Help me understand the New York abortion law


I’m pro-life but sometimes I have a hard time understanding the reaction to certain laws.

Apparently this is a very bad one.

The commentary from pro-choice people is that abortion will only be allowed late when it endangers the mother’s health. Is this true?

Help me with the context.


From the article, which quotes the bill:

The billdeclares that “Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion,” erases the state’s recognition of preborn babies older than 24 weeks as potential homicide victims, removes abortion from the penal code entirely, and allows licensed health practitioners other than full doctors to commit abortions.

‘Every individual who becomes pregnant’ (How progressive!)


The thing is that it fails to define “health,” so it effectively legalized abortion for any reason at any stage of development.


It’s awful. Not much else to know.


And correct me if I’m wrong, health can also mean mental health, and the law doesn’t state how severe it has to be.

Aka if you go to a doctor and say ‘i am anxious to be a mother, I don’t want to be pregnant anymore’

A doctor with a lack of moral compass would then agree to the abortion.

There are nurses and doctors pointing out the fact that in the 3rd trimesters, abortion to save a mother’s life rarely/never happens. Instead, an emergency delivery can be arranged.

There are YouTube videos out there that explain it further. Matt Walsh, I believe, explains the law quite well.


How do you understand Evile…you don’t.


What will happen to the doctor who does have a moral compass and doesn’t agree to perform the late-term abortion? Could he or she face loss of license under this new law? Or are they allowed to refer the patient to another doctor who they know will perform the abortion (which to me, seems like a sinful act, too).


Perhaps they would be allowed to refer to another, but we have seen how cases of employees who refer to other staff due to religious reasons. They get shamed, fired etc.

I’m not sure if a doctor can turn them down for trivial reasons. Maybe they can make a case for it. I don’t think democrats would support them imo, since that act states that everyone has a right to plan their pregnancies.

Another issue is also that nurses, licensed midwives etc can carry out abortions now. As opposed to only physicians.


It’s terrible.

My daughter lives in NYC, and it’s hard for her in her business (entertainment). The overwhelming majority of her work peers are very liberal and very pro-choice. I think a lot of this is because they have grown up “artsy”, which means that they spurned science classes back in middle and high school (my daughter did, too, but she still got good grades in these courses), and they just don’t know a lot about anything other than their art.

The pro-life person who works in the arts has to be really careful because they can find themselves blacklisted and unable to find work if they offend the wrong person.

I’m sure this is true in other professions, too, if there is a lean towards pro-choice points-of-view.


Basically this law loosely defines health and it ends the restriction on abortions past 24 weeks. It goes beyond what Roe v. Wade did.


More likely people will shop around until they find a doctor who goies along with them.

Pro abortion agencies will no doubt “help” set pregnant women up with such doctors.


I personally think the arts would be a great way to spread the pro life message.


But if your superiors find out that you are pro-life, they can make sure that you don’t get work or even get an interview for work. And that’s tough, especially if you live in one of the big cities where the entertainment field has a lot of jobs (but they won’t hire you because you are an intolerant, ignorant pro-lifer).

Pro-choice people tend to be pretty intolerant, even if they don’t tweet it out at 3:00 a.m. Trying to be “loving” and “kind” and “reasonable” with them usually does not work. The best approach is to lay low and do any good works in secret, unless you are so fabulously wealthy that you can get away with being pro-life (e.g., Jack Nicholson).


I know :cry:.


There needs to be some secret society of ideological minorities in the arts to help each other out.


Are there any conditions where it is necessary for the mother’s health to perform a late-term abortion (ie on a viable fetus) rather than just deliver the child alive (via c-section or otherwise)? I’m having trouble thinking of situations where removing a dead child would have an appreciable positive impact over removing a live one.


"Health of the mother doesn’t mean a serious threat to physical health. Consistent with Roe’s companion case Doe v. Bolton : “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”

In other words, health means whatever an abortionist wants it to mean.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit