Americans will remember Andrew Cuomo, the 56th Governor of New York, long after he leaves Office and longer still, once he has departed from this Earth. They will remember Andrew Cuomo, but not in a good way. They will remember him for ramming through the State Government in Albany, two policy measures, both of which are antithetical to the core values, beliefs, and traditions of Americans, and both of which are inconsistent with the core tenets of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.
Those two reprehensible New York policy measures go by the names: New York Safe Act and the Reproductive Health Act. Governor Cuomo has championed both these policies; and with his political clout he has forced both measures through the State Legislature, in Albany. Cuomo signed the former Act into law on February 15, 2013. He signed the latter Act into law, on January 22, 2019.
The descriptors employed for these two laws belie their purpose, as all awful laws invariably do. Cuomo tells New York’s residents that the salient purpose and goal of the NY Safe Act is to promote and enhance public safety. But Cuomo is lying. A perusal of the Act makes clear its true purpose and goal: disarming law-abiding members of the public, in order to defeat the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
The NY Safe Act operates through a multitude of arcane New York laws that place extraordinary restrictions on firearms’ ownership and possession. The drafters of the NY Safe Act peppered the myriad laws that comprise the Act, here and there, throughout the New York State Code. Even an attorney must spend considerable effort to locate them all in this behemoth compendium of laws that comprise the Consolidated laws of the State of New York. Once found, the meaning of many of these laws is difficult to discern and fathom as much of the verbiage is ambiguous and vague.
Whether due to unintentional poor draftsmanship or from a deliberate attempt to obscure and confound, Andrew Cuomo and other antigun zealots do intend to frustrate the American citizen, and, so, dissuade the citizen from obtaining and maintaining firearms within the jurisdiction of New York.
Governor Cuomo exclaims, disingenuously, that he is simply more desirous of promoting, enhancing, and securing public safety and less intent on defeating the citizen’s exercise of a fundamental, enumerated, unalienable right. Hardly true, but, one thing is true enough. The NY Safe Act only serves to make the public decidedly less, not more, safe, as law-abiding citizens who reside in New York become an easy target for armed predators who demonstrate regard neither for law nor for the sanctity of human life. Thus, one is left to draw the inescapable conclusion that the NY Safe Act has, ultimately, nothing tangible to do with promoting, securing, and enhancing public safety–which are mere mindless messaging–and has everything to do with undermining the ideals of individual responsibility, autonomy, and inviolability, all intrinsic to the Second Amendment.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Andrew Cuomo would endorse a second measure—certainly a measure he undoubtedly had a hand in crafting and shaping like the first one—a measure that is as sweeping in conception and implementation and as abhorrent to the conscience as the earlier one is.
This second measure is, on any estimation, is horrific, as it amounts to legally sanctioned murder. This policy measure has the decidedly false appellation of: “Reproductive Health Act of 2019.”
Make no mistake, regardless of protestations to the contrary, it is the individual—in this case the most innocent among us, the unborn child—whom the Reproductive Health Act targets for death; for extinction. The Act has little if anything to do with the life and health of the mother and it has everything to do with State licensed execution of an innocent, defenseless child.
Murder, after all, may, in a figurative sense apply to an assault on society at large, writ large, but murder is a literal, life-ending assault on the integrity, and inviolability and sanctity of the individual, as so defined with particularity in both Federal and State law.
As with those who espouse the radical left-wing doctrines of Socialism and Communism, Cuomo is a ‘Collectivist.’ Collectivists concern themselves with society, in its entirety, not with the welfare and well-being of the individual in society. So, then, when Cuomo expresses concern for the health, well-being, safety, or welfare of the public, he uses the word, ‘public’ in the broadest sense, consistent with the precepts of Collectivism. He refers to the body politic in its entirety; not to the individuals who comprise it.
The ethical system Cuomo and other Collectivists embrace is called Utilitarian Consequentialism. This is an ethical system unconcerned with and therefore devoid of any reference to a person’s intentions and motivations.
