NY Reproductive Health Act

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, mikbone said:

We were told one of our babies had a pancreatic tumor.  We were told one had a heart condition and likely had down syndrome.  

Doctors practice Eugenics now?  "Your baby has a heart condition and down syndrome... put him on the death column."

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

On 2/2/2019 at 4:31 PM, Godless said:

The wording of the bill states that abortions after 24 weeks are only permissible if the fetus is unviable and/or continuing the pregnancy would put the mother's life/health at risk. It does not leave room for elective abortions past 24 weeks.

True and it seems that no (sane) person would carry a baby to full term only to abort it.  Almost all elective abortions are done very early.  

I guess it could happen (it would have to be extremely rare), but why would anyone carry a baby to full term if they were going to get an elective abortion?  Has this even ever happened?  It seems that the law is more symbolic than a realistic and meant only to prove a point and/or to be a political move/gesture.   At least that's how it seems to me.  

 

Edited February 4, 2019 by Scott

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, Scott said:

True and it seems that no (sane) person would carry a baby to full term only to abort it.  Almost all elective abortions are done very early.  

I guess it could happen (it would have to be extremely rare), but why would anyone carry a baby to full term if they were going to get an elective abortion?  Has this even ever happened?  It seems that the law is more symbolic than a realistic and meant only to prove a point and/or to be a political move/gesture.   At least that's how it seems to me.  

 

Happens more often than it should to "your baby may have Down Syndrome/etc." cases.  It's pretty much why a lot of women take those unnecessary fetal tests the doctors tell them to take.

But yeah, the NY law, in my opinion, is a Planned Parenthood push to give PP access to late-term abortions.  I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason is for  more developed body parts harvest.  PP paid a lot of money to those NY Dem campaigns.

Edited February 4, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

46 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Happens more often than it should to "your baby may have Down Syndrome/etc." cases. 

Down syndrome is identified at 10-13 weeks and in the first trimester.   If someone wants to abort because of down syndrome, why would she wait until late term?   I am not a women, but wouldn't that be a lot of unnecessary suffering (or at least discomfort) for nothing if she chose to carry a fetus full term that she was planning to abort?    Unless she or they really did want to harvest the body parts.  

Anyway, Florida is supposedly (correct me if wrong) the only state that tracks all real reasons for abortion.   Here are the statistics the give for reasons behind abortion:

If this really is true, then the chances of a late abortion under the new law would be extremely small.   Even for those very small percentage where an abortion is done for medical reasons, the number would be even much smaller since most life threatening complications are detected before then.  

Most people (hopefully) regardless of politics would be very against any elective late term abortion unless the fetus was going to die for sure anyway, and how realistic is it that something would really happen and that fetuses will start getting aborted late term, even with the law?  I guess it could happen, but it seems extremely unlikely.   If it did start happening (even once), there would be some really long drawn out court battles as well.  

The law does seem nothing more than a political move at least to me.   It was done on the 46th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade.

 

 

 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

  I guess it could happen, but it seems extremely unlikely. 

 

Things progressives have stated would be extremely unlikely:  In the 60's - Divorce.  In the 70's - Elective Abortion.  In the 80's - Socialism.  In the 90's - Gay marriage.  Today - sex transition for children and legalization of pedophilia.

Edited February 4, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 legalization of pedophilia.

?

[anatess2]

20 minutes ago, Scott said:

?

Nathan Larson is not the only one.

Hollywood is trying to pave the way for it.  It was quite the thing back in the 2017 Oscars.  Some say it's coming.  I say it's already here.

