I looked it up, specifically here is the change:

It codifies many abortion rights laid out in Roe and other court rulings, including a provision permitting late-term abortions when a woman's health is endangered. The previous law, which was in conflict with Roe and other subsequent abortion rulings, only permitted abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman's life was at risk.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-york/articles/2019-01-22/ny-lawmakers-set-to-pass-bill-codifying-abortion-rights

According to that the main difference is they used to be permitted when the woman's life is in danger, now if the woman's health is in danger.

Sometimes I might agree with "health" reasons (very extreme cases) but mostly I fear we will end up using "psychological stress" as a "health reason".

I looked into the history of abortion. Surprisingly they were often perfectly legal all the way through the pregnancy however they were very dangerous to the mother. The first anti-abortion laws were enacted because mothers were dying from the procedure and the laws were meant to save the women.

WARNING: GRAPHIC DETAILS DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE EASILY UPSET

The actual procedures for late abortion (dismemberment, crushing of the head and so on) are not at all new. I have an obstetrics book published in 1881 (wow my book is 138 years old!) that details the procedures and they have changed little since that time. The biggest difference is back then, before cesarean section became safe, usually they were done because the baby could not be normally expelled due to cephalopelvic disproportion (head too big for mom's pelvis, often due to maternal bone deformities caused by tuberculosis, malnutrition etc.) and the baby was going to die anyway if not already dead, or the baby was in an impossible lie such as transverse, which if labor has progressed and the baby has been pushed too deep into the pelvis it's spine is broken anyhow (it's been folded in two quite violently) and it is dead or dying but even if it's not, the mother would definitely die if the baby isn't gotten out somehow, and vaginal extraction was the only way to preserve the life of the mother back when cesareans usually killed the mother.

These were the situations where the doctor and possibly the father would have to decide whether to save the life of the mother or the baby and usually the mother won because she already had other small children to raise and her "worth" was far more to the family. You must remember back then there was a high mortality rate among children. You wouldn't save a baby that had a 50% chance of not surviving childhood anyway when you could save the mother who could live on and produce many more children for you as well as care for the ones already born.

So back then these procedures, including the infamous "partial birth" breech maneuver, were normally not done on a healthy mother and baby just to terminate a late pregnancy, but were used after labor had already started and could not complete for some reason, or were done when the baby had died in utero and labor was delayed too long putting the mother at risk for sepsis. Today they are still used in the latter case, babies still die from natural causes before they are born, and need to be gotten out. And in that case it's stupid to perform major abdominal surgery when a vaginal route is possible.

Nowadays abortion laws exist to protect the baby, not the mother. We have flip flopped our perception of value and now value the fetus's life above the well being of the mother (if having an unwanted baby stresses her or lowers her quality of life) and above the well being of the fetus's already born siblings (if additional children reduce resources available to the older siblings). Low child mortality means each child born is an entire human life and each abortion is erasing an entire human lifetime.

Family economics has flip flopped. One more child in the past added to the family's economic well being (another hand to work the farm) but today one more child depletes the family's economic well being - children do not contribute anymore; they are instead a huge financial drain. Hence a BIG incentive to abort them and I believe why abortion laws now exist to protect the fetus instead of the mother.

But in summary, I'm very concerned about this law. It's going to lead to "health" reasons little more than "I'll have stress and anxiety having to budget to raise this kid" and in MY moral world that is NO reason to kill my own baby.

Says me if you aren’t being paid for your efforts you aren’t gainfully employed. Employed perhaps, but not gainfully. 

I also think that Trumplethinskin is doing this all on purpose. Maybe he is a Russian operative, it wouldn’t surprise me at all. He had two years with a Republican Congress quite willing to do whatever he wanted and he waited for this until the Democrats took over. His biggest campaign promise waits until after the midterms. Sorry, I smell a rat, and it I overly fond of McDonald’s.

These are serious questions:

Do you, and other Dems, actually believe Trump is a Russian operative? You actually believe he's spent his life bonding with soviets and dreaming of the day he could turn the U.S. over to Russian rule?  Do you think that's what drives him? Do you actually believe he fixed the election(with Russia's help)? Do you actually believe it is impossible that there were enough "flyover country" people and swing voters to reject your hideous corrupt candidate and put Trump in office without Russia fixing the election? Do you really believe that if not for Trump colluding with Russia this country would have elected Hillary?

Why is it so very hard for you to accept that there were enough people sick of the Democrats or repulsed by Clinton to have, if not vote for Trump, at least go third party and cause her loss without any help from Russia at all? Why is that? Are you unaware of the things Hillary did to Bernie Sanders? Are you unable to understand why people would respond to Trumps tax cut promise?

A husband and wife have been married a while and are getting on in years. The husband began to suspect the old lady was starting to lose her hearing. So one day he decided to test her when she wasn't looking. He approached from behind, about 20 feet away, and quietly said, "Can you hear me?"

Nothing. So he moved closer, about 15 feet, and said, "Can you hear me?"  Again, no response.

So he moved to 10 feet away and said again, "Can you hear me?"

Still no answer. So he moved in to about 5 feet from her back and said once more, "Can you hear me?" This time his wife turned around and said, "I already said 'yes' three times!"

She's right except she has it upside down. It's her side (the left) who are the bad guys.

Hitler could not do what he did to the Jews without first painting them as "evil" through propaganda. That is exactly what the media and the democrats are doing to conservatives and white males and republicans and Trump supporters. They are telling lies and using pejorative terms (racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist, etc) creating false monsters out of normal Americans. You can't persecute a group until you first do this.

You're starting to sound like Number 7 here. Attributing asechrest with the desire to moderate a board? Huh?

Liberal positions are generally not defensible, but nonliberals don't have to be assholes about it. People usually come further along the thought train when met with remarks like “tell me more about that” or “why do you feel that way?”

And heaven forfend, but if you listen to their responses without judgment, you might actually learn something interesting that will give you great ammo in the continuing discussion.

This and also some liberal positions are defensible, but as a libertarian rather than a conservative you'd expect me to think that.

What's indefensible, and I hope this is what Anthony is mainly talking about, is economic collectivism and identity politics. The idea that taking from the productive to give to the non productive with the goal of equalizing everyone, and affirmative action for certain groups with the goal of retribution for past inequalities, these are the core of progressive liberalism and these are not only indefensible but dangerously evil.

As Anthony says, it's against nature. Attempting to equalize outcome in these two areas is counter to nature, never achieveable, and always results in destruction when attempted.

I like creative solutions. 

https://gab.ai/EducatingLiberals/posts/45695421

"We should handle the wall like Pelosi handled Obamacare. Build it, so we can see what it does."

Ba hahahaha! So true!!

I'll wait for Anthony to provide the facts and statistics, because I know you won't (or can't). Thanks for clarifying that the border is a noun, though.

His argument is that people crossing the border are doing so with the intent to sway elections and I asked for him to support his argument. All you did was try and dismiss me without actually refuting it.

Neither Anthony nor I have said the illegals are crossing the border with the intent of voting Democrat and swaying elections. I'm sure the typical illegal has the intent of simply trying to improve their life. It's the Dems in the U.S. who have the intent to sway elections by encouraging illegals to cross the border.