Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is this any different from a parent being allowed to remove a terminal child from life support? Because it's a baby?
First, can they even do that?
Second, the bill does not distinguish between healthy and unhealthy children.
Third, what does a person's date of birth mean? It means the first day of his life. When a baby is born he becomes a person with all the protections a law accords persons. That is why the "notwithstanding" is there. It would vacate those protections (if that were possible).
The term used in healthcare is Neonatal. This likely refers to people working in Neonatal units which only cover from 24 weeks Gestation (premature) to 28 days old, at that point they are moved to the Children's ward. The nurses, Docs, and NP/PA's are at high risk of lawsuits as neonates do die on these units due to birth defects that current medicine cannot address.
This seems like it is including the staff and hospital facilities that provide treatment for these babies. One hospital I used to round at has 83 Neonate beds and the staff only works in those areas as it is highly specialized. And they do get named in suits more often than people realize.
You can imagine how upset a family is when a child dies at 1 week old, so lawsuits are not uncommon in this area.
There are no abortions performed on these units as we are talking about very sick kids, many with congenital deformities. I won't lie, I had to round on that unit as a student and it was very tuff for me to see just how many birth defects occur and the emotional toll it has on the families. Was too much for me. It takes very special people that can handle caring for infants that they know are dying along with comforting families. It is not an easy job.
Notwithstanding means despite or without being prevented by.
"Despite a law a person shall not be charged for an action" means if the person does the action even if there is another law against it, he will not be charged with breaking that law.
Same for an inaction.
So if a person ends the life of another person under 28 days old, he will not be charged under any law. Same the other person dies as a result of another's inaction (as a former Democrat governor of MD admitted to doing).
Well that changes everything then. I misunderstood the clause. They definitely need to change the wording or clarify the intent.
It appears the bill is still in review. Hopefully someone will address that.
Well that changes everything then. I misunderstood the clause. They definitely need to change the wording or clarify the intent.
It appears the bill is still in review. Hopefully someone will address that.
Honestly why does this surprise you ? This is the way the country has been heading for quite some time.
Abortions were initially limited to the first trimester.
NYS now allows late term abortion...in labor and dilating if you follow the letter of the law.
And we all know that CA has to always be the extreme state.
And amid the cries of "no one does it"....ok so then why do we need a law protecting someone if they do decide to do it ?
Honestly why does this surprise you ? This is the way the country has been heading for quite some time.
Abortions were initially limited to the first trimester.
NYS now allows late term abortion...in labor and dilating if you follow the letter of the law.
And we all know that CA has to always be the extreme state.
And amid the cries of "no one does it"....ok so then why do we need a law protecting someone if they do decide to do it ?
Yes I would be surprised if a state allowed someone to intentionally kill a healthy infant, even California. Just as people terribly misinterpret the NYS late term abortions law, I think people misinterpret this clause.
Yes I would be surprised if a state allowed someone to intentionally kill a healthy infant, even California. Just as people terribly misinterpret the NYS late term abortions law, I think people misinterpret this clause.
And the laws passed/proposed in NY and CA are in response to those states limiting abortion.
Two extremes......
The only thing changed in those two state abortion laws was wording to protect, mainly, health care professionals from being criminally charged with something that is legal. The gestational limits were not modified. Whereas many states have implemented extreme gestational limits like the heart beat bill, or requiring invasive ultrasounds, waiting periods, facility requirements, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
