The Empire State of Third-Trimester Abortions

When Andrew Cuomo was first sworn in as governor, I recall people being hopeful—yeah, he was a Democrat, but he actually understood moderates, centrists, even conservatives.

Not so much.

Recall that BHO told Putin's caddy, Medvedev, that he'd have "more flexibility" in a second term. Perhaps inspired by BHO's re-election and his own presidential ambitions, Cuomo's mask has now slipped all the way off—no time to wait for a second term as governor.

Via Weasel Zippers:

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is flexing his political muscle to give abortion advocates their biggest state victory in 40 years since Roe v. Wade: a sweeping expansion of abortion law that, if enforced, could put Catholic hospitals and many state-funded ministries out of business.
Cuomo’s approval ratings have topped 70% for six straight months, and, with just two years in office, he has already pushed through controversial same-sex “marriage” legislation and the most restrictive gun-control law in the nation.
Cuomo, who is Catholic, now is setting his sights on succeeding where governors for the past six years have failed: passing the proposed Reproductive Health Care Act...
...“Gov. Cuomo’s bill elevates abortion to a fundamental right and says New York state can’t discriminate on abortion in benefits or services or anything else it provides,” said Kathleen Gallagher, the [New York Catholic] conference’s director of pro-life activities.
Cuomo’s legislation, she said, would make illegal abortion restrictions, such as parental-notification laws, informed-consent laws, restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion and abortion bans of any kind.
The law will allow licensed medical professionals other than a physician to perform first-trimester abortions.
The Democratic governor announced in his Jan. 9 State of the State address that he would expand legal abortion as part of a comprehensive women’s-equality bill, declaring three times, “It’s her body, her choice” to thunderous applause.
“Gov. Cuomo vociferously declared that women’s equality, safety and reproductive rights will be a priority for New York state in 2013,” Andrea Miller, president of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, confirmed in a press release. Miller said the last election results showed New Yorkers recognized that without a right to abortion a woman “cannot participate fully in society”...
...Cuomo’s bill removes criminal penalties for third-trimester abortions after 24 weeks by adding a broad health exception. Current state law allows such late-term abortions if there is a danger to the mother’s life.
Chris Slattery, director of the Expectant Mother Care (EMC) pregnancy centers in New York City, said the new law will make New York City the late-term abortion capital of the world.
“It’s going to open up the third-trimester market,” Slattery said. “It’s going to be huge, and people all over the world, not just out of state, are going to be coming to New York to have and perform these abortions”...
Doesn't it make you proud to be a New Yorker?
...The Guttmacher Institute’s New York state abortion data showed that 33% of New York pregnancies end in abortion — nearly twice the national rate of 19%. Only 53% of New York pregnancies resulted in live births, with the remaining 14% ending with miscarriage.
New York City itself has an average abortion rate of 41%, with some areas as high as 67%, according to New York Health Department data...
This state is a slaughterhouse.
...Cuomo’s legislation is expected to pass the Democratic-controlled Assembly, but pro-life advocates are focusing on the Senate, which Republicans control in a coalition with six independent Democrats.
Pro-life state Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., D-Bronx, predicts the abortion battle will happen in the next few weeks and not toward the end of the legislative session in June. He said pro-life prospects look grim if the Reproductive Health Care Act comes up for a vote.
“I’m the only solid pro-life vote among the Democrats,” he said. “But if the Republicans allow this to come to the floor, then it is a done deal.”
Diaz expressed doubts that Majority Leader Dean Skelos, R-Rockville Centre, would keep the 30-member GOP caucus in line and predicted that one or two Republicans would join 32 Democrat senators to vote for the bill — a replay of voting patterns that resulted in the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in 2011.
Under a power-sharing agreement, Skelos and state Sen. Jeff Klein, D-Bronx, alternate leadership of the Senate every week.

