Politics Third trimester abortions?

The vast majority of women getting 3rd trimester abortions would be the poor. That means they're on welfare and they're democrats. Fewer people on welfare and voting democrat seems like a win to me.

 

Thank you.


The article you cited was very biased. Here is more accurate reporting of what is going on:



ALBANY, N.Y. - (AP) -- The state Assembly voted Wednesday for legislation to codify in New York the abortion rights established by the U.S. Supreme Court, moving it separately this year from a group of bills intended to ensure other women's rights in the workplace and courts.


New York first established abortion rights for women in 1970, three years before the top federal court did it nationally in Roe v. Wade. While both allow terminating a pregnancy in the first 24 weeks, New York's law allows later-term abortions to protect a woman's life, while the Supreme Court said it can be done also to protect her health.


"The Assembly majority believes that in the fight for true women's equality, the most basic right of all is a woman's right to make reproductive health decisions for her own body," Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said, surrounded by advocates for the bill and Democratic colleagues. "We believe that her body is a personal space, and its privacy and autonomy must be defended."


Assembly member Deborah Glick, a Manhattan Democrat and chief sponsor, said the bill would ensure those rights in New York should a Supreme Court with different members reverse itself. "It guarantees a woman's life and health can be protected in these decisions," she said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/region-...-to-vote-again-for-abortion-rights-1.10122023

 

1% of 1M+ abortions are post 21 weeks.

It's a very rare thing. I'd expect almost always if the fetus or the woman is endangered by proceeding any further.

 

If the mother's life was endangered. IF THE MOTHER'S LIFE WAS ENDANGERED.

"New York's law allows later-term abortions to protect a woman's life."

...

"These are wanted pregnancies," said Corinne Carey of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "These are absolute tragedies."


Her office gets calls about those late-term cases about once a year, Carey said.


Your wife is currently pregnant, if a medical situation arose where it comes down to her life or the baby's life you want the government to tell her she has to have the baby and die instead of allowing her to make that decision of what is best for her situation?

 

And yes, an article posted on an anti abortion website is going to be biased. Why wouldn't it be? Why would they present both sides? The people who visit that site go there for an antiabortion view point. Being biased isn't wrong. It just isn't always completely accurate. It's like coming to RipCityTwo and expecting it to be unbiased towards Kobe and the Lakers.

 

That's not what I asked. Don't rewrite the scenario to fit your desired outcome.

If it came down to your wife's life or your baby's life who should get to make that decision? Your wife? The government? Pick one.

 

And there are rare medical conditions where that is not an option.

 

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/stories/my-late-term-abortion/

As we sat there, she said that the ultrasound indicated that the fetus had an open neural tube defect, meaning that the spinal column had not closed properly. It was a term I remembered skipping right over in my pregnancy book, along with all the other fetal anomalies and birth defects that I thought referred to other people’s babies, not mine. She couldn’t tell us much more. We would have to go to the main hospital in Boston, which had a more high-tech machine and a more highly trained technician. She tried to be hopeful — there was a wide range of severity with these defects, she said. And then she left us to cry.

We drove into Boston in near silence, tears rolling down my cheeks. There was no joking or chatting at the hospital in Boston. No fuzzy kittens and kissing dolphins on the ceiling of that chilly, clinical room. Dave held my hand more tightly than before. I couldn’t bear to look at this screen. Instead, I studied the technician’s face, like a nervous flier taking her cues from the expression a stewardess wears. Her face revealed nothing.

She squirted cold jelly on my belly and then slid an even colder probe back and forth around my belly button, punching it down every so often to make the baby move for a better view. She didn’t say one word in 45 minutes. When she finished, she looked at us and confirmed our worst fears.

Instead of cinnamon and spice, our child came with technical terms like hydrocephalus and spina bifida. The spine, she said, had not closed properly, and because of the location of the opening, it was as bad as it got. What they knew — that the baby would certainly be paralyzed and incontinent, that the baby’s brain was being tugged against the opening in the base of the skull and the cranium was full of fluid — was awful. What they didn’t know — whether the baby would live at all, and if so, with what sort of mental and developmental defects — was devastating. Countless surgeries would be required if the baby did live. None of them would repair the damage that was already done.