Edited February 4, 2019 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

@anatess2 and I disagree on a lot—in rather spectacular fashion!—but I agree with her here.  Maybe not about “pedophilia” in the sense of pre-pubescent children (at least, not yet); but it IMHO it wouldn’t take much to form a groundswell of support for relations between adults and teens down to 14 or 13 years.  The intellectual groundwork (“love is love, you puritanical cretin!”) has largely already been laid.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@anatess2 and I disagree on a lot—in rather spectacular fashion!—but I agree with her here.  Maybe not about “pedophilia” in the sense of pre-pubescent children (at least, not yet); but it IMHO it wouldn’t take much to form a groundswell of support for relations between adults and teens down to 14 or 13 years.  The intellectual groundwork (“love is love, you puritanical cretin!”) has largely already been laid.

The “drag kid” is 10.

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@anatess2 and I disagree on a lot—in rather spectacular fashion!—but I agree with her here.  Maybe not about “pedophilia” in the sense of pre-pubescent children (at least, not yet); but it IMHO it wouldn’t take much to form a groundswell of support for relations between adults and teens down to 14 or 13 years.  The intellectual groundwork (“love is love, you puritanical cretin!”) has largely already been laid.

Oy, I forgot about the California law to decriminalize pedophilia when there's 10 years or less age difference.  So, 18 years old having sex with an 8 year old... sure, why not.

[Just_A_Guy]

50 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Oy, I forgot about the California law to decriminalize pedophilia when there's 10 years or less age difference.  So, 18 years old having sex with an 8 year old... sure, why not.

Well, that’s sounds like a simple expansion old-fashioned Romeo-Juliet legislation.  What’s wrong with that?  Love is love, and who are we to disagree? 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Oy, I forgot about the California law to decriminalize pedophilia when there's 10 years or less age difference.  So, 18 years old having sex with an 8 year old... sure, why not.

Which law are you referring to?    Everything I can find says that California has some of the strictest laws in the nation for age of consent:

https://www.ageofconsent.net/states/california

[Maureen]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Oy, I forgot about the California law to decriminalize pedophilia when there's 10 years or less age difference.  So, 18 years old having sex with an 8 year old... sure, why not.

Wow! Can you give us a reference for this alleged law?

M.

[anatess2]

18 hours ago, Maureen said:

Wow! Can you give us a reference for this alleged law?

M.

 

19 hours ago, Scott said:

Which law are you referring to?    Everything I can find says that California has some of the strictest laws in the nation for age of consent:

https://www.ageofconsent.net/states/california

It starts with Wiener crafting a bill to make 18 year olds sexually assaulting an 8 year old not have to register as a sex offender.  It's not law YET.  It's in committee for this congressional session.  This is California.  It's more than likely gonna pass.  This is from the same Congressman who crafted the HIV bill that Brown signed last year.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145

 

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by anatess2

[Maureen]

20 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Oy, I forgot about the California law to decriminalize pedophilia when there's 10 years or less age difference.  So, 18 years old having sex with an 8 year old... sure, why not.

I read the link you provided and I disagree with your interpretation of what this bill says.

This bill allows a person convicted of an offence against a minor to seek discretionary relief from having to register as a sex offender if the age difference between offender and minor is not more than 10 years.

This bill in no way decriminalizes pedophilia.

M.

 

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I read the link you provided and I disagree with your interpretation of what this bill says.

This bill allows a person convicted of an offence against a minor to seek discretionary relief from having to register as a sex offender if the age difference between offender and minor is not more than 10 years.

This bill in no way decriminalizes pedophilia.

M.

 

Like I said... that's where it starts.   And that's not the only one.  The Social Justice Warriors are a-twitter over it and it's getting louder.  The push is here.  Who would've thought that even as recent as October 2016 that the Democrats would push for abortion after birth?  Yet here we are.

Edited February 6, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest Scott]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

It starts with Wiener crafting a bill to make 18 year olds sexually assaulting an 8 year old not have to register as a sex offender.  It's not law YET.  It's in committee for this congressional session.  This is California.  It's more than likely gonna pass.  This is from the same Congressman who crafted the HIV bill that Brown signed last year.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB145

 

 

No, that's not what the bill means.   Other states, including Utah already have such a law and have for years.