“The week in which Sen. Jeff Klein becomes leader of the chamber — that week he will bring the bill to the floor,” Diaz said...
...the state bill has no conscience protections for religious institutions and that the New York Catholic Conference’s legal analysts fear the state could use the law to shut down any Catholic institution (including Catholic hospitals, Catholic charities and schools) that gets state licensing or funding.
“State regulators, such as the state health department or state insurance department, could say, ‘We cannot give you that license to operate’ or ‘We cannot give you that funding’ because our pro-life mission means we’re discriminating against a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion,” Gallagher said....
...If the bill expanding access to abortion is passed, pro-life medical professionals could also find their practices at risk.
“All the legal mechanisms are in place so that doctors are forced to abandon their practices,” said Dr. Katherine Lammers, a Catholic obstetrician-gynecologist in Rochester, who has delivered 4,000 babies in her 25-year career. Lammers’ practice does not perform or refer for abortions.
She noted that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published an ethical memo in 2008 that directed doctors to provide abortion referrals if they are unable to perform the procedure.
“So it could happen this way: ACOG could say that this doctor is violating Ethical Bulletin 899. They could take your board certification away for ethical violations. The state board could then say, ‘This doctor is not medically licensed.’ So, theoretically, a doctor could be forced out of her business,” Lammers said...
It's hard to know who's worse—Obama or Cuomo.


Q: What has the ability to "dampen the enthusiasm for compromise"?

A: The truth.

Via Weasel Zippers.  Here's NYS Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin (R) being asked to be complicit in keeping a certain list secret:

What list is McLaughlin referring to?  This one, which comes as absolutely no surprise to everyone who understood what the rush to the SAFE act was really all about:

1. Confiscation of “assault weapons”
2. Confiscation of ten round clips
3. Statewide database for ALL Guns
4. Continue to allow pistol permit holder’s information to be released to the public
5. Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as “assault weapons”
6. Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines
7. Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines
8. Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month
9. Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners
10. Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
11. State issued pistol permits
12. Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State
13. Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers
14. Mandatory locking of guns at home
15. Fee for licensing, registering weapons

None of these amemndments was included in the final bill as passed, but what fool would think that the anti-2nd Amendment folks in NYS governement will be satisfied with less than total confiscation?

As McLaughlin pointed out in his Facebook post, "the cat is outta the bag."

And while I'm at it—to all the folks, Democrats and Republicans, who keep insisting that supporters of limited government as laid out in the US Constitution be "statesmanlike" and "bipartisan" and "compromise" I say:


You don't compromise on basic principles and in this country the Bill of Rights is as basic as it gets. When it comes to basic principles, I'll take evil "obstructionism" over surrender and capitulation any day.

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, steadfast adherence to principle and refusal to compromise in the defense of liberty is no vice.


Thoughts on gun control and the Second Amendment from Tim Woods of Freeville, NY:


