Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: The dearth of self-awareness
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
"Q: Does the new New York law allow full-term abortions?

A: The law permits abortions after 24 weeks if a health care professional determines the health or life of the mother is at risk, or the fetus is not viable.

FULL QUESTION
Does the new New York law allow full term abortions?

FULL ANSWER
New York’s Reproductive Health Act was signed by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Jan. 22, the anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that guaranteed a woman’s right to an abortion. It’s a measure that abortion-rights advocates in New York have long sought to pass but couldn’t previously get through a Republican-controlled state Senate. Democrats now control both chambers of the Legislature.

The new law codifies a woman’s right to access abortion in New York — and has also prompted speculation and claims.

Readers have sent us a number of questions, including: “Is it true that the NY state abortion law allows an aborted infant who is born alive to be killed?” and “What are the facts about the new abortion laws in New York state?”

We address those and more here.

What the law says
The RHA permits abortions when — according to a medical professional’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.”

In other words, women may choose to have an abortion prior to 24 weeks; pregnancies typically range from 38 to 42 weeks. After 24 weeks, such decisions must be made with a determination that there is an “absence of fetal viability” or that the procedure is “necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That determination must be made by a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under state law, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice.”

Previously, abortions after 24 weeks were justified only in cases where the mother’s life was at risk — which was inconsistent with a part of the Roe decision, as we explain later.

Change in criminal statutes
Under the old law, New York criminalized abortion unless it was a “justifiable abortional act” — meaning it was within 24 weeks of the commencement of pregnancy or necessary to “preserve” the mother’s life.

The RHA removes abortion from the state’s penal code altogether; the homicide statute still defines a “person” as “a human being who has been born and is alive.” Killing a baby once born was and is still considered a homicide.

Proponents of the bill argued that abortion should be treated as a health care matter, not as a criminal one. Some pointed to examples of women being forced to travel out of state to terminate pregnancies with fetuses that doctors said would not survive outside the womb. Opponents, on the other hand, said the change removes an important prosecutorial power — such as being able to fully charge a domestic abuser for ending a woman’s pregnancy.

Defining ‘health’ and ‘viability’
Roe v. Wade held that states may limit abortions after fetal viability, except in cases “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother” (New York’s old law, which predated the decision, only allowed for late-term exceptions to protect the mother’s life.) Fetal viability was defined as being the point when a fetus was “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.”

New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “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. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”

National data on ‘late-term’ abortions
“Late-term” abortions are defined in different ways; some states ban abortions after 20 weeks. National data indicate such abortions are relatively rare.

According to a 2018 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, based on 2015 data, the majority of abortions in the country — 65 percent — were performed within the first eight weeks of pregnancy. Only about 1 percent were done after 21 weeks.

Those national statistics incorporate data provided by New York City, which accounted for about two-thirds of abortions reported by New York state in 2015, but do not include abortions outside of the city. In New York City, 2.3 percent of abortions were performed after 21 weeks. (Of note: New York counts pregnancy from fertilization, while the CDC’s measure includes the two weeks before.)

The CDC also noted that, between 2006 and 2015, less than 9 percent of abortions were performed after 13 weeks.

As of Jan. 1, 43 states prohibited “some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy,” according to the Guttmacher Institute, which conducts research on sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Change in public health code
New York’s RHA also repealed a section of the public health law that required the following: that abortions after 12 weeks be performed in a hospital; that an additional physician be present for abortions after 20 weeks to care for “any live birth that is the result of the abortion”; and that such babies be provided “immediate legal protection under the laws of the state of New York.”

There appears to be very little in the way of statistics about such scenarios.

A spokesperson for the Guttmacher Institute, for example, told us she was not aware of any data on the topic “because if it happens, it would be extremely rare.”

Asked about the rationale for removing the section from the law, Justin Flagg, a spokesman for New York State Sen. Liz Krueger, who sponsored the new law, said that “the requirement that a second physician be present … did not reflect medical realities of abortion later in pregnancy nor modern standards of medical care, and was legally redundant and unnecessary.”

“Modern abortion techniques do not result in live birth; however, in the great unlikelihood that a baby was born alive, the medical provider and team of medical support staff would provide all necessary medical care, as they would in the case of any live birth,” he wrote in an email. “The RHA does not change standard medical practices. To reiterate, any baby born alive in New York State would be treated like any other live birth, and given appropriate medical care. This was the case before the RHA, and it remains the case now.”

New York defines a live birth as “the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached; each product of such a birth is considered live born.”