Right now in California, the law mandates that anyone who has sexual contact with a minor under 18 and who has more than a 10 years age difference must be permanently registered as a sex offender, regardless of circumstances.    For example, in California if a 27 year old has sexual relations with a 17 year old, by mandate he or she must register as a sex offender at all times no matter what.   This is true even if the 27 year old didn't know his or her partner was under age.   
 
The new bill makes a proposal that the person by writ of mandate is allowed to seek discretionary relief through the courts to wave the mandate if the courts find justifications for doing so.  It does not mean that an 18 year old doesn't have to register as a sex offender if the victim is 8 years old.  

California actually has some of the strictest laws in the nation when it comes to statutory rape and age of consent.  

[anatess2]

28 minutes ago, Scott said:

No, that's not what the bill means.   Other states, including Utah already have such a law and have for years.

Right now in California, the law mandates that anyone who has sexual contact with a minor under 18 and who has more than a 10 years age difference must be permanently registered as a sex offender, regardless of circumstances.    For example, in California if a 27 year old has sexual relations with a 17 year old, by mandate he or she must register as a sex offender at all times no matter what.   This is true even if the 27 year old didn't know his or her partner was under age.   
 
The new bill makes a proposal that the person by writ of mandate is allowed to seek discretionary relief through the courts to wave the mandate if the courts find justifications for doing so.  It does not mean that an 18 year old doesn't have to register as a sex offender if the victim is 8 years old.  

California actually has some of the strictest laws in the nation when it comes to statutory rape and age of consent.  

I'd agree with you if that bill was in a vacuum.  But with all the other things going on?  I say... 10 years.  Tops.  All conservative measures to slow it down - e.g. restricting underage marriage in California (in answer to Islamist pedophilia and gay pedophilia who get around pedophilia laws by marrying) - has been defeated.

In any case, I pointed this one out because JAG said, he doesn't see it happening to anybody under 13 or 14.  The Oscar nominated movie was 17.  But that's just the start.  Hollywood will ramp up just like how they changed culture for gay and trans normalization.  They've been wildly hailing the 10-year-old drag queen who hangs out with nude adult queens.  It's happening.  Because, people are not paying attention to the tea leaves just like they mocked Trump for saying the Democrats are going to go for removing restrictions to late-term abortion.  If lds.net is still alive in 10 years, you can resurrect this thread and we'll see if I predicted it correctly.

 

[Guest Scott]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

All conservative measures to slow it down - e.g. restricting underage marriage in California (in answer to Islamist pedophilia and gay pedophilia who get around pedophilia laws by marrying) - has been defeated.

 

As far as underage marriage goes, it's the conservative states that allow the youngest people to be married and which have the highest incidences of child marriage.   

Here are the legal ages to marry per state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

Hawaii and Maryland are the only exceptions among blue states that allow marriage before age 16.

In West Virginia there is no minimum age for marriage as long as there is parental consent and you have court approval.  West Virginia and Tennessee have both performed marriages as early as 10 years old until at least 2001. 

When I was a minor you could legally marry at age 12 in Utah and 10 in Tennessee and West Virginia. 

Now the ages have been bumped up to 15 in Utah and all the way to 17 in Tennessee, but this was only bumped up last year.  Marriage in Utah can still be performed at age 14 with a court order as well.  

 Alaska and North Carolina still allow marriages at 14.

Hawaii, Kansas, Indiana, and Utah all allow marriages at age 15.

With only a few exceptions, it's the conservative states who are allowing the youngest people to be married.   Take a look at the laws in each state for verification.

The only states that have no exceptions at all for marrying under 18 are Delaware and New Jersey.   

Since you mention California, it is one of the strictest states when it comes to age of marriage and you have to be 18 to marry unless you are 17 and a high school graduate or are pregnant.   With parental permission for 17 year olds to get married, there has to be a 30 day evaluation and both parents are met in the courts separately to make sure that there is no coercion.   

