New York has Struck off Section of Public Health Law Meant to Save Newborns Whom Survive Abortion.

There has been many claims by left-wingers/progressives whom deny that New York's new law allows for the murder of newborns whom survive abortions.

This thread is in specific to show evidence of the entire section of New Yorks public health law which was REPEALED, and what exactly they repealed.

Below you can see/read that the new law in New Murder York repealed section 4164 of public health law...

...
§ 3. Section 4164 of the public health law is REPEALED.
...

nyassembly.gov...

Here is a screenshot of that part of the new New Murder York law...



Here is what Section 4164 of formerly New York public health law stated...

New York Consolidated Laws, Public Health Law - PBH § 4164. Induced viable births



1. When an abortion is to be performed after the twelfth week of pregnancy it shall be performed only in a hospital and only on an in-patient basis.  When an abortion is to be performed after the twentieth week of pregnancy, a physician other than the physician performing the abortion shall be in attendance to take control of and to provide immediate medical care for any live birth that is the result of the abortion.  The commissioner of health is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations to insure the health and safety of the mother and the viable child, in such instances.

2. Such child shall be accorded immediate legal protection under the laws of the state of New York, including but not limited to applicable provisions of the social services law, article five of the civil rights law and the penal law.

3. The medical records of all life-sustaining efforts put forth for such a live aborted birth, their failure or success, shall be kept by attending physician.  All other vital statistics requirements in the public health law shall be complied with in regard to such aborted child.

4. In the event of the subsequent death of the aborted child, the disposal of the dead body shall be in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.

codes.findlaw.com...

Get it?... They removed that ENTIRE section of New York's public health law which was meant to save the life of NEWBORNS whom survive abortions and are born ALIVE...

The law now in New York allows for the murder of newborns that survive abortion and are born alive.

What this means is that ANY and EVERY child that survives abortion can be denied ANY and ALL medical care which makes sure the LIVE newborn dies...

Why is it then that democrats blocked at least twice a bill which was written to save newborns who survive abortions?...

Apart from the above, and the fact that New York chose to struck off homicide when it is done to the unborn, there is also the fact that democrats have blocked at least twice a law which tried to save newborns whom survive abortions and are born alive past the 20th week of pregnancy...

Why Did Senate Democrats Refuse to Protect Infants?

This is despicable, but we still have a majority in the left who claim this is not true.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It All comes Down to Two Choices . LIFE Or DEATH , CHOOSE Nyer's ! I Hope you Choose Wisely ............

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I always thought the pro-abortionists were just uneducated and naïve, maybe a little stupid with no education towards the sciences.

Now this says they are deliberately evil.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
...
Now this says they are deliberately evil.

Evil is exactly the word that defines those who agree with the new changes in the laws in New York on abortion. They don't just openly call for the murder of the unborn up to the day they are to be born, but also the murder of newborns whom survive abortions and are born alive...

And we continue to allow it.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You know , All Human Beings on this Planet who Somehow have Absolutely No Qualms about Frivolous Abortions aught to Think Long and Hard about their OWN Lives , and Fortunately being Born into this World back when the Birth of a Child was Considered a " Blessing " , and a Cherished Gift from their " Creator " . You would Somehow Selfishly DENY Possible Future Generations of Einsteins , Tesla's , Leonardo da Vinci's, and Steven Hawkings being Born into this World for the Sake of Your Own Misguided and Selfish Beliefs ? SHAME On You ! ..........

This is face value sensationalism.

There are a lot more considerations to the ideology of this legislative change, than life or death.

From a responsible ethics standpoint, this is thin ice for either side.

If the law remains existing as it is, the first doctor would be forced to terminate the fetus, in womb.
This would nullify physician #2's role entirely. The second doctor would never have anything to save. Unless the mother is birthing Broly, Thanos, or some mystical being so powerful they are able to fend off death, as a fetus.

That second physician necessity, incurs a resource cost of opportunity, labor, and fluff. If doctor number one always terminates before removal, you either choose to charge that physician with murder, or the second doctor would just be forced to cock block the first doctor everytime.

However, the second doctor's job, by the current legislation, does not start unless the fetus exits the womb, with a pulse and is breathing.
Doctor number one can easily nullify that, within the grounds of law, unless you declare explicitly that in-utero termination is murder.

So...

Our legislation requires a second doctor...
A second doctor that will do nothing but be present.

Ok... Fine...

In the next building a gunshot trauma victim comes in. The building is too short staffed. Gunshot victim (Who is a living, breathing adult) dies. They only needed one more doctor on staff in that building, and the gunshot victim would have survived.
Unfortunately, that physician was currently performing their duty as a required human paperweight in an abortion operation, in the next building.

Good luck with that situation, lawsuit, and aftermath.

Personally, if a medical procedure can be safely performed with only one doctor... Legislatively requiring MORE doctors to be there, is a waste of resources, and is a disservice to people in legitimate medical need.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Why would you save a ridiculously and I am sure permanently damaged fetus?!!


Why would someone want to intentionally bring more people who will only intensify suffer..

originally posted by: Archivalist
This is face value sensationalism.

Showing the fact that New York now allows the murder of newborns whom survive abortions and are born alive is sensationalism?...

originally posted by: Archivalist
From a responsible ethics standpoint, this is thin ice for either side.

Responsible ethics?... Ironic that this is the same type of argument that dictators have used in the past to excuse their murdering sprees...

originally posted by: Archivalist
If the law remains existing as it is, the first doctor would be forced to terminate the fetus, in womb.
This would nullify physician #2's role entirely. The second doctor would never have anything to save. Unless the mother is birthing Broly, Thanos, or some mystical being so powerful they are able to fend off death, as a fetus.

It does not... There are a lot of newborns whom survived abortions, and none of them has super powers...
As for your claims of lawsuits?... This law, 4164, has been in effect in New York for a long time...where are your lawsuits?...

The law included a doctor to be in stand-by mode. The doctor didn't have to be in the clinic...

But keep on giving excuses for allowing the murder of newborns whom survive abortions... Not to mention the fact that this law opens the door to other laws "progressives" have been calling to make legal such as "after birth abortions" even when the baby is perfectly healthy...

a reply to: Archivalist

All while the victim is being kept comfortable right ?

😎

originally posted by: JustJohnny

Why would you save a ridiculously and I am sure permanently damaged fetus?!!


Why would someone want to intentionally bring more people who will only intensify suffer..

First of all, the babies are already born, so they are NOT a fetus anymore but a BABY...

Second of all, what makes you think that newborns whom survive abortions are "permanently damaged babies"?

Here is an abortion survivor...



Here is another...



and another...



Here are several abortion survivors...



In other words, you are wrong...

Third of all, there are plenty of people whom have survived and enjoy life even thou they are what you call "permanently damaged..."

Fourth, ironic that a left-winger would make this argument more so when it is an argument that Hitler himself also made to excuse the murder of people, including infants deemed "permanently damaged..."

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I always thought the pro-abortionists were just uneducated and naïve, maybe a little stupid with no education towards the sciences.

Now this says they are deliberately evil.

who the hell is just pro-abortion? It's called pro-choice because we believe in the mothers right to choose rather than some #ty government telling us what to do. I personally think anything late term is disgusting. But maybe I should get educated enough to tell others what to do with their bodies. Or maybe just some religious indoctrination will do.

a reply to: trustmeimdoctor

The " Mother " Has No Choice if She happens to Find Herself Impregnated , the
Process " of New Life has Begun . . LIFE is Precious , MANY Women Seem to Forget that FACT when Deciding the " Fate " of the Helpless..........

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

It would appear you are wrong and there is a choice whether you like it or not.

a reply to: trustmeimdoctor

Really ? Mistakes Forgiven , or Never Forgotten ?

originally posted by: trustmeimdoctor

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I always thought the pro-abortionists were just uneducated and naïve, maybe a little stupid with no education towards the sciences.

Now this says they are deliberately evil.

who the hell is just pro-abortion? It's called pro-choice because we believe in the mothers right to choose rather than some #ty government telling us what to do. I personally think anything late term is disgusting. But maybe I should get educated enough to tell others what to do with their bodies. Or maybe just some religious indoctrination will do.

Do whatever the f#ck you want with YOUR body, just leave the other body alone. And what the ever-loving f#ck is it with you pro-abortionists with religion? Leave religion out of it.

It just makes you look even more irrational.

Listen listen listen; you guys are missing the whole point.

The child is not wanted. Why should society have to care for a child that is not wanted? An unwanted child that will put a drain our resources, possibly turning to a life of crime, possibly harming others in the process.

What about the mother of this unwanted child? Why must she suffer in order to fulfill the moral responsibility of other people of which she does not share? Sure she should not have become pregnant in the first place; it would have made it easier for everyone; but she did get pregnant and there is no way to undo that dead once it has been did. Why must she be bard from put herself, her happiness, her wellbeing above that of some child that is barely aware of its own existence? And let's be honest she is likely to do that anyway if you force the child to live; it will likely grow up neglected in some way.

And think of all the children that are wanted. What about our moral obligation to them? Schools are expensive because demand out paces supply. Social programs are falling apart at the seems because too many ill equipped people have families they can't take care of. And you want to ensure even more people get into our social programs?

We don't want illegal immigrants coming to this country, no matter how bad life is for them in their own country, even when they face murder in their own country, because we say we don't have the resources to care for them here. Yet we are demanding that we care for every unwanted child that some poor mother conceives? We should send them back to where they came (heaven if that's what you are inclined to believe) they aren't wanted here.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I'm not getting into the morality of it. I'm not the one making the decision. I just feel as if I don't need to dictate what others do. That is all.

a reply to: DBCowboy

How about you mind your damn business and stay out of others. And religion is a huge reason why people feel the need to be against this. You and I both know that. The propaganda is all over churches. If minding my own business is irrational than so be it.

originally posted by: trustmeimdoctor
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I just feel as if I don't need to dictate what others do. That is all.

What about pedophilia?

You don't think you can dictate what others do?

How about murder? You okay with that if it doesn't concern you?

This is just more phony "moral" progressive bullcrap from the leftists.