Let's begin this discussion by stating that the mass murders of school children are undeniably horrendous, tragic and evil.  We all agree we must come to grips with the root causes of this violence and the ultimate solutions for stopping these tragedies from happening again.  Using proper terminology and real-world facts is vitally important if the debate is to result in actual crime prevention and precious lives being saved.  
These incidents are not just shootings.  They are massacres.  A shooting event is anything from Cub Scouts learning BB gun marksmanship to moms using a handgun to protect their babies from an intruder.  The killing of 6, 13, 21 or 34 innocent students and faculty is a massacre.  Let's call it what it is.  
The plethora of new gun control laws being proposed by Governor Cuomo, Senator Feinstein and many others will be practically worthless for preventing crime in general and for specifically stopping future school or mall massacres.  The legislature passing a new Assault Weapon Ban would be comparable to a New York state senator walking into a raging apartment building inferno and passing gas.  The Senator can claim he is being proactive, but not only would it NOT put the raging blaze out, it would most likely add fuel to the fire.  This ban is not a solution.  Its a huge joke on the American people.  Its a superficial, feel good "hey, look what I did" political strategy to win votes.  It accomplishes nothing but turning normally law abiding citizens into criminals just because they agree with and will make crucial decisions based on historic interpretations of our US Bill of Rights.
There are multiple problems with these gun control proposals.
First, these politicians don't even know what an actual assault weapon is.  It's been ILLEGAL for Americans to personally own an assault weapon without a special BATFE license since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934.  That's right, 1934.  That's because the true definition, the military definition, of an assault weapon is " a magazine, clip, drum or belt fed rifle, carbine or pistol capable of selective or constant automatic fire."  Those type of weapons are commonly known as machine guns.  Those weapons are already highly regulated and are not what these proposed bans are trying to eliminate.
Second, new semi-automatic rifles that just looked like a military-style weapon were prohibited from being sold or imported when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994.  That's right, the weapons that our illustrious Congress and President tried to save us from were our hunting and sporting guns that just looked like a military machine gun. These terrible devices were bad because they might have a different style stock or front grip, or they might be black and ominous looking and have a muzzle flash suppressor or a bayonet lug.  This is laughable.  We think we are safer because hunting rifles that have a way to attach a bayonet are banned.  In the last sixty years of crime reporting, I found NO US citizen that had been attacked or killed in our country by individuals using a rifle mounted bayonet. The FAWB was so ineffective that Congress let it lapse in 2004.  In 2001, a Justice Department study revealed that fewer than 2% of State and Federal inmates used, carried, or possessed a military looking semi-automatic gun when they committed the crime they were incarcerated for.  The weapon of choice of these predators was a stolen pistol, not a rifle or long gun of any kind.   So the New York state government and President Obama want to take away weapons from law abiding citizens, weapons that are rarely used in crimes.  If they succeed in doing this, then criminals, who couldn't care less what laws are passed, will continue to use guns that they either steal or buy on the black market.  The criminals would have access to these weapons, but not the citizens they prey on.  Great logic, eh?
Third, according to a Huffington Post 9 January Politics graphic, a fairly liberal source, the US has the highest per capita ownership of guns in the world at 88.8 guns per 100 people.  No one knows if this is the real total since few criminals or citizens admit to owning illegal firearms.  If we accept this statistic as being true, that means there currently are almost 280 million guns of all sorts in private ownership in the US.  The same graphic claims that approximately 17% of these firearms are semi-automatic weapons or about 47.6 million guns.  Now, here's the rub.  The gun control lobby wants you and me to believe that its necessary to confiscate, limit the ownership of, track or outlaw 47.6 million weapons of a certain type.  These are guns that are used everyday by law abiding citizens for self defense, target shooting, hunting and collecting.  If the ban of "assault weapons" is put into effect, these safely used guns will instantaneously become illegal or severely restricted by simple political dictate.  If we use the 2005 statistics of the National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice, 488,386 total crimes against persons were committed that year using a gun in the crime. So even if every one of these gun crimes involved the use of a semi-automatic weapon, which is ludicrous, the politicians and anti-gun believers tell us we have to get rid of 47.6 million lawfully owned and used guns because criminals used a gun of some kind in less than 1/100 of that number of crimes.  This kind of logic was used during Prohibition. It didn't work then either.
Fourth, folks that claim no hunter or sportsman needs a semi-automatic gun or large capacity magazine either have a severely ignorant grasp of US history, or, they just want to obfuscate the gun control arguments.  Nowhere in the original US Constitution, the BIll of Rights or any of the other constitutional amendments, does it mention hunting or sport shooting.  What is mentioned in these documents and in the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, and the hundreds of personal letters and commentaries of our founding fathers is the militia of citizens and the use of firearms for self preservation and the defense against tyrannical governments.  The founders knew that weapons equal in firepower to the arms used by standing armies was the palladium that protected the common man and his precious freedom.  The Second Amendment was not written to protect hunting.  It was written to guarantee the peoples power to protect themselves from the abuse of their government.  If you are honest with history, you cannot understand the goal of this amendment any other way.  The people have the God given right to protect themselves from criminals, from the psychologically deranged and from their own government's abuse.  In this day and age that means they have the right to possess and use semi-automatic rifles and carbines that use multi-round magazines.  To arbitrarily decide that a magazine with seven round capacity is safer than an eleven round magazine is nonsensical.  With this type of reasoning, why not choose eight round or six round or even four round magazines.  The criminally obsessed villain or psychopathic mass murderer doesn't care how many magazines he has to carry.  They will use whatever means necessary to kill the intended number of victims including rental trucks full of fertilizer or homemade chemical weapons.  
Now is not the time to play games with this critical national security issue.  As a retired Special Operations Forces officer and law enforcement team member, I ask you to keep the argument focused on what will actually keep our children and family members safe when they leave the security of our homes and venture out into the world.  Do not lose focus in this debate.  Do not let your political leaders lose that focus.  Demand they come up with solutions that are supported by reality, verifiable facts and history.
God Bless You and God Help Us to find the truth and then to act on it.

CNY bloggers get it

The GOP principle poachers do not.

And Cornell's Professor Jacobson on "the 'purity' cop-out":

Who demands purity and wants chaos?...

...It’s always the Tea Party for refusing to give in to Obama’s demands.

I’m sick of that narrative, particularly when it comes from our own side.  Why is it that we are the recipient of these inflammatory accusations, not the Democrats?

...It’s not a question of “purity.” That’s a convenient word to use to diminish the opposing view without addressing the merits.

...Why is it a test of “purity” to refuse to give in to an economically irrational, purely political demand?
And how would it create “chaos” if tax rates rose on everyone?  You may not like that outcome, but it’s not chaos.  To the contrary, it might have been a wake up call to the American population that the cost of big government cannot be borne by the top 2%.  You want big government, you pay for it.  That’s not chaos...
...Nor does it violate some conservative principle to say that raising taxes is not the answer, and to focus on controlling spending and reforming entitlements.  We proposed an entirely rational method of preserving economic order...

...There were alternatives, except that the House leadership fell into the trap of viewing the choice as going off the cliff or not.  It was a failure of nerve and a failure of creativity coupled with an announced willingness of Obama to go off the cliff, which resulted in horrible legislation which Senators did not even read prior to approving it.

Given the failure of leadership, why was it a “purity” test and a wish for “chaos” to decline to vote for the leader?  Why have a vote at all, if Yes is the only answer.

To dismiss the criticism of the tax rate rise and the abysmal failure of the Republcian negotiating strategy as a “purity” test and desire for “chaos” is a cop-out which just encourages further unreasonable demands from Democrats.

For Republicans to make the accusations against the Tea Party without justification is just icing on Obama’s cake.
Time to hum a few bars of "The Rattle Hymn of the Republic":


Dunkirk redux

From one of our ace contributors:

Unmitigated Defeat

By Publius

On New Year’s Day, the House of Representatives voted for a fiscal package that included a ratio of about forty times as much in tax increases as in spending cuts.  The United States government will continue to spend far more than it takes in with about forty percent of every dollar it spends borrowed money.  The impact of the withdrawal of hundreds of billions in new taxes from the private sector, with only token spending cuts, will likely send our economy into a tailspin. The fiscal cliff, as awful as it would have been, would have been more responsible than the fiscal package just enacted.  At least, going over the cliff would have cut spending along with raising revenue.
Throughout the process, Republicans bent and kept trying to reach accommodation with the President and the Senate.  Moving toward the center, Republicans offered alternative plans for consideration, while the President actually added to his demands.  His negotiation pattern resembled that of last century’s totalitarian regimes, ratcheting up demands instead of moving toward the center and insisting on revenues without meaningful cuts.  Yet the mainstream media blamed Republicans for the lack of progress.  Seldom has an indictment been so off base.
Spending far beyond our means is the problem, not revenue.  Who will bail us out from the price of our own folly?  Who will save us when our politicians lack the moral fiber to stand up and say “no more,” even should it mean they will go home in two years?  Why are there no profiles in courage?
We are like a family out of fiscal control, making sixty thousand dollars a year but insisting on living a one hundred thousand dollar a year lifestyle.  The issue is not whether we are running through our children’s inheritances, but will we have anything left to live on in dignity and self sufficiency.
The Republican Party and our nation have suffered an “unmitigated defeat,” made all the more galling because it would not have been possible without Republican votes in the House of Representatives.  
For those who say the Republican Party was made irrelevant by the election of 2012, they should remember Republicans control two thirds of the state governorships and the House of Representatives and lost the presidency by only a small number of votes in a few key states.  Yet, the Republican Party’s leadership has lost its voice. The leadership of the Republican Party is driving more and more of its members into the Tea Party; these leaders are the architects of the party’s demise.
To be relevant, a political party must offer the nation a choice of policies.  Republicans cannot and must not become Democrat “me toos.”  Why is it that when we Republicans elect people to office, they abandon the fundamental fiscal principles of our party?  What is it about the water in Washington, DC or in Albany that makes our office holders forget fiscal responsibility?  Republicans can matter, but only if they have guiding principles and if they stick to them.  Fiscal discipline needs to be the top priority.
Part of the latest deal kicks the spending problem down the road a few months.  Putting off what should not be avoided is irresponsible at best, criminal at worst.  Until war preparations bailed him out, Franklin Roosevelt presided over a great depression for the better part of eight years while continuing to blame his predecessor.  We are repeating that pattern.  Does anyone really think enhancing government revenue and the public sector at the cost of the private sector where the real work is performed will improve our economy?  If so, they are among those who are not learning from history and, thus are doomed to repeat it.
Rome failed to meet the fiscal and moral challenges of its day.  Make no mistake about it, we are witnessing the decline and fall of the United States.  We have indeed been tried in the balance and found wanting.  The future we’re heading for does not work.   Unless we change these shadows of things yet to come, we are forging a very long chain to bear for us, our children and grandchildren.

Hazardous waste spill in Apalachin!

At least that's what Michelle Obama would say.

Wait—no frac fluids?

These fruits of Gaia were on their way to FritoLay in Kirkwood, presumably to be processed into—gasp!—chips.

Wonder if they ever made it...but you can never trust the lamestream media to give you the whole story.



“Jesus was in Isaiah’s words, ‘despised and rejected, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.’ We cannot gather at the manger with the grimy shepherds and see this tiny baby without acknowledging that over Jesus’ manger lies the shadow of the cross. It’s NOT the most wonderful time of the year in all the ways we measure wonderful, and yet in a strange way it is! It is the most wonderful time of the year not because you have to be cheery and happy and merry, but because you don’t. You can have heavy hearts, and shattered dreams, broken spirits and deep wounds. And that’s right where God comes to meet you. To comfort you, to restore you, to strengthen you, to give you peace. To die for you. to walk out of the grave for you, to hold you in the communion of the saints with those you have loved and lost. To offer you life that lasts forever. It’s the most wonderful time of the year, for Christ is born! Light and love have come. God is with us!”

When seconds count...

...the police are only minutes away.

The Lonely Conservative asks, "Why isn’t anyone talking about this? CNN posted a timeline of events at Sandy Hook, and according to the report it took police 20 minutes to respond. That’s an eternity."


But Barack Obama, who I suspect doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to guns, has a plan. What could possibly go wrong?

But despite the lefty loons' fixation on confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens rather than on criminals and crazy people, many Americans want the focus to be more on mental health and police protection.

