NY Celebrates Legalization of Late-Term Abortion

Disgusting: NY Celebrates Legalization of Late-Term Abortion

Nicole Russell of the Washington Examiner wrote Disgusting: New York not only legalized late-term abortions, but also celebrated like it won the Super Bowl.

On Tuesday, coincidentally the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the New York State Senate passed the Reproductive Health Act, and it was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The law, which is likely the most expansive abortion bill in the country, allows late-term abortion until the baby’s due date if it meets certain requirements. Not only is this kind of legal protection of late-term abortion an affront to the humanity of the unborn and the dignity of society, but New York celebrated it publicly, as if it had just won the Super Bowl.

Read the full article here.

Bishop’s Letter to Cuomo

Bishop’s Letter to Gov. Cuomo

The Bishop of Albany wrote the following open letter to his parishioner, Gov. Andrew Cuomo:

Dear Governor Cuomo,

Although in your recent State of the State address you cited your Catholic faith and said we should “stand with Pope Francis,” your advocacy of extreme abortion legislation is completely contrary to the teachings of our pope and our Church. Once truth is separated from fiction and people come to realize the impact of the bill, they will be shocked to their core. By that time, however, it may be too late to save the countless lives that will be lost or spare countless women lifelong regret.

The so-called Reproductive Health Act (RHA) will expand abortion under the pretenses of choice and progress, which, in fact, it will do little to enhance. At the same time, this legislation threatens to rupture the communion between the Catholic faith and those who support the RHA even while professing to follow the Church, something that troubles me greatly as a pastor.

Contrary to what its proponents say, the RHA goes far beyond Roe vs. Wade in its aggressive extremism. Granting non-doctors permission to perform abortions does nothing to advance the security and health of women. Condoning coerced or involuntary abortions by repealing criminal sanctions even in cases where a perpetrator seeks to make his partner “un-pregnant” through an act of physical violence does not represent any kind of progress in the choice, safety or health of women. Removing protection for an infant accidentally born alive during an abortion is abject cruelty, something most people of conscience would deem inhumane for even a dog or cat. Finally, allowing late-term abortions is nothing less than a license to kill a pre-born child at will.

It is very difficult to understand how you can align yourself with Pope Francis and so vehemently advocate such profoundly destructive legislation.

I find myself wondering how it can be viewed as “progress” to have gone from a society working to make abortion “rare” to one that urges women to “shout your abortion” as some advocates of this bill boldly announce.

How is it progress to ignore the harm that this will do, not only to innocent infants, born and unborn, but to their mothers? Does the heartache of so many New York women who have been pained by their abortion decisions matter? Is anyone listening to them? How is it really “pro-choice” when a law, which claims to guarantee choice, moves to expand only one option for women?

If abortion is deemed a fundamental right in New York State, will the State then still be able to issue licenses to pro-life nurses or physicians? Will health facilities which do not provide abortions be certified? Will the law allow that even one dollar be given to maternity services without offering women the “choice” of abortion? These are unanswered questions, but I shudder to think of the consequences this law will wreak. You have already uttered harsh threats about the welcome you think pro-lifers are not entitled to in our state. Now you are demonstrating that you mean to write your warning into law. Will being pro-life one day be a hate crime in the State of New York?

Our young people especially, who have seen their sonograms and who follow the discoveries the sciences have made, know the lies and the despair that proponents of such dangerous and death-dealing legislation are promulgating, even if blindly or unwittingly.

Giving up on life is no excuse for us as a responsible and compassionate people. In so doing, we evade the challenge of accompanying women and the families they are trying to nurture on the long journey. They deserve our courageous and ongoing support in creating conditions under which they will be free to bear and provide for their children.

As a society, we can and must do better. The teaching and intuition of our common faith readies us to help. It is an essential part of our mission to support the lives of all, especially the voiceless, the most vulnerable and marginalized, as Pope Francis always reminds us to do.

Let’s not bequeath to our children a culture of death, but together build a more humane society for the lives of all of our fellow citizens.

Mr. Cuomo, do not build this Death Star.

Sincerely yours,

Most Rev. Edward B. Scharfenberger
Bishop of Albany

RHA Translations

New RHA Language, Unmasked

The NY Legislature released an updated version of the Reproductive Health Act for the 2019 session, and it’s even worse than previous versions. Here we quote the text of the bill itself and offer brief commentary.

The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care [includes] contraception and abortion.

What happens if a doctor disagrees?

The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman’s fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion.

… where?

If so, why push to change the NY Constitution?

Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States.

Really? What about the scores of peer-reviewed medical journal articles that demonstrate the contrary?

The goal of medical regulation should be to improve the quality and availability of health care services.

How does allowing non-doctors to perform abortions improve quality?

The goal of medical regulation should be to improve the quality and availability of health care services.

As the abortion capital of the US does NY really have an abortion availability problem?

With abortionists going out of business because of lack of demand, does NY really have an abortion availability problem?

Every individual possesses a fundamental right… [to seek] and [obtain] abortion care, free from discrimination in the provision of health care.

What does this mean for the pregnancy centers that have a fundamental right to freedom of speech, if they disagree?

What does this mean for doctors who have a fundamental right to freedom of religion, if they disagree?

Which “right” will win?


So now having an abortion is equal to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, private property…?

What happens when those “rights” collide?

At what point will this “right” become a duty?


Meaning, government will ensure that every healthcare provider supports a woman’s access to an abortion.


Translation: Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners can legally do abortions.

“Person,” when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a
human being who has been born and is alive.

New York State refuses to acknowledge the personhood of preborn boys and girls.

Murdering a pregnant woman is now just one homicide, not two.

Pro-Choice Myths Are Perpetuated by a New York Times Fetal-Personhood Story

Pro-Choice Myths Are Perpetuated by a New York Times Fetal-Personhood Story

Alexandra DeSanctis of National Review offers some facts to counter the historical inaccuracies of recent New York Times opinions.

Just days after Christmas, the New York Times editorial board released a lengthy feature on threats against abortion rights, asserting that the pro-life movement has invented the concept of “fetal personhood” in order to erode female autonomy.

The series delves into extremely rare applications of state legislation protecting the unborn — bills that criminalize drug abuse by pregnant mothers, for example — to illustrate the left-wing claim that American women are living in a “Handmaid’s Tale” created by opponents of abortion.

But this attempted bombshell exposé is in fact a compilation of half-baked pro-choice myths, historical inaccuracies, and philosophical elisions mashed together to create a bludgeon against the pro-life movement, toward which the Times evidently harbors significant animosity.

An overwhelming majority of pro-life people agree with the Times, for instance, that laws penalizing women for having suffered a miscarriage or a stillbirth are unacceptable. And yet the entire series rests on a straw man: Abortion opponents rejoice when pregnant women are thrown in jail, because they care more about punishing the errant than about protecting human life.

Far from being a thoughtful reflection on the competing legal rights of mother and fetus, the Times series offers little more than blatant fearmongering, with the help of exceptionally uncommon horror stories that it uses to demonize the pro-life perspective. Here are the three most inaccurate claims from the feature:

Read the full article at the National Review.