Other than the law though, let's look at the statistics about where children are getting married.

The states with the highest rates of child marriage under 17 as of 2010 are in order Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Missouri.  

Since 2000, in the United States, the only legal marriages have that have been performed for 12 year olds in Alaska, Louisiana, and South Carolina.  See here (this is from 2017, so some of it is outdated as far as laws go as several were updated since then):

http://apps.frontline.org/child-marriage-by-the-numbers/

If you are worried about underage marriage you should be most concerned about the conservative states. That's not to say that it can't happen in other states (including California) as well, but the conservative states are by far overall more concerning when it comes to underage marriage.  

Rather than just blame the conservative states though; I'm still going to say that it is a problem that should be addressed in all the states, just as human trafficking and coerced marriage is.  

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by Scott

[anatess2]

13 hours ago, Scott said:

As far as underage marriage goes, it's the conservative states that allow the youngest people to be married and which have the highest incidences of child marriage.   

Here are the legal ages to marry per state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_States

Hawaii and Maryland are the only exceptions among blue states that allow marriage before age 16.

In West Virginia there is no minimum age for marriage as long as there is parental consent and you have court approval.  West Virginia and Tennessee have both performed marriages as early as 10 years old until at least 2001. 

When I was a minor you could legally marry at age 12 in Utah and 10 in Tennessee and West Virginia. 

Now the ages have been bumped up to 15 in Utah and all the way to 17 in Tennessee, but this was only bumped up last year.  Marriage in Utah can still be performed at age 14 with a court order as well.  

 Alaska and North Carolina still allow marriages at 14.

Hawaii, Kansas, Indiana, and Utah all allow marriages at age 15.

With only a few exceptions, it's the conservative states who are allowing the youngest people to be married.   Take a look at the laws in each state for verification.

The only states that have no exceptions at all for marrying under 18 are Delaware and New Jersey.   

Since you mention California, it is one of the strictest states when it comes to age of marriage and you have to be 18 to marry unless you are 17 and a high school graduate or are pregnant.   With parental permission for 17 year olds to get married, there has to be a 30 day evaluation and both parents are met in the courts separately to make sure that there is no coercion.   

Other than the law though, let's look at the statistics about where children are getting married.

The states with the highest rates of child marriage under 17 as of 2010 are in order Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Missouri.  

Since 2000, in the United States, the only legal marriages have that have been performed for 12 year olds in Alaska, Louisiana, and South Carolina.  See here (this is from 2017, so some of it is outdated as far as laws go as several were updated since then):

http://apps.frontline.org/child-marriage-by-the-numbers/

If you are worried about underage marriage you should be most concerned about the conservative states. That's not to say that it can't happen in other states (including California) as well, but the conservative states are by far overall more concerning when it comes to underage marriage.  

Rather than just blame the conservative states though; I'm still going to say that it is a problem that should be addressed in all the states, just as human trafficking and coerced marriage is.  

 

Whoosh over your head.

This is not about underage marriage.  This is about legalization of pedophilia and how it's the next thing coming.

[Guest MormonGator]

On 2/2/2019 at 8:12 PM, estradling75 said:

That is a possibility...  However you were claiming the pro-life had not been successful lately... When in fact the pro-life recent success with the Supreme Court caused all kinds of heart-burn, and outrage from the anti-life folks

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/us/politics/louisiana-abortion-law-supreme-court.html

Roberts joins the left. This is why you can't celebrate when there is a new nominee my friend. 
 

Edited February 9, 2019 by MormonGator

[Grunt]

12 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/us/politics/louisiana-abortion-law-supreme-court.html

Roberts joins the left. This is why you can't celebrate when there is a new nominee my friend. 
 

Meh.  It's not entirely unusual for stays to be granted to legislation that may cause harm while said legislation works through the system.   Roberts was a mistake, but he has supported similar cases in the past.  He'd likely support it again if it makes it to the USSC.