the impotence. It helps to balance sexual cialis price hormones in women and also reduces hunger pangs.

The “or” in this language is crucial – under the new law, an abortion can occur within 24 weeks of conception regardless of whether the fetus is viable, and whether or not the abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life or health. After 24 weeks, in what was always called the “third trimester,” there must be an absence of “fetal viability” OR (that crucial word again) the abortion protects the mother’s “life” OR “health.”

“Fetal viability” is defined as “the ability of a fetus to survive outside of the womb.” Between 20 and 23 weeks, with extraordinary measures, babies have been able to survive outside the womb. Thus, under the RHA, an “absence of fetal viability” after 24 weeks could only mean the fetus is deceased.

The last clause is the most important. We understand the necessity of protecting the life of the mother. But what about her health? Does this broad term include her mental health?

Herein lies the basis for the belief that the RHA provides for unlimited abortions up until the moment of birth – how broadly will a “health care provider” define the “health” of an expectant mother in determining the necessity for an abortion after 24 weeks?

More tragic, however, than this broadening of the law, is the evisceration of the Penal Law. Under the RHA, the definition of Homicide no longer includes causing the death of an “unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks.”

Rosa Furneaux of Mother Jones celebrates this change in the law, believing it to be a effort to protect women who seek self abortion medication. However, in fact, the more common use for this statute was to prosecute an individual who assaults a pregnant woman, and causes her to lose a viable baby she intended to carry to term.

In 2015, in Colorado, a woman was arrested for stabbing a pregnant woman and removing her baby from her womb. The child did not survive, but the mother did. If this had happened in New York in 2018, the assailant could be prosecuted for Murder. However, in 2019, the charges would be Attempted Murder and/or Assault in the First Degree. Both obviously carry lesser penalties than Murder.

In 2016, Torey Branch assaulted his then-pregnant girlfriend, Mia Jones, by repeatedly punching her in the stomach. “The ambush happened after Jones repeatedly refused Branch’s attempts to schedule an abortion for her and then she told him she was going to tell his girlfriend about the baby.”

Was this really the change the New York legislature was hoping for? Or were they so intent on providing for legal late term abortions while spitting in the eyes of President Trump and conservatives, that they forgot about providing for the prosecution of a particularly heinous crime?

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.