This bill would not need introducing were it not for the now increased prospect of infanticide.
The state of New York, as I had already mentioned, already had the most liberal of abortion laws in the union prior to the new legislation. Elective up to 24 weeks, and induced delivery up to and any time after that, if the mother's life was in danger. The medical community fully understood what that meant: that abortion was a very real possibility, but when the mother's life hangs in the balance,
primum non nocere dictated protecting the mother at all costs.
HOWEVER, that did not mean leave the newly delivered baby to die. Once a baby is born, care of that baby is transferred to a pediatrician. OB/GYN's role remains with the mother. Pediatricians would immediately take all necessary measures to stabilize the baby. There would never be a discussion at that moment with the parents if they want to remove life saving measures... it would be highly unethical, not to mention immoral, to deny care to a newborn for which prognosis can still very much remain dynamic. Act first, talk later.
Find me a newly minted parent, mother OR father, who would agree to refusing care to just-born child upon hearing it will likely die due to a fatal condition. You won't.
Find me a physician (and I'm speaking from authority here) who would dare interrupt the mother (or the father) possibly receiving her own life saving therapy, or even soon after stabilization, about removing all life supports from her newborn You won't. There are too many ethical/moral quandaries there as well, including the physicians not having enough information to be certain, and the parents not being in the proper frame of mind to consider the ramifications.
There is a time and a place to discuss goals of care and comfort vs supportive measures, even for babies. It's not in the delivery room.
Northram's contemptible comments, followed by the changes to law in New York (which, among the other points discussed, also allow for abortions by non-physicians), raised valid concerns about these once fully understood agreements among medical professionals. Clarification was warranted. The left's refusal to consider it is horrifying.
There is nothing,
nothing, in the legislation about how to deal with terminally ill babies. As per the new state legislation, it's only about abortion, in case "the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or
substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman."
The strikethroughs are in the original, by the way. So now it's legal to abort a full term baby not only if the mother's life is in jeopardy (very clear language), but if her mental or physical health could be "impaired" (incredibly vague).
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+ful+HB2491
Or, in the official FAQ for the passed New York state bill:
https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/articles/2019/liz-krueger/faqs-about-reproductive-health-act
I can't copy/paste everything salient as it would more than double the post. But the language is murky when it comes to refuting concerns about termination of late term babies for mental health (their answer is simply, "the bill will not permit abortions for frivolous reasons" rather than declare mental health as off limits to the decision). Again, nothing here is about the care or respect of a sick neonate/newborn. It's all about the abortion, and the language itself keeps declaring the justification for abortion in late term, NOT justification for induced labour.