Other states
The abortion debate continues to be waged on a number of fronts, including in state legislatures. In Virginia, for example, Democrats have moved to ease the requirements for late-term abortions by reducing the number of doctors required to certify such an abortion, from three to one."

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/addres...rtion-law/
I've already been over all that with SS. Go read it. Here's a summary.

Doe v. Bolton defines "health" to include emotional and psychological factors, as judged by medical doctors without specialized training in mental health diagnosis (hence requiring them to rely largely on subjective, self-reported symptoms). That broad definition of health, alone, means there is no limit on abortion.

The New York law extends the decision to "licensed practitioners", which includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants, who have even less trained in mental health diagnosis than medical doctors.

There has already been a case where a man attacked his girlfriend, causing her to lose the baby she was carrying, and he will now face fewer charges and a lessor sentence due to NY taking fetal death out of their penal code.

It doesn't matter how rare late-term abortions are, as even one innocent life unjustly killed is one too many.

And Democrats in Congress voted against a bill that would require medical professions to provide equal care for a child born alive after a failed abortion as they would any newborn. Saying laws without any teeth already exist is meaningless rhetoric.


Just because you find someone willing to pat you on the head and give you euphemisms to assuage you immorality doesn't make it moral.
(Feb 22, 2019 10:45 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I've already been over all that with SS. Go read it. Here's a summary.

Doe v. Bolton defines "health" to include emotional and psychological factors, as judged by medical doctors without specialized training in mental health diagnosis (hence requiring them to rely largely on subjective, self-reported symptoms). That broad definition of health, alone, means there is no limit on abortion.

The New York law extends the decision to "licensed practitioners", which includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants, who have even less trained in mental health diagnosis than medical doctors.

There has already been a case where a man attacked his girlfriend, causing her to lose the baby she was carrying, and he will now face fewer charges and a lessor sentence due to NY taking fetal death out of their penal code.

It doesn't matter how rare late-term abortions are, as even one innocent life unjustly killed is one too many.

And Democrats in Congress voted against a bill that would require medical professions to provide equal care for a child born alive after a failed abortion as they would any newborn. Saying laws without any teeth already exist is meaningless rhetoric.


Just because you find someone willing to pat you on the head and give you euphemisms to assuage you immorality doesn't make it moral.

“Modern abortion techniques do not result in live birth; however, in the great unlikelihood that a baby was born alive, the medical provider and team of medical support staff would provide all necessary medical care, as they would in the case of any live birth,” he wrote in an email. “The RHA does not change standard medical practices. To reiterate, any baby born alive in New York State would be treated like any other live birth, and given appropriate medical care. This was the case before the RHA, and it remains the case now.”
(Feb 22, 2019 10:48 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
(Feb 22, 2019 10:45 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And Democrats in Congress voted against a bill that would require medical professions to provide equal care for a child born alive after a failed abortion as they would any newborn. Saying laws without any teeth already exist is meaningless rhetoric.

“Modern abortion techniques do not result in live birth; however, in the great unlikelihood that a baby was born alive, the medical provider and team of medical support staff would provide all necessary medical care, as they would in the case of any live birth,” he wrote in an email. “The RHA does not change standard medical practices. To reiterate, any baby born alive in New York State would be treated like any other live birth, and given appropriate medical care. This was the case before the RHA, and it remains the case now.”

Read what I just wrote. Dodgy
(Feb 22, 2019 11:04 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]
(Feb 22, 2019 10:48 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
(Feb 22, 2019 10:45 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And Democrats in Congress voted against a bill that would require medical professions to provide equal care for a child born alive after a failed abortion as they would any newborn. Saying laws without any teeth already exist is meaningless rhetoric.

“Modern abortion techniques do not result in live birth; however, in the great unlikelihood that a baby was born alive, the medical provider and team of medical support staff would provide all necessary medical care, as they would in the case of any live birth,” he wrote in an email. “The RHA does not change standard medical practices. To reiterate, any baby born alive in New York State would be treated like any other live birth, and given appropriate medical care. This was the case before the RHA, and it remains the case now.”

Read what I just wrote.  Dodgy

Read what I just posted. There is no allowance in this law to kill born infants. Nor is there an allowance for the mother's mental health. That is a hysterical fabrication of your ravenous anti-abortionist cult. Get a grip. People who rant about abortion don't get invited to dinner parties.
(Feb 22, 2019 11:10 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
(Feb 22, 2019 11:04 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]
(Feb 22, 2019 10:48 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
(Feb 22, 2019 10:45 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And Democrats in Congress voted against a bill that would require medical professions to provide equal care for a child born alive after a failed abortion as they would any newborn. Saying laws without any teeth already exist is meaningless rhetoric.