But even police protection is not a panacea. From a former cop, now a schoolteacher:

...In a free society, nothing can stop the deranged from committing crimes. Everything the Connecticut killer did is already as illegal as human beings can make it, which means little to one planning to take his own life.
Additional laws, particularly those disarming the innocent and law-abiding, accomplish nothing...
Absolutely, postitively read the whole thing, but the money quote (emphasis mine)?
Remember, above all, this foremost truth: No one is responsible for your personal safety and that of those you love but you.
In the wake of the Newtown massacre, some anti-gun people were putting their stupidity on display by snarkily suggesting that perhaps little schoolchildren should be given guns so that they can protect themsleves. Um, no—but other places where schoolchildren are constantly in danger (unlike here) seem to have this figured out:
There are certainly other things to talk about with respect to mental health issues and so on.  But when it comes to personal safety in general and that of children in particular, we need to make the case that disarming the population is very definitely a bug, not a feature.


Paying taxes is about as much fun as a root canal


This concept takes on a whole new meaning under Obamacare. That's Steve Martin over there to your left, playing an IRS agent.

Via the Lonely Conservative:

With all the chatter about the fiscal cliff, you may not have heard of a tax change that will take effect on January 1 — and why going to the dentist now may be the right response to it.

If you’re under 65, on January 1 your medical tax deduction rate (including expenses for dental work) will take a big jump from 7.5% of gross income to 10%. (No change for folks 65 and older.)...
...So if you’re under 65 and have been putting off having dental work done, wait no longer — and do NOT accept an appointment in January.
The article points out that the "why" of what amounts to a dental tax is to help pay for the astronomical cost of Obamacare.  But I take something else away from it, too—with all the grievance politics that this administration has been playing, this is just another form of "warfare"...age warfare.  After all, aren't all those evil over-65ers, including our friends and loved ones, given special treatment here, and isn't their very existence the reason why we're in this health care-and-entitlements pickle to begin with?
Don't fall for it.
And I hope all the low-information (but not necessarily low-income) voters out there who voted for Obama not just once but twice are happy with the deleterious impact your own choices are having on your personal bottom line.     

Cliff diving

Remember this (click on the image to watch)?

A great guest column at the Lonely Conservative:

Everybody Wants To Go To Heaven

Everybody wants an “A” but nobody wants to study.  Everybody wants to be rich but nobody wants to save.  Everybody wants to lose weight but nobody wants to exercise.  Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.  No matter how you say it, the desire for something without the willingness to do the hard things required to achieve it, will always lead to disappointment.  This is the cadence of the conundrum, the drumbeat of the do-nothing dreamer, the national anthem of the nihilist; the perennial I want but I will not work formula for failure.
The signature phrase for the conservatives of this generation of Americans should be, “We all want a sound economy but we aren’t willing to endure the life-style changes it would take to get there.”
Case in point: the coming Fiscal Cliff, the looming disaster of sequestration that every talking head on every network blathers about endlessly, “It will happen” “It won’t happen.”  Pick a side and it will be argued back and forth hour after hour, “The President won’t let it happen, “The President wants it to happen.” Over and over we are barraged by the same few people who constitute the pundocracy ofAmerica debate what will happen.  There is only one thing they are all agreed upon.  If we go over this cliff, created by a vote of Congress and a signature by the President it will be terrible for our country.  Why stop there? It will be terrible for the entire world... another old saying tells us nobody wants their own ox gored.  It is the “Not in my backyard syndrome” applied by everyone to something.  We all want cuts in spending but not in our spending...

Read the whole blessed thing.

Preacher told me last Sunday mornin’
Son, you better start livin’ right
You need to quit the women and whiskey
And carrying on all night

Don’t you wanna hear him call your name
When you’re standin’ at the pearly gates?
I told the preacher, “Yes I do
But I hope they don’t call today
I ain’t ready"
Everybody wants to go to heaven
Have a mansion high above the clouds
Everybody want to go to heaven
But nobody want to go now...



Subscribe to One Piece At A Time RSS