Utilitarian Consequentialism derives ethical maxims essentially from the results or effects of one’s actions on society. An individual’s motives and intentions for acting fall out of the equation entirely or almost entirely since motives and intentions are deemed essentially irrelevant. An action is deemed morally good or morally evil essentially from the standpoint of consequences only. A morally good act is one that maximizes utility for the collective, the hive. A morally evil act or a morally neutral act is one that does not maximize utility for the collective, the hive.
The notion of ‘utility maximization’ is a nebulous concept. And, as a nebulous concept it is therefore, ultimately, an unsatisfactory one upon which to build an ethical system, for the concept of ‘utility maximization,’ means whatever the proponent of utilitarian consequentialism, says it means. It is therefore arbitrary and constantly subject to revision. It is ever subject to the whim and caprice of the rulers of society, as they utilize it to dictate morality for the populace. Morality for Collectivists, those people, who espouse Utilitarian Consequentialism, perceive morality as a relative notion, not exact, not definite and definitive, not concrete.
Utilitarian Consequentialism, grounded as it is on the concept of ‘utility maximization,’ is a bankrupt ethical system, because, for the Utilitarian Consequentialist, good and evil, are relative to time, place and circumstance, and to the wiles of those who define the expression for everyone else.
Utilitarian Consequentialism is a form of moral relativism, and moral relativism of any kind or form, is hardly something upon which to establish a system for distinguishing good conduct from bad conduct, as any act, however reprehensible, can be deemed morally permissible. In fact, it is this very moral relativism that allows for something like New York’s obscene Reproductive Health Act to be enacted.
Only a purported ethical system like Utilitarian Consequentialism could allow for something as horrific as New York’s “Reproductive Health Act” to exist. And, only those who espouse Collectivism and who therefore adhere to the seeming ethical system of Utilitarian Consequentialism–as does Andrew Cuomo–would be capable of devising and implementing a monstrosity such as the Reproductive Health Act. And, only a Collectivist, such as Andrew Cuomo, would perceive licensed murder, as ethically defensible, indeed, even righteous.
But Cuomo isn’t done. He goes further. He dares raise abortion to the level of a fundamental right. But abortion qua the murder of a child, does not appear anywhere in this Nation’s Bill of Rights, either expressly or tacitly, and understandably so. Fundamental rights are natural rights, endowed by God, the Creator, on Man.
Fundamental rights are not to be perceived as relative to a particular time, place, or circumstance. Fundamental rights are not mere creatures of Man. They are immutable. The idea that God, the creator of human souls, would ever sanction abortion, amounts to the very crucifixion of sanity. But, of course, nowhere in utilitarian consequentialism is there any discussion of a Divine Creator anyway.
Not surprisingly Collectivists would espouse an “ethical” system like utilitarian consequentialism for they are atheists. Since they dispense with the very notion of a Divine Creator, they exhibit no humility. And, we see the results of their lack of restraint through the public policy they espouse. They have no inhibition; no shame. They lack all restraint. They are governed by raw ambition, and they are ever ruled by a lust for power and self-aggrandizement. These are exemplified in the present Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo.
Now, Andrew Cuomo would probably vehemently disagree with the assertion he is an atheist, having been born and raised as a Catholic; and he has never disavowed or, in any manner, severed his relationship to or ties with the Catholic Church–at least as far as we can ascertain. But, then, that fact only serves to make his association with an abortion policy, any abortion policy, but especially one he had a hand in crafting and forcing through the New York Legislature–and one as disturbing and confounding and distressing as the one he signed into law–particularly egregious and incongruous; deeply so, and much more so than if Cuomo were to proclaim himself an atheist.
PEOPLE WHO ESPOUSE COLLECTIVISM ARE A COLD, CALLOUS LOT
Not surprisingly, Collectivists espouse no concern for the health, welfare, and well-being of the individual but, profess only concern for an amorphous mass, a Chimera, which is to profess, then, really, no concern for anyone at all. And, indeed, they don’t. Thus, they can tell you with cold, calculated certainty that the life of two individuals is worth more than the life of one individual even if those two individuals are serial killers, and the one individual is a simple, God-fearing, law-abiding American citizen. The argument would simply devolve into numbers: two is greater than one, so the life of two individuals is worth more than the life of one individual, and there is no need to consider the nature of those lives.
Thus, the Collectivist argues for “gun control.” Better, the Collectivist would say, for two killers to murder an innocent individual than for the innocent individual, in an act of simple, basic self-preservation–to kill the two would-be killers with a firearm, as society, in its entirety, will be the better for removal of firearms, according to the reasoning of the Collectivist. Thus, sacrifice of the one individual serves society, as a whole. But, why, really, ought a person to accept sanctity in numbers for the sake of mere numbers?
If one cares less for the life of one individual simply because one life is one less than two, why emphasize the import of the lives of the many at all? It is in fact this very preoccupation with raw numbers, rather than with concern for the particular individual life in question that allows Collectivists to sanction abortion.
Only a Collectivist can somehow rationalize that the public as a whole will benefit from an abortion policy at all only because there are, presumably, according to the logic of the Collectivist, many more individuals that comprise the body politic than are the number of innocent lives that will be lost–sacrificed–as a result of an abortion policy. In other words, many more women–Cuomo and other proponents of New York’s Reproductive Health Act tell us–would personally benefit from disrupting a human life. They tell us that society is better served by killing the unborn child than would be served if the mother were required to carry the child to birth, as society as a whole, somehow, in the mind of the Collectivist is better served for having an abortion policy, notwithstanding the clear, irremediable, irreversible loss of an innocent child that having an abortion policy entails.
It is this convoluted, shallow logic that permits New York, now, to permit human sacrifice–sacrifice of the most innocent among us. But this is not reason. It is Satanic sophistry.
Thus, Andrew Cuomo, the Collectivist and Utilitarian Consequentialist, doesn’t express concern for the life, health, well-being and welfare of the innocent individual souls that might, if they had a chance at life, comprise part of the body politic. Cuomo, and other Collectivists only express ostensible concern, then, for the well-being and welfare of the Collective, of “the hive.” How it can it be any other way than this?
It is very much in vein then that Governor Andrew Cuomo, the Collectivist, the Utilitarian Consequentialist, would help craft the text of, and avidly support enactment of, and sign into law such morally reprehensible schemes as the Reproductive Health Act and the New York Safe Act. Given the detrimental impact of these horrific measures on the life, health, safety, welfare, and well-being of each American citizen, Cuomo and others of his ilk strive to hide the dire impact of these schemes on the sanctity and inviolability of each American citizen, and suggest that they are something different from what they truly purport to be.
Not unsurprisingly, the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, as with the wording of the New York Safe Act, deliberately obscures and, in fact, belies its true purpose and effect. One sees the true import and purport of the Act only when one drills down into the language of it.
Like the New York Safe Act, the Reproductive Health Act betrays the sanctity and inviolability of the life. It betrays the welfare and well-being of the American citizen. The New York Safe Act has nothing to do with promoting and enhancing safety. And the Reproductive Health Act has nothing to do with promoting health. It is a Death Act, not a Life and Health Act.
Most Americans do not share Andrew Cuomo’s beliefs and wish neither to adopt nor suffer his political, social, and bankrupt moral belief system; nor do they wish to adapt themselves to it. But they have no choice. Cuomo thrusts his beliefs and his bizarre belief system onto others anyway. Since Cuomo wields considerable power and influence in New York and shows no reluctance in exercising that power and outsize influence, those falling within the purview of his jurisdiction—namely the residents of the State of New York—are compelled to live in a reality, a hell-world, he has created for them. Few can object as Cuomo seeks to control public discourse; he seeks to control all thought, and action; and, with the avid assistance of the mainstream media, he has become very successful at it.
The qualities of compassion, restraint, humility, and respect for the beliefs of other Americans simply don’t exist in Andrew Cuomo’s psychological makeup. Cuomo, like so many other Collectivists in the Democratic Party, both on the State and Federal level, demonstrates callous disregard for the feelings and beliefs of others. Forcing his peculiar belief system onto millions of others, he does so with the conviction and certitude of a fanatic and sociopath, seemingly convinced of the infallibility of and superiority of his beliefs; oblivious to and, indeed, disdainful of the thoughts and feelings and beliefs of others.
As a private citizen, Cuomo may, of course, hold to and cultivate any belief or belief system he wishes. That’s his right as an American citizen as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That harms no one. But, as Governor, Cuomo can and does ordain his belief system for others, that harms everyone and cannot and ought not be countenanced, and ought to be roundly and soundly condemned and fought against.
Through enactment of the NY Safe Act, Cuomo at once denied and denigrated a fundamental, natural, unalienable right—a right that is clearly, concisely, and categorically articulated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He did this because he utterly detests the Second Amendment, and he finds the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be repugnant to his own peculiar sensibilities. He thereupon rams through the State Legislature, surreptitiously, without debate, in the dark of night, an extraordinarily restrictive firearms’ measure that operates as if the Second Amendment did not exist.
Similarly, through enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, Andrew Cuomo operates as if the unborn child is a non-entity and, so, may be summarily and unceremoniously erased.
GOVERNOR CUOMO CATEGORICALLY IGNORES THE FACT THAT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE EXPRESS WORDS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; YET, AMAZINGLY AND BIZARRELY HE PROPOSES TO CREATE OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MURDER AN UNBORN CHILD, WHICH HE SEES AS A RIGHT INHERENT, APPARENTLY, IN A GENERAL, NOTION OF PRIVACY; BUT NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES SUCH A GENERAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY EXIST.
Let us take a look at what the Reproductive Health Act, 2019 N.Y. SB 240, Chaptered, January 22, 2019, 2019 N.Y. ALS 1; 2019 N.Y. Laws 1; 2019 N.Y. Ch. 1; 2019 N.Y. SB 240, actually says. Section 1, of the Act, titled, “Legislative Intent,” sets forth:
“The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a fundamental component of a woman’s health, privacy and equality. The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman’s fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion, courts have repeatedly reaffirmed this right and further emphasized that states may not place undue burdens on women seeking to access such right.
Moreover, the legislature finds, as with other medical procedures, the safety of abortion is furthered by evidence-based practices developed and supported by medical professionals. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States; the goal of medical regulation should be to improve the quality and availability of health care services.
Furthermore, the legislature declares that it is the public policy of New York State that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy and equality with respect to their personal reproductive decisions and should be able to safely effectuate those decisions, including by seeking and obtaining abortion care, free from discrimination in the provision of health care.
Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to prevent the enforcement of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman’s health that burden abortion access.”
As made abundantly clear, through this Section of the Act, titled, “Legislative Intent,” Andrew Cuomo dares attempt to raise to the level of a fundamental right, something that is nowhere explicit or implied in the Bill of Rights, or, for that matter, anywhere else, in the U.S. Constitution. Yet, those members of the New York Legislature who enacted New York’s Reproductive Health Act, and Governor Andrew Cuomo, who then signed the Reproductive Health Act into law, have the audacity to raise the killing of an unborn child to the level of a fundamental Constitutional Right. In creating such monstrous policy, these people dare deny to the unborn child, the sanctity and autonomy, to which that living soul, as any other living soul, is rightfully entitled: the right to exist as a living being, created by the Lord.
But contrary to the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, no person has a fundamental right to an abortion. The Constitution of the United States does not sanction abortion, under any set of circumstances. Yet, now, with the enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, the State of York has taken the rash, unprecedented step of literally sanctioning legal murder–an oxymoron, to be sure–but there is no better way to refer to it for that is what it is. Under law, legal murder is not murder at all. But, a purposeful act of snuffing out the life of an innocent soul has occurred nonetheless. And, as if that were not enough, in having enacted such a law, the Legislature of New York and the Governor of New York now audaciously raise a certain instance of murder to the level of a fundamental right, as the preamble to the Act, makes plain.
The Governor of New York and those members of the State Legislature who had a hand in drafting the Reproductive Health Act or who otherwise voted for the Act’s enactment, categorically declare that abortion is a fundamental right under both the State Constitution and under the U.S. Constitution. A certain kind of act that heretofore did constitute a criminal act, no longer does constitute a criminal act in New York.
How does Cuomo and other proponents of the Reproductive Health Act, literally get away with murder? They do this by denying personhood to a living soul. And, how do they do that? They do that by declaring, in principal part, that the mother’s right to privacy, outweighs the life of the unborn child.
But, where in the Constitution does this presumptive right of privacy of the the mother reside? Cuomo doesn’t say. But, assuming arguendo, it does reside and must reside somewhere, implied, and tacit, in the Constitution, where in the Constitution does this presumptive right of privacy happen, then, to reside? Where in the U.S. Constitution does such presumed fundamental right preside over that of the very life and well-being of the unborn child? The answer is: nowhere!
If a vague, generalized right to privacy exists at all, it is nowhere to be found in nor can it be extracted from any one of the Articles of the United States Constitution; and it is not to be found in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution or in any other Amendment of the Bill of Rights; nor is it to be extracted from the text of any one of the subsequent Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
To be sure, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed codify the fundamental right of the individual to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But, only through a feat of legerdemain can one claim that a general right of privacy exists within the definitive, explicit right of the citizen to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The concept of “unreasonable searches and seizures” is precise and explicit. The concept of ‘privacy,’ on the other hand, is abstract and vague.
SUPPOSE, FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT, A FUNDAMENTAL, SUBSTANTIVE, GENERAL RIGHT OF PRIVACY DOES FEASIBLY EXIST IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, CAN THAT EVER JUSTIFY ABORTION?
Certainly, no rational argument can be made that a right to deny life to an unborn child is somehow subordinated to a general notion of privacy, even if such general right of privacy can be extracted somewhere from the text of the U.S. Constitution.
Some people may argue that a general implicit right of privacy exists in or is subsumed in the explicit unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. Even so, such general right of privacy cannot rationally justify abortion. The framers of the Constitution could not have intended that. Obviously, they have not. Only a fevered mind would believe otherwise. Cuomo is one such fevered mind that does. But, if a general, fundamental right of privacy does exist, and, if not in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, then where else might such substantive fundamental right be found upon which abortion might reasonably be Constitutionally sanctioned?
Some may argue, that, if a general right of privacy cannot be found tacit in the fundamental, unalienable, enumerated right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment, then, perhaps, a general right to privacy exists as one of the unenumerated rights of the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
But, once again, no one can reasonably, rationally, logically construe the idea that an assault on the life of an unborn child is always Constitutionally permissible through the notion of a fundamental but unenumerated general right of privacy. Yet, advocates for abortion would argue that a general right of privacy–whether perceived, somehow as a substantive and fundamental but unenumerated right in the Ninth Amendment or as tacitly existent in the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment, or, perhaps, as residing in the due process clause or equal protection clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, or in the text of any other part of the Constitution–serves, legally, to override concern for the life and well-being of the unborn child. In other words, if State sanctioned murder is to be lawfully permitted, then it must be Constitutionally protected, but one must twist and contort the Constitution to find a way to justify what is, on its face, a horrific act. And, however one attempts to do so, the attempt invariably fails.
ABORTION RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND ACTIVISTS MUST FACE THE FACT THAT ABORTION, WHETHER EARLY TERM OR LATE TERM OR AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH, ALWAYS INVOLVES THE KILLING OF A LIVING, ABSOLUTELY DEFENSELESS AND INNOCENT CHILD.
Although there have been attempts to insert privacy into the discussion of abortion, one cannot do so without dismissing out-of-hand the fact that abortion logically entails the killing of an unborn, child. Even if one assumes, as Cuomo does, the existence of a general and fundamental right of privacy, albeit without proof, it is of dubious value to argue that such general privacy concern is superior to the life and well-being of an unborn child, and that such right of privacy is to be secured to the detriment of the unborn child. But, Cuomo’s Reproductive Health Act has, by contriving a general fundamental right of privacy, placed that contrived general right of privacy over the very real life and well-being of the child. The Reproductive Health Act operates from just such an implausible assumption.
But, do we allow Cuomo and other proponents of the Reproductive Health Act to get away with murder? Do we allow State-sanctioned murder simply because the proponents of abortion perfunctorily couch the act of abortion in something palatable, namely in the language of a fundamental right of health, privacy, or equality, despite the absence of a clear legal and moral foundation for it? They should not be let so easily off the hook.
For those who assert with conviction a woman’s unalienable right to an abortion, inherent in a fundamental, but unproved general right of privacy, they must contend with the necessary consequence of it: the death of the unborn child, which, for these abortion rights advocates and activists, even includes a right to abortion even up to commencement of birth of a living human being. These people, though, do not wish to admit that fact, overtly, even if, among themselves they are perfectly content with it. So they tend to skip over it, rather than contend openly with it. If pressed, however, these advocates of abortion will simply assert that the unborn child, including the child about to be born, and even the child in the midst of live birth, isn’t a person.
Those advocating for abortion simply view the unborn child as a nonentity. They deny to a living soul, the sacred, inviolate idea of ‘personhood.’ Advocates of abortion thereupon deny, to the unborn child and to the child about to be born and even to the child in the midst of live birth, the most sacred right of all—that of life itself. The moral dubiousness of and indeed the outright absurdity of their position is, thus, laid bare.
For those State Officials, who, like Cuomo, claim, through it all, a concern for human life—there is a curious and odd “consanguinity” in both the recent abortion Statute and in the New York Safe Act. Both Acts proceed from the false assumption that what Government deems best for society, perceived in its entirety, must take precedence over the welfare of the individuals who comprise that society.
Ostensible concern for public safety is the pretext for the New York Safe Act of 2013. But, as with all restrictive firearms’ measures, the NY Safe Act shows, in the language of it, and in its operation, a complete lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the citizen. Thus, the proponents of restrictive gun laws, such as the NY Safe Act, claim to maximize benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at substantial cost: a concomitant loss of benefit accruing to the individual.
Similarly, the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 claims to extol the virtue of health, privacy, and equal protection to society, comprising a class of women who seek abortion; but, in so doing, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Act demonstrate a clear and callous lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the most innocent of living beings. As with the NY Safe Act, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Act claim the Act benefits society as a whole, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a most severe cost: the concomitant loss of decidedly the most critical need of all—life itself—for it is innocent individuals who suffer the dire and immediate consequence of abortion as their life is snuffed out.
NEW YORK’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT SANCTIONS MURDER, PLAINLY AND INCONTROVERTIBLY
Under any objective appraisal, New York’s Reproductive Health Act is an abomination. It sanctions as permissible conduct, acts of unimaginable savagery that other States codify in their own laws as impermissible, reprehensible, heinous criminal conduct: namely, murder.
How does New York’s Reproductive Health Act do this? The Act sanctions murder by submerging the act of abortion into the context of a presumed fundamental general right of privacy. But, that isn’t enough. The problem is that, under the laws of New York, abortion is a crime. So, the Reproductive Health Act must change those provisions of New York law that make abortion a crime.
The Reproductive Health Act amends New York law by adding to and deleting various provisions of New York public health law, penal law, the criminal procedure law, and other State laws regarding abortion.
A new Section of the Public Health Law of New York, Section 2599-bb reads:
A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, 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.
Those who defend the Reproductive Health Act argue that the law, as written, only prohibits abortion on demand up to the third trimester, and at no time thereafter, unless “there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” But is that true? A few points must be made to counter this unsound conclusion.
First, by emphasizing prohibition of at will abortion until the third trimester, we must not lose sight of the fact that the New York’s Reproductive Health Act does allow at will abortion during the first two trimesters, regardless of the viability of a child. Abortions’ rights advocates like to skirt over that fact. But, the fact remains that a living soul exists in the womb.
Those favoring abortion point to the idea that the unborn child is not viable outside the womb before 20 weeks. So what! whether true or not that misses the point of the horror of abortion at all. It is simply a straw man argument in favor of abortion. If a child is healthy at any point during pregnancy, then the idea of viability inside or outside the womb should not be considered a rational factor in determining the legitimacy of abortion, whether one talks about viability of the child during the first, second, or third trimester. The question is whether abortion can be ethically justified at any point during pregnancy.
Second, the New York Reproductive Health Act, as enacted, doesn’t limit the act of aborting a child to the services of a medical doctor. Virtually any individual who is licensed in New York, and “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice” may now lawfully perform an abortion in New York. The law broadly expands those who may perform an abortion well beyond that of a medically trained and licensed physician certified in the field of obstetrics or gynecology. That should give everyone pause.
Third, when analyzing New York’s Reproductive Health Act, one should pay attention to how the Act changes New York’s Penal Code. The Penal Code has been extensively rewritten to cohere with the precepts of the Act.
Every Section of the Penal Code that refers to Abortion as a crime has been either deleted or repealed. Since abortion is no longer a crime, no one can, any longer, be charged with the crime for performing an abortion. Thus, even if one chooses to read Section 2599-bb very narrowly so as to conclude that the Act proscribes abortions at the point of the third trimester, as Cuomo and those who advocate for his abortion Act do so claim–apparently to assuage those who oppose the Reproductive Health Act–the claim is actually false.
Still, despite the apparent language of the Act, and contrary to the remarks of those who justify the Act, claiming built-in limitations on abortion, the fact remains that with Cuomo’s imprimatur, ab0rtion on demand is now perfectly legal in New York, not simply up to the third trimester, but at any time. That signals a legal right to abortion on demand through the third trimester, and, in fact, up to and including the very point of birth of the child. But, is that true? Yes, it is. The statement is true because abortion qua the killing of a child at any point in time, from conception up to the point of delivery and even beyond, is no longer a crime in New York. The very word, ‘abortion’ has been stricken from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR ABORTION NO LONGER ATTACHES IN NEW YORK
Since criminal liability for abortion no longer exists in New York, no one can be held criminally liable for performing an abortion. What does that mean? It means that, in effect, anyone—literally anyone—can perform an abortion, contrary to the dictates of Section 2599-bb; and, further, it means that abortions can be lawfully performed up to and including the point where the mother is giving birth to a viable, perfectly formed, and healthy child.
Where there is no penalty for committing a crime, there does not, in effect, exist a crime, regardless of what a criminal code sets forth. Any words to the contrary are nugatory, and, so, in effect, meaningless. Abortion is no longer a crime in New York.
If there is any doubt about this, consider that New York’s County Coroners are now absolutely prohibited under the Reproductive Health Act from investigating abortion as a crime, in New York.
“Section 11. Subdivision 1 of section of 673 of the county law, as added by chapter 545 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows:
A coroner or medical examiner has jurisdiction and authority to investigate the death of every person dying within his county, or whose body is found within the county, which is or appears to be:
- A violent death, whether by criminal violence, suicide or casualty;
- death caused by unlawful act or criminal neglect;
- death occurring in a suspicious, unusual or unexplained manner;
(d) A death caused by suspected criminal abortion;
(e) A death while unattended by a physician, so far as can be discovered, or where no physician able to certify the cause of death as provided in the public health law and in form as prescribed by the commissioner of health can be found.”
Sections (d) and (e) have been excised from New York law. And, New York’s Legislators, who crafted the Reproductive Health Act, did so for an important reason. They took this rash step to make clear that the very act of abortion is lawful, even moral, because it is consistent, in the mind of the Collectivist and Utilitarian Consequentialist, as a fundamental right.
What does this Section of New York law mean? It means that abortion—any abortion of a child—is perfectly legal in New York. It can be performed by anyone, and at any time. For, where there is no liability for criminal conduct, there is, once again, in effect, if not in fact, no crime. Abortion has literally been written out of the criminal code of New York. It has been indelibly stricken.
What is the bottom line here? Just this: In the absence of liability, one can reasonably conclude that: Under New York’s Reproductive Health Act, abortion in New York is now permissible at any time, for any reason, performed by anyone. And, it gets even worse, when one considers various scenarios that play out.
Consider one scenario: Suppose a woman, pregnant with child, has every intention of having a baby and that woman is assaulted by a criminal and, as a result of criminal assault, the mother loses the baby. While the attacker can can still be held criminally liable for harm to the mother, the attacker cannot now, unlike in the past, be held criminally liable for the death of the unborn child. The attacker cannot any longer be held liable for murder, for manslaughter, for criminal negligence—for anything related to the death of the unborn child.
Where a perpetrator violently attacks a pregnant woman, in New York, we can extrapolate from that a peculiar “benefit” that accrues to the perpetrator of the violent attack: The loss of the child, as a result of an attack on the mother, may be construed as an unintended abortion. But, since abortion, whether intended or not, is no longer a crime in New York, the loss of the child from abortion can no longer be deemed a crime. Thus, the Reproductive Health Act provides substantial benefit to a class of society in New York beyond the amorphous class of women who may seek to have an abortion–the criminal element now benefits directly from the fact that abortion, under any set of circumstances is no longer deemed a crime in New York.
Cuomo himself makes the point by proclaiming that the mother cannot be held responsible for the loss of the child. It is an inane and singularly odd remark, but, apart from that, it misses the critical point. The question is not whether the mother can be held criminally liable for the loss of her child. Obviously, she cannot and ought not in this instance, for she is not responsible for the loss of her child. Rather, the issue is whether the perpetrator of the violence on the mother can be held criminally liable for the harm done to the unborn child—i.e., whether the person who harms the mother, the perpetrator of the attack on the mother, can be held, as well, criminally liable for the death of the child. The perpetrator of the attack cannot be charged with any crime related to the death of the unborn child, under New York’s new Reproductive Health Act.
Obviously, Cuomo doesn’t want to address the fact that, with passage of the Reproductive Health Act, a person cannot be indicted for any crime–not for murder, not for manslaughter, not even for criminal negligence–where, but for a perpetrator’s criminal assault on a pregnant woman, the woman would not have lost her unborn child. The perpetrator of the attack on the mother can only be criminally charged for harm done to the mother that is directly attributable to the perpetrator of the attack. Under New York law, the unborn child is not recognized as a living soul. The unborn child simply doesn’t exist.
Since abortion is now ruled out as a homicide in New York in every instance, the child, as such, does not in law exist. One cannot be charged for a crime perpetrated on a non-entity. It is as if the mother were not pregnant at all. It simply no longer matters under New York law. It is not, then, merely that an unborn child is perceived as not worthy of life. Once, again, and it needs to be stressed: New York’s Reproductive Health Act operates as if the unborn child doesn’t exist; that the unborn child never existed. The child is not perceived as a person, but merely as an unwanted thing to be discarded.
This is the new reality, the hellish cauldron of insanity and horror that Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Reproductive Health Act has thrown all New York residents into and which, like the reprehensible New York Safe Act, he would unleash on the entire Country if he were but given the chance.
Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.