“Modern abortion techniques do not result in live birth; however, in the great unlikelihood that a baby was born alive, the medical provider and team of medical support staff would provide all necessary medical care, as they would in the case of any live birth,” he wrote in an email. “The RHA does not change standard medical practices. To reiterate, any baby born alive in New York State would be treated like any other live birth, and given appropriate medical care. This was the case before the RHA, and it remains the case now.”

Read what I just wrote.  Dodgy

Read what I just posted. There is no allowance in this law to kill born infants. Nor is there an allowance for the mother's mental health. That is a hysterical fabrication of your ravenous anti-abortionist cult. Get a grip. People who rant about abortion don't get invited to dinner parties.

Either you can't read, or you lying. Doe v. Bolton, which is cited in the same source you just quoted, defines health as including factors such as psychology and emotions. Try reading what you post.

(Feb 22, 2019 09:22 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Defining ‘health’ and ‘viability’
Roe v. Wade held that states may limit abortions after fetal viability, except in cases “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother” (New York’s old law, which predated the decision, only allowed for late-term exceptions to protect the mother’s life.) Fetal viability was defined as being the point when a fetus was “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.”

New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “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. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”

And if there is no criminal penalty to failing to give an unwanted child born alive the same standard of care as a wanted one, they can effectively get away with letting a born child die from neglect. If you ever read anything but euphemistic bullshit, you'd know that. Abortion providers have let infants born alive die from neglect, because they face no criminal penalties for doing so.
(Feb 23, 2019 12:21 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]
(Feb 22, 2019 11:10 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
(Feb 22, 2019 11:04 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]
(Feb 22, 2019 10:48 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
(Feb 22, 2019 10:45 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And Democrats in Congress voted against a bill that would require medical professions to provide equal care for a child born alive after a failed abortion as they would any newborn. Saying laws without any teeth already exist is meaningless rhetoric.

“Modern abortion techniques do not result in live birth; however, in the great unlikelihood that a baby was born alive, the medical provider and team of medical support staff would provide all necessary medical care, as they would in the case of any live birth,” he wrote in an email. “The RHA does not change standard medical practices. To reiterate, any baby born alive in New York State would be treated like any other live birth, and given appropriate medical care. This was the case before the RHA, and it remains the case now.”

Read what I just wrote.  Dodgy

Read what I just posted. There is no allowance in this law to kill born infants. Nor is there an allowance for the mother's mental health. That is a hysterical fabrication of your ravenous anti-abortionist cult. Get a grip. People who rant about abortion don't get invited to dinner parties.

Either you can't read, or you lying. Doe v. Bolton, which is cited in the same source you just quoted, defines health as including factors such as psychology and emotions. Try reading what you post.

(Feb 22, 2019 09:22 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Defining ‘health’ and ‘viability’
Roe v. Wade held that states may limit abortions after fetal viability, except in cases “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother” (New York’s old law, which predated the decision, only allowed for late-term exceptions to protect the mother’s life.) Fetal viability was defined as being the point when a fetus was “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.”

New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “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. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”

And if there is no criminal penalty to failing to give an unwanted child born alive the same standard of care as a wanted one, they can effectively get away with letting a born child die from neglect. If you ever read anything but euphemistic bullshit, you'd know that. Abortion providers have let infants born alive die from neglect, because they face no criminal penalties for doing so.

I'll just keep repeating it until you get it..

“Modern abortion techniques do not result in live birth; however, in the great unlikelihood that a baby was born alive, the medical provider and team of medical support staff would provide all necessary medical care, as they would in the case of any live birth,” he wrote in an email. “The RHA does not change standard medical practices. To reiterate, any baby born alive in New York State would be treated like any other live birth, and given appropriate medical care. This was the case before the RHA, and it remains the case now.”
What's so hard to understand about there being NO criminal penalties nor any means to enforce it?




Vermont House Passes Bill Legalizing All Abortion

The Vermont House voted this evening to pass H57, which would legalize abortion at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason. “Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth to a child, or to have an abortion,” the bill states.

The bill was co-sponsored by 90 Democratic legislators and passed by a vote of 106-36.

