Amendment of Rules Related to Termination of Pregnancy

Online comments: 28

• God wins always

  You vile evil twisted demons. Deep State & all its lowly slimy corrupted minions with it. God always wins. Jesus Christ is King. Your murdering hate of God’s children is over as well as the pedophiles, satanic, adrenochrome junkies. ITS ALL AT AN END. in Jesus’s name, Amen

  Comment added July 7, 2024 10:11pm

• Jennifer

  During the June 2024 Presidential debates last month, former President Donald J Trump spoke of post birth abortions and terminations being legal in NY. I hope these new rules will not impede on my rights to this. I am currently in the 28th month since conception, and I’m still not sure I want to keep it. Sometimes it’s just an asshole, and I debate pulling the rip cord. Will I still be able to still terminate for the first 36 months with these rules?

  Comment added July 10, 2024 5:15pm

• Thomas A. Yaeger

  Regarding the proposed Amendment to Articles 203 and 205 of the New York City Health Code.
  I believe there is no need to change the current regulations. The remains of Human Beings must be treated with respect. The government should not allow human remains to be disposed of as garbage. The proposed changes could very well open the door to infanticide.

  Please do not change the current regulations

  Sincerely,

  Thomas A Yaeger
  36 Rossman Dr.
  Webster, NY 14580
  [email protected]

  Comment added July 11, 2024 1:05pm

• Concerned Citizen

  Why not leave the rules as they are for disposal of remains after abortion beyond 24 weeks? If families do not want to go through burying or cremating the remains, then the city can take on the job. I am pro-choice and do not buy into the hysteria around this issue. But this does seem like a basic ethical issue that should be resolved with some sort of dignity.

  Comment added July 12, 2024 1:28pm

• Heidi G. Lee

  To whom it may concern-

  Please reconsider this decision as the remains of preborn children should be treated with dignity. Do not change the current code.

  Respectfully,
  Heidi G. Lee

  Comment added July 16, 2024 5:44pm

• Diane Bertolotti

  I strongly oppose the NYC Board of Health’s proposal to amend Articles 203 and 205 of the NYC Health Code. The remains of these innocent children deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and deserve a proper burial. I guess your solution is that they be tossed in the trash like garbage. How disturbing! The once great state of New York deserves better.

  Comment added July 19, 2024 10:46pm

• Yes to the amendment!!

  This is great!! I’m so proud to live in a city where abortion is codified in our city constitution and patients are cared for as patients. We definitely need to modify this article, this will open up the ability for patients to get later care instead of having their medical procedure demonized. Currently, the requirement for a burial or cremation just adds a financial burden to patients, many of whom have traveled here to get access to the medical care they need. This is an excellent and very much needed amendment!!

  Comment added July 23, 2024 2:24pm

• GH

  This is a good step in the right direction. Having an abortion at that point in the pregnancy is difficult enough, without adding more complications.

  Comment added July 23, 2024 2:32pm

• This is a good amendment

  I think it is important to remove the need for burial/cremation as that is a right given to formally living beings and terminations are not formal living creatures that need the right of burial or cremation!

  As well the cost to patients is horrendous, please amend this!

  Comment added July 23, 2024 3:25pm

• NR

  The existing rule stigmatