A LICENSE TO KILL: NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019 AMOUNTS TO “LAWFUL” MURDER

PART EIGHT

ANDREW CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, LEADER OF THE STATE AND A ROMAN CATHOLIC, NOT ONLY SANCTIONS MURDER OF INNOCENT LIVES, BUT, THROUGH AN UNQUESTIONED AT-WILL ABORTION POLICY, HE TACITLY ENCOURAGES THE TAKING OF LIFE OF INNOCENT AMERICAN INFANTS

And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the LORD would not pardon. 2 Kings 24:2 - 24:5 King James Version (KJV)These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look; a lying tongue; and hands that shed innocent blood; An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief; A false witness that speaketh lies; and he that soweth discord among brethren.~2 Kings 24:4 King James verison, Proverbs 6:16-19 King James Version (KJV)Governor Cuomo’s dangerous policy objectives and initiatives do not rest solely on his disdain for the Second Amendment. He also demonstrated a desire, indeed, a passion to upend all New York laws that had hitherto restrained abortion. With enactment of the Reproductive Health Act of 2019, New York has now removed any constraint or restraint on abortion. The Governor muscled through his reprehensible abortion policy through the Democratic Party controlled New York Legislature, just as he had previously muscled through his horrible antigun policy. He did this with cold, calculated, laser-focused intention and resolveOnce enacted in Albany, it was a mere formality for Cuomo to sign the deceptively titled, “Reproductive Health Act of 2019,” into law. The 2019 Act, doesn’t promote health, any more than the 2013 NY Safe Act ensures safety from gun violence. Instead the “Reproductive Health Act of 2019” destroys life, the most innocent life, and it is now, all oh so nice and legal in New York to do so.How was Cuomo able to do this? He was able to accomplish this by sleight-of-hand. Heretofore, abortion was a crime in New York. But, with Democrats presently in control of both Houses of the Legislature in Albany--the Assembly and the State Senate--Cuomo encouraged and cajoled the Legislature into striking the word, ‘abortion,’ from the New York Penal Code and from other New York Statutes—wherever the the term, ‘abortion,’ appeared. This then opened the door to legally sanctioned murder, infanticide. Peculiarly and insidiously, Cuomo dares proclaim late-term abortion—abortion literally up to the moment of birth—to be a fundamental right even though nothing in the U.S. Constitution remotely supports such an absurd notion.* Cuomo and other supporters of late-term, essentially at-will, abortion believe that an audacious proclamation raising licensed murder to the level of a Constitutional right can pass Constitutional scrutiny. But, is that so? It is only a matter of time before New York’s Reproductive Health Act will be challenged in the Courts.

NEW YORK'S CARDINAL TIMOTHY DOLAN CALLS GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO OUT OVER THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019: CUOMO'S  LICENSE TO KILL

As the battle over abortion-murder brews in the States and is fought over in our Nation’s Courts, the horror over this act of legalized murder isn’t lost on the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan.Cardinal Dolan took Cuomo to task in blunt, forceful language, asserting in his Op-Ed appearing in the New York Post:“I’m thinking first of the ghoulish radical abortion-expansion law, which allows for an abortion right up to the moment of birth; drops all charges against an abortionist who allows an aborted baby, who somehow survives the scissors, scalpel, saline and dismemberment, to die before his eyes; mandates that, to make an abortion more convenient and easy, a physician need not perform it; and might even be used to suppress the conscience rights of health care professionals not to assist in the grisly procedures. All this in a state that already had the most permissive abortion laws in the country.As if that’s not enough, instead of admitting that abortion is always a tragic choice, and that life-giving alternatives should be more vigorously promoted, the governor and his ‘progressive’ supporters celebrated signing the bill. At the governor’s command, even the lights of the Freedom Tower sparkled with delight.Those who once told us that abortion had to remain safe, legal and rare now have made it dangerous, imposed and frequent.Then our governor insults and caricatures the church in what’s supposed to be an uplifting and unifying occasion, his ‘State of the State’ address.”The National Catholic Register ran Cardinal Dolan’s direct and vehement denunciation. And, it is patently clear that Cardinal Dolan isn’t simply venting his righteous outrage and indignation upon New York’s abortion Act that legally sanctions the murder of innocent lives, but is directing his outrage on the Governor Cuomo, since, after all, the Governor is the author of the Reproductive Health Act, and bears ultimate responsibility for it. Real blame rests, then, on Cuomo himself, for forcing through this abortion Act abomination in the State Legislature, and, in so, doing, making New York the Abortion Capital of the Country. Cardinal Dolan makes his disgust of Governor Cuomo, a Roman Catholic himself, crystal clear, as Cuomo's actions bespeak a direct attack on the Church itself!“ ‘Andrew Cuomo has insulted the Church, flaunted publicly his dissent from Catholic doctrine, and celebrated the Jan. 22 signing of the state’s ‘ghoulish radical abortion-expansion law.’Cardinal Dolan’s criticisms of Cuomo were direct: “Why would he publicly brag in a political address about his dissent from timeless and substantive Church belief? Why would he quote Pope Francis out of context as an applause line to misrepresent us bishops here as being opposed to our Holy Father? Why did he reduce the sexual abuse of minors, a broad societal and cultural curse that afflicts every family, public school, religion and government program, to a ‘Catholic problem?’”“I’m a pastor, not a politician, but I feel obliged to ask these questions, as daily do I hear them from my people, as well as colleagues from other creeds. I’ve been attacked in the past when I asked — sadly and reluctantly — if the party that my folks proudly claimed as their own, the Democrats, had chosen to alienate faithful Catholic voters. Now you know why I asked,” Cardinal Dolan added.Cardinal Dolan said that while the state’s Democrats purport to be progressive, their recent abortion bill is anything but.”Cardinal Dolan does not stand alone in his directed outrage toward Governor Cuomo. Cardinal Dolan has supporters in New York, standing firmly with him, including some Democrats, notably the Democrats for the Life of America. The National Catholic Register reports,In a Jan. 29 statement, the group said: “Abortion is big business in New York, with unlimited public funding and an abortion rate twice the national average. The governor’s new law will not address the high abortion rate, nor will it help pregnant women who feel pressured or coerced into abortion. The law will help influential and financially flush abortion corporations increase their customer base and profit margin. One in three aborted children were African-American, and one in four were Hispanic. The new law further exploits women, particularly minority populations who are overrepresented in these numbers,” the group said.“We call on New York legislators — particularly Democrats — to embark on a mission to make New York, the state, have the lowest abortion rate in the nation. The estimated $18 million that would be spent yearly on abortion could be put toward programs to prevent pregnancy, including contraction and sex education, prenatal and postnatal health care, public housing, affordable child care and paid maternity leave. Furthermore, we recommend outreach to minority communities to vastly bring down the perceived targeting of women and babies of color.”“As Democrats, we advocate for progressive solutions to problems facing the weakest in society: the poor, minorities, women and children — even if they are yet to be born. New York should repeal this anti-women law, and no other state should replicate it,” the statement added.The National Catholic Register added, in its article, this critical point about Excommunication from the Catholic Church:While Cardinal Dolan has been outspoken in his opposition to the abortion law and Cuomo’s support for it, some Catholics have called for him to excommunicate or impose some other canonical sanctions on the governor, but Cardinal Dolan has recently indicated he is unlikely to do so. The cardinal’s office did not respond to a request from CNA for comments on that possibility. Excommunication from the Church is an extremely serious action, reserved for the most serious of transgressions against the Church. But is excommunication of the Roman Catholic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, practicable, even if clearly warranted, as it is here?

WHAT IS EXCOMMUNICATION?

The website Vatican.com explains the act of 'Excommunication':“Excommunication was a method used by the Roman Catholic Church to exclude one of its members from participating in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. The Roman Catholic Church operates as a society and therefore has the right to excommunicate any of its members, either temporarily or permanently. . . if they go against the church’s constitution and teachings or do not operate within the given authority. According to the Roman Catholic Church, excommunication is the most serious ecclesiastical penalty.” Governor Cuomo must answer the charge. What does he do? Like the adept and cunning rhetorician that Cuomo is, he attempts to reconcile Catholic stricture against abortion with his public policy avidly supporting abortion. As reported in the Weblog, The Deacon’s Bench, Cuomo tries to parry Cardinal Dolan's strident criticism:“I was educated in religious schools, and I am a former altar boy. My Roman Catholic values are my personal values. The decisions I choose to make in my life, or in counseling my daughters, are based on my personal moral and religious beliefs.Thanks to the nation’s founders, no elected official is empowered to make personal religious beliefs the law of the land. My oath of office is to the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New York — not to the Catholic Church. My religion cannot demand favoritism as I execute my public duties.”Cuomo cannot and does not refute what amounts to demonstrable hypocrisy, try as he might, for there is an inherent problem with Cuomo’s sanctimonious remarks. Catholic stricture condemns murder; but, then, the laws and Constitutions of both this Nation and of New York condemn murder, too! There is no safe harbor for Cuomo and others of the Radical Left on the matter.** The intentional taking of innocent human life is contrary to God's will, and, therefore, no less contrary to what may be otherwise deemed a justifiable act of man.  ___________________________________________*Cuomo’s statements to the contrary, the New York abortion law permits abortion at any stage of pregnancy, up to the very moment of birth. This is clear from the text of the actual Act. See AQ article.**Abortion, the intentional taking of a human life sans any ethical justification, such as to secure the life of the mother, is a homicide, the unjustified taking of human life: namely, manslaughter or murder. The New York Penal Code, NY CLS Penal § 125.27 of Article 125, Homicide and Related Offenses, of Part Three of the Penal Code of New York, defines the crime of 'murder' in the first degree' as follows: "A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when, with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person and [specific conditions set forth]. Note: while 'abortion', in New York historically and technically fell under the serious crime of manslaughter, and not, murder, even when conducted with intent, it was nonetheless still a homicide in New York, and therefore punishable as such, with serious penalties attached. Abortion was defined as a specific form of  homicide, falling within the purview of Manslaughter, either in the first degree or second degree, both forms of which were specifically and categorically repealed on January 22, 2019, as specifically set forth in the Reproductive Health Act of 2019, enacted on January 22, 2019. There is, at present, no crime under which abortion falls, in New York. It is for this reason that abortion may be performed at any time, for any reason whether self-induced or performed by a third party, in New York, regardless of both newspaper accounts and the accounts of other pro-abortion apologists to the contrary. If there is no penalty associated with an act, there is in effect, no crime, and there is no  longer any crime of abortion in New York. Understandably, and certainly unsurprisingly, many, many non-residents are traveling to New York for the very purpose of having an abortion. This is likely to continue and gather speed in the future, especially as some States are enacting laws to curb abortion. Hence, New York will likely become, and be known as, the abortion Capital of the Nation, as well as the Nation's financial hub. ______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

GUN LAWS THAT DO NOT MAKE SENSE, LITERALLY!

A Critical Look at California's New 'Assault Weapons' Bill and a Comparison and Contrast with New York's 'Assault Weapons' Laws

California is playing the child’s game of “leapfrog” with New York and with other States that enact draconian firearms laws. What do we mean by that? Just this: as one State Legislature drafts and enacts ever more draconian gun laws, the other States follow suit and attempt to do the first State, one better. Let’s see how this plays out.The New York State Legislature in Albany, NY, rewrote the law defining the expression ‘assault weapon.’ The Safe Act became effective on January 15, 2013 and was the de facto model for new antigun laws around the Country. The Safe Act was also the de facto model for Dianne Feinstein’s failed effort to enact a new federal assault weapons’ ban and ammunition ban in 2013. Fortunately, Republicans in Congress and the NRA stopped a federal “Safe Act” in its tracks.The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting incident that occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, was the impetus for – actually the pretext for – implementation of new and highly restrictive gun and ammunition bans.Notwithstanding oppressive gun restrictions in New York, the Safe Act further encroached on Americans' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, adding new restrictive provisions to the New York Penal Code and to other Statutory Sections of the Consolidated Laws of New York and making existing gun provisions even harsher.The drafters of the Safe Act aimed to ban ever more types of guns. To make guns bans palatable to the public, the drafters of the Safe Act continued, through the artifice of rhetoric to create the illusion that some firearms were evil. They called these firearms assault weapons.Once a firearm is defined as an ‘assault weapon,’ that firearm becomes, at the stroke of a pen, a “banned weapon.” Under present New York law, specifically, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A) and (C), firearms, namely, rifles and pistols that, one, are semiautomatic in operation, two, can accept a detachable magazine and – if the first two necessary conditions are met – then three, if those firearms have at least one of a specific set of features as set forth in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A) or (C). If all three conditions are met, then, under New York law, those rifles and pistols are, by virtue of a legal fiction, ‘assault weapons,’ and are, therefore, banned weapons.Under NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(B), Shotguns that are, one, semiautomatic in operation and, two, have at least one of a particular set of characteristics as set forth in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(B) are also ‘assault weapons.’ And the New York Safe Act adds a fourth category of “assault weapons.” Under NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(D), Shotguns that utilize a revolving cylinder are, by definition, also ‘assault weapons’ and therefore banned weapons. We have discussed the legal fiction of 'assault weapons' as constructed by the drafters of the New York Safe Act, at length, in previous articles that appear on this site. See in particular: "Cuomo's NY Safe Act and the notion of 'assault weapon;'" "NY Safe: Looking at the 'assault weapon;'" and, "NY Safe: 'assault weapon' definitions.'"At the moment, typical handguns that utilize a revolving cylinder, and rifles that utilize a revolving cylinder – rare as revolving cylinder rifles  are – are not, under present New York law, defined as ‘assault weapons;’ but who can say what the future holds if antigun legislators, like New York Senator Jeffrey D. Klein, continue to control the politics of gun ownership and possession, and draft ever more onerous and heinous gun laws for law-abiding Americans who happen to reside in New York.Let us now compare the definitions for rifles that are also ‘assault weapons,’ as those definitions appear in both the California Penal Code and the New York Penal Code, because CA A.B. 1663, throws a wrench into the mix, specifically in respect to rifles.In the New York Penal Code rifles that are also assault weapons must, as we have said, be semiautomatic in operation and also be capable of accepting a detachable magazine. These are necessary conditions that must be fulfilled before a weapon can be considered an ‘assault weapon’ in New York. If and only if a rifle is semiautomatic in operation and is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, then NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A), says that we look for additional characteristics that a rifle might have if it is to be deemed an ‘assault weapon’ under New York law. So, then, if the rifle has at least one additional characteristic, for example, a second handgrip, or a flash suppressor, or a folding or telescoping stock, or a bayonet mount, then the rifle is, under, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A), an assault weapon. Otherwise it isn’t.Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), at the moment, reads much like NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A). Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1) sets forth three requirements for rifles that are also assault weapons, two, of which, like New York, are necessary conditions that must be fulfilled: one, the rifle must be centerfire semiautomatic in operation, and two, the rifle must have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. If those necessary conditions are met, then we look to see if the rifle has at least one of several listed features such as, inter alia, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a folding or telescoping stock, or thumbhole stock. If these three conditions are met, the firearm in question is an “assault weapon” and, therefore, a banned weapon under California law. Thus, we see that Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), as it presently reads, mirrors NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A) in every critical respect.Even before CA A.B. 1663 was drafted, California “did New York one better.” Under present California law, rifles that are also assault weapons include, under Cal Pen Code 30515(a)(2), “A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.” Recall, under New York law, rifles that are also assault weapons must be semiautomatic in operation and be capable of accepting a detachable magazine only. So, under present New York law, no rifle is an assault weapon that happens to have a non-detachable, i.e., fixed, magazine. A rifle might have a magazine that can hold 100 rounds of ammunition. If that magazine is fixed to the rifle, that is to say, if that magazine cannot be readily detached from the body of the rifle, the rifle is not an ‘assault weapon’ under present New York law.In California, on the other hand, under Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(2), a rifle that has a fixed magazine that is capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition is an ‘assault weapon.’ So, in the California Penal Code, unlike the New York Penal Code, a semiautomatic rifle may, under the appropriate circumstances, based on definition, be deemed an assault weapon if the rifle utilizes either a detachable or fixed ammunition magazine.Now, what would CA A.B. 1663 do, if enacted? CA A.B. 1663 modifies Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), which would be amended to read: a rifle is an assault weapon if that weapon is a “semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.” Do you understand the meaning of that sentence? Read it again. In fact, read it several times, but don’t be upset if you continue to scratch your head in bewilderment as to the meaning of that sentence; for, the meaning of that sentence isn’t clear to us either.The California legislators, who drafted that sentence – making liberal use of negatives – apparently derive pleasure from torturing the English language as much as they enjoy torturing those California residents and U.S. citizens who choose to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), as drafted by the Legislature, is inherently ambiguous. That was obviously the intention of its drafters.Under one interpretation – a more conservative interpretation – a rifle is an assault weapon, in California, if it is a centerfire semiautomatic weapon that can accept a detachable magazine that is capable of holding more than ten rounds. However, under a liberal interpretation of the ambiguous sentence, a centerfire semiautomatic rifle is an assault weapon that can accept a detachable magazine, regardless of the number of rounds of ammunition the magazine might be capable of holding. An argument can be made for either interpretation and, if CA A.B. 1663 is enacted, and thereafter challenged, it will take a court of law to decide which interpretation is correct. You will note, too, something else about the definition of ‘assault weapon’ as promulgated in the revised Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1). In the revised Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), there is something missing. In the original version of that statutory section, a centerfire semiautomatic rifle is not deemed to be an assault weapon, unless it have at least one of several enumerated characteristics. That requirement has been eliminated in the revision.Essentially, the new Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1) – if CA A.B. 1663 is enacted and codified into law – is the obverse of Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(2), which reads that a rifle is an assault weapon if it is “A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.” But, the idea here is that, under a liberal interpretation of the ambiguous sentence – as the new Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1) reads – the number of rounds that a detachable magazine can hold is not decisive or even relevant to the issue whether a centerfire semiautomatic rifle is an assault weapon. So long as a rifle is capable of accepting a detachable  magazine – even if the magazine is capable of holding only one round – that will be sufficient to transform the rifle into an assault weapon, and, therefore, a banned weapon, in California.Let’s distill all of this. So, if CA A.B. 1663, becomes law a rifle is also an assault weapon, and therefore, a banned weapon in California under two scenarios:Under Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), as amended by CA A.B. 1663, a rifle is an assault weapon if it is a centerfire, semiautomatic, and it is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, regardless of the number of rounds that the rifle’s detachable magazine may hold (under a liberal interpretation of the amended statute). And, under Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(2) – the language which remains unchanged – a rifle is an assault weapon if it is a centerfire, semiautomatic and has a fixed magazine that is capable of holding more than ten rounds.In the continuing game of “leapfrog,” antigun forces in the New York Legislature may be, even now, drafting new legislation, redefining and refining the definition of ‘assault weapon’ to “improve upon” California’s 'assault weapons' fetish. If right of the American people to keep and bear arms, as embodied in the Second Amendment, is to survive in the 21^st Century, it is incumbent upon each American to defend that right against the forces intent on destroying it, just as the Second Amendment was, itself, meant to defend the sanctity of each individual law-abiding American. The Second Amendment protects us so long as we protect it. [separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.