This legislation is far more radical than the recent expansion of late-term abortion in New York, as well as the proposed expansions in Virginia and Rhode Island. Those bills allow abortion for any reason up to viability and essentially allow for abortion up to birth, creating “health” exceptions that are often loosely interpreted to permit abortion on demand after viability as well.

Rather than crafting health exceptions like these that amount to tacit permission for post-viability abortion, the Vermont bill offers a blanket permission slip for any and all abortion, throughout pregnancy, and for any reason. And not only that, but the bill text contains a provision dehumanizing unborn children: “A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law.”

...

To the left, abortion is no longer a last resort, an option to be prevented, a difficult and sad choice that some women feel forced to make. Abortion is now a fundamental right, a social good so worth preserving that it is necessary to explicitly dehumanize living human beings to justify it.

The legislation is now headed to the state senate, where Democrats have a supermajority.


And the governor has already said he'll sign it into law.

And here's the draft of the bill, with zero language about the life and/or health of the mother in any way being a criterion for an abortion: https://legislature.vermont.gov/Document...oduced.pdf
Fake News About Abortion in Virginia
No, Democrats aren’t trying to legalize infanticide.


"Under current law in Virginia, third-trimester abortions are permitted when a woman’s physician and two other doctors certify that continuing a pregnancy would result in a mother’s death, or “substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.” This week Kathy Tran, a Democrat in Virginia’s House of Delegates, testified in favor of a bill that would end the requirement for two extra doctors to sign off on such abortions, and strike the words “substantially and irremediably” from the existing law. Similar legislation has been introduced in past years. Despite what you might have heard, at no point did Tran try to legalize infanticide.

When Tran appeared before a statehouse subcommittee, the Republican majority leader, Todd Gilbert, presented her with an outré hypothetical. Could a woman about to go into labor request an abortion if her doctor certified that she needed one for mental health reasons? Tran said that the decision would be between a woman and her doctor, but, evidently taken aback by the question, eventually allowed that it would be permitted under her bill.

Tran handled the moment poorly. She might have pointed out that legislation is not generally written with an eye to prohibiting ridiculous and unprecedented scenarios. It is inconceivable that a doctor would certify a need for an abortion while a woman is in labor; some doctors won’t even let a woman turn down a C-section if they think a baby’s health is at risk. But Tran’s impolitic answer to a ludicrous question gave abortion opponents grist for an explosion of self-righteous outrage.


Things only escalated on Wednesday, when Gov. Ralph Northam was asked about the uproar during an appearance on a radio show. Northam, a pediatric neurologist by training, spoke about what actually happens when a woman goes into labor with a fetus that has severe deformities and may not be viable. The infant, he said, would be delivered and kept comfortable, and the family would decide about resuscitation.

Some Republicans are accusing him of supporting infanticide. Northam appeared to be pointing out the absurdity of Gilbert’s hypothetical, since even in grave circumstances, no one gets an abortion on the delivery table. But as a clip of the interview went viral, conservatives, including the Republican senator Marco Rubio, began accusing Northam of supporting the murder of newborns. It was the right-wing version of an online outrage mob, warping the governor's innocuous comments into a callous declaration of evil.

Some seemed almost gleeful at the prospect of seizing the moral high ground denied them over two years of rationalizing a depraved administration. “You people keep saying to look at Trump getting elected to see how Hitler could be possible,” tweeted the conservative pundit Erick Erickson. “I’m thinking look at the sudden embrace of infanticide to see how Nazism could be possible.”

In some ways the issue of Tran’s bill is moot, since it was never going to pass in Virginia’s Republican-controlled legislature, and certainly has no chance now. But the debate over late-term abortion has been rekindled. For Donald Trump, who tweeted about the procedure on Thursday, it’s a culture war issue he can exploit. Others on the right are genuinely sickened by what they imagine liberals want to allow, even if they also appear to be enjoying the chance to once again scold the left for its purported immorality.

“Under the bill’s actual text, virtually any claim of impairment would suffice to meet the act’s requirements,” wrote National Review’s David French. “Anxiety? Depression? The conventional physical challenges of postpartum recovery? Any of those things could justify taking the life of a fully formed, completely viable, living infant.”

French appears to be worried that women will seek, and doctors will perform, late-term abortions for trivial reasons. But there’s contempt for women embedded in the idea that, absent legal prohibition, someone on the verge of giving birth might instead terminate her pregnancy to avoid the brutalities of labor.

“No matter what the law were, in real life, these things don’t happen,” said Frances Kissling, president of the Center for Health, Ethics and Social Policy and the former head of Catholics for a Free Choice. “I am not saying that there would not be one woman out of 20 million who decided at the 33rd week of pregnancy that she needed an abortion, and I would suggest that she probably does have mental health problems. However, this woman is not going to find anyone who will do this.”

Kissling is well known in the pro-choice movement for thinking deeply about the ethical gray areas surrounding abortion. As she points out, there are only about a dozen doctors in the country who perform third-trimester abortions at all, and she’s spoken to several of them, asking specific questions about patients they’ve turned down. “What I have learned is that all of them have limits and have declined to do abortions in certain circumstances for certain reasons,” she said. (The murderous abortionist Kermit Gosnell, serving a life sentence in prison, is an exception, but he was operating outside the law.)

A person who is ambivalent about abortion might wonder why, if the situations put forward by Gilbert and French are so unthinkable, pro-choice people would object to laws making them illegal. But the law is a blunt instrument for making judgments about extreme and unusual contingencies.

Having extra doctors sign off on each late abortion safeguards against (mythical) cavalier terminations, but it means that women in anguished, urgent situations need to jump through extra hoops. Abortion opponents treat mental health exemptions as easily exploited loopholes, but one instance in which they’re invoked is when a woman learns that her fetus has little chance of surviving outside the womb, and can’t face the prospect of going through labor only to watch her baby die.

This is not to say that there aren’t third-trimester abortions that many people would find morally objectionable. Abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy are quite rare — such procedures make up just over 1 percent of all terminations, according to the most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures — and there’s little solid data about the reasons women have them. Thus much of the debate relies on anecdote.

There are many tragic stories of women forced to abort desperately wanted pregnancies because of harrowing medical emergencies, but also more complicated cases of, for example, young girls who hid their pregnancies for months, or whose abortions were delayed by restrictive laws in their states. “Our talking point is, most of these procedures are on women who discover abnormalities late in the pregnancy,” Kissling said. “We don’t know if that is true.”

Conservatives might see vindication in this admission, but it leaves us with the question of whether we want to use the law to make fine-grained moral distinctions, particularly in the absence of good information about the life-or-death choices we’re regulating. “This is so complicated, that we can set this guideline, but then we have to leave it to medicine, to the doctor and the woman, to figure this out,” argued Kissling. There’s certainly no reason to trust the people who elected Trump to make profound ethical decisions for us."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/opini...-tran.html
Again, read what you're citing. Rolleyes
(Feb 23, 2019 04:52 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]"Under current law in Virginia, third-trimester abortions are permitted when a woman’s physician and two other doctors certify that continuing a pregnancy would result in a mother’s death, or “substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.” This week Kathy Tran, a Democrat in Virginia’s House of Delegates, testified in favor of a bill that would end the requirement for two extra doctors to sign off on such abortions, and strike the words “substantially and irremediably” from the existing law. Similar legislation has been introduced in past years. Despite what you might have heard, at no point did Tran try to legalize infanticide.
IOW, the impairment to mental health could be insubstantial and temporary...with fewer doctors not specifically trained in mental health diagnosis to consult. For decades leftists have justified abortion with the argument of viability. They've argued that abortion is fine, so long as the fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, i.e. dependent on the mother's body. Democrat Kathy Tran affirmed that abortions would be allowed, with only insubstantial and temporary mental health impairment, even if the fetus is viable. Killing a baby that is able to survive outside of the womb, certainly when just about be born, is infanticide, as the only difference is location, not viability (which is at least a scientifically sound differentiation).

The leftist desire to kill has finally gone beyond any objective, scientific criteria.

Quote:Things only escalated on Wednesday, when Gov. Ralph Northam was asked about the uproar during an appearance on a radio show. Northam, a pediatric neurologist by training, spoke about what actually happens when a woman goes into labor with a fetus that has severe deformities and may not be viable. The infant, he said, would be delivered and kept comfortable, and the family would decide about resuscitation.
You wouldn't decide if you wanted to resuscitate a two year old or a two day old, so if you do for a newborn, you are playing god and not providing the same standard of care as you would any other child fully considered a person worthy of care. Like a two year old or two day old, you would place them on life support until more than one doctor can be consulted and determine nothing can be done. Preemptive neglect of a child born alive is infanticide. And Congressional Democrats voted against protecting infants born alive.

Severe deformities at birth are no different from an abnormality becoming a medical emergency two weeks later. Most people wouldn't entertain the notion of just not resuscitating a child two weeks later, and sane people wouldn't for a newborn either.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12