Catch the Element of Hip Hop Awards on BronxNet
BRONX TIMES REPORTER, F 32 EBRUARY 22-28, 2019 BTR
Action
Association
Hip-hop lovers can see their
beloved artists being honored
at the 2019 Element of Hip Hop
Awards by catching the whole
spectacular event on Bronx-
Net. The program is being
broadcast on BronxNet channel
67-Optimum and 33-Fios on
Saturday, February 23 at 6:30
p.m., and Sunday, February 24
at 1 p.m..
Co-hosted by Borough President
Ruben Diaz Jr. and Windows
of Hip Hop, the awards
ceremony took place at Pier
132 in the Bronx. The event
honored some of the musical
legends behind the Bronxborn
musical genre hip-hop
and some of the current artists
who are taking the art form in
their own direction. Honorees
received recognition for their
work and for their community
service initiatives that benefi t
the Bronx and beyond.
“No matter what others tell
you the global phenomenon
that is hip-hop culture was
birthed here, in the Bronx, on
Sedgwick Avenue,” said the
borough president. “Today we
honor legends and taste-makers
of hip-hop culture who not
only have excelled in their
fi eld, but are also entertainers
and entrepreneurs who symbolize
how far the culture has
come, infl uencing a part of the
mainstream zeitgeist.”
Among the talented, community
minded honorees were
Bronx born Grammy-nominated
hip-hop legend and community
philanthropist Fat Joe,
Bronx born salsa legend and
activist Willie Colón, radio personality
Angie Martinez, and
Def Jam Records senior vice
president Shawn “Pecas” Costner.
“BronxNet applauds Bronx
Borough President Ruben Diaz
Jr., Melissa Libran, and Windows
of Hip Hop for celebrating
our outstanding hip-hop leaders
and all they bring to the
Bronx and the world. Watch the
inspiring event on your Bronx-
Net channels,” said BronxNet
executive director Michael
Max Knobbe.
BronxNet is the independent
Shawn Pecas Costner & Borough Pres. Ruben Diaz Jr.
not-for-profi t organization
serving the people of the Bronx
with media production training,
access to technology, and
television channels. BronxNet
programs six channels – 33, 34,
35, 36, 37 and 38 on the Verizon
Fios system and six channels –
67, 68, 69, 70, 951 and 952 – on the
Optimum system in the Bronx.
For more information visit:
www.bronxnet.org.
BY FRANK V. VERNUCCIO, JR.
Retired Judge John H, Wilson
gives his thoughts on the
change in New York State law
regarding abortion:
As noted in the Roe v. Wade
decision, the state has a legitimate
interest in seeing to it
that abortion, like any other
medical procedure, is performed
under circumstances
that insure maximum safety
for the patient. This interest
obviously extends at least
to the performing physician
and his staff, to the facilities
involved, to the availability
of after-care, and to adequate
provision for any complication
or emergency that might
arise. The prevalence of high
mortality rates at illegal ‘abortion
mills’ strengthens, rather
than weakens, the state’s interest
in regulating the conditions
under which abortions
are performed. Moreover, the
risk to the woman increases
as her pregnancy continues.
Thus, the state retains
a defi nite interest in protecting
the woman’s own health
and safety when an abortion
is proposed at a late stage of
pregnancy.
New York state has
changed its law, broadening
the right to abortion, while removing
language from the Penal
Law outlawing the killing
of an unborn child more than
24-weeks-old. There is no denying
that this alteration of
New York state’s statutes represents
a sharp change, and a
new front in the on-going battle
in this 45-year-old war.
If there was any doubt
that Governor Cuomo’s quick
signature on the Orwelliannamed
‘Reproductive Health
Act’ was to be taken as a jab
at President Trump and conservatives,
the NY governor
removed that doubt with his
subsequent remarks; “With
the signing of this bill, we are
sending a clear message that
whatever happens in Washington,
women in New York
will always have the fundamental
right to control their
own body…it’s always been
the point where the conservatives
wave the fl ag, they want
to roll back Roe v. Wade…”
Unfortunately, Governor
Cuomo, like most Americans,
clearly has not read Roe v.
Wade, and has no idea what
that case actually held. If he
had, he’d understand the radical
departure his new law has
taken from that intended by
the US Supreme Court.
The Roe case famously
found a right to abortion in
the ‘penumbra’ of the Bill of
Rights, in particular the Ninth
and Fourteenth amendments
to the Constitution. The decision
was the culmination of
a series of cases which found
individual rights in marriage,
procreation and contraception,
none of which is mentioned
anywhere in the US Constitution.
However, as the quote
published at the beginning of
this article makes clear, these
rights are not unbridled and
unrestrained freedoms. In
fact, when it comes to issues involving
the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens, the Supreme
Court has consistently
ruled that the state has an absolute
right to regulate the exercise
of these rights.
New York has done nothing
less than abdicate its responsibility
to regulate Abortions,
and a review of the language
of the ‘Reproductive Health
Act’ will support this interpretation.
The US Supreme Court assumed
that an abortion would
be performed by a physician,
in a medical facility, with
“adequate provision for any
complication or emergency
that might arise.” Yet, Section
2599-bb of the RHA now
allows “a health care practitioner
licensed, certifi ed, or
authorized under title eight
of the education law, acting
within his or her lawful scope
of practice” to perform the
procedure. Under Title 8 of the
Education law, this includes
physician assistants, specialist
assistants, nurses, midwifes,
and may include such
medical professionals as pharmacists
(who may be called
upon to administer a drug
that would cause an abortion
to occur). By limiting the law
to health care practitioners
acting “within his or her lawful
scope of practice,” one can
only assume dentists, optomologists,
chiropractors and
veterinarians are barred from
performing abortions under
this new law.
It remains unclear what
‘adequate provision for any
complication or emergency’ a
patient can fi nd in the offi ce of
a health care practitioner who
is not a physician.
Further, under the RHA,
the unspecifi ed ‘health care
provider’ may “perform an
abortion when, according to
the practitioner’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.”
The ‘or’ in this language is
crucial – under the new law,
an abortion can occur within
24 weeks of conception regardless
of whether the fetus is viable,
and whether or not the
abortion is necessary to save
the mother’s life or health. After
24 weeks, in what was always
called the ‘third trimester,’
there must be an absence
of ‘fetal viability’ or (that crucial
word again) the abortion
protects the mother’s ‘life’ or
‘health.’
‘Fetal viability’ is defi ned
as “the ability of a fetus to survive
outside of the womb.” Between
20 and 23 weeks, with
extraordinary measures, babies
have been able to survive
outside the womb. Thus, under
the RHA, an ‘absence of
fetal viability’ after 24 weeks
could only mean the fetus is
deceased.
The last clause is the most
important. We understand
the necessity of protecting the
life of the mother. But what
about her health? Does this
broad term include her mental
health?
Herein lies the basis for the
belief that the RHA provides
for unlimited abortions up until
the moment of birth – how
broadly will a ‘health care
provider’ defi ne the ‘health’
of an expectant mother in determining
the necessity for an
abortion after 24 weeks?
More tragic, however, than
this broadening of the law, is
the evisceration of the Penal
Law. Under the RHA, the definition
of Homicide no longer
includes causing the death of
an “unborn child with which
a female has been pregnant
for more than twenty-four
weeks.”
Rosa Furneaux of Mother
Jones celebrates this change
in the law, believing it to be a
effort to protect women who
seek self abortion medication.
However, in fact, the more
common use for this statute
was to prosecute an individual
who assaults a pregnant
woman, and causes her to lose
a viable baby she intended to
carry to term.
In 2015, in Colorado, a
woman was arrested for stabbing
a pregnant woman and
removing her baby from her
womb. The child did not survive,
but the mother did. If
this had happened in New
York in 2018, the assailant
could be prosecuted for Murder.
However, in 2019, the
charges would be Attempted
Murder and/or Assault in the
First Degree. Both obviously
carry lesser penalties than
Murder.
In 2016, Torey Branch assaulted
his then-pregnant
girlfriend, Mia Jones, by repeatedly
punching her in the
stomach. “The ambush happened
after Jones repeatedly
refused Branch’s attempts to
schedule an abortion for her
and then she told him she was
going to tell his girlfriend
about the baby.”
Was this really the change
the New York legislature was
hoping for? Or were they so intent
on providing for legal late
term abortions while spitting
in the eyes of President Trump
and conservatives, that they
forgot about providing for the
prosecution of a particularly
heinous crime?
/www.bronxnet.org
/www.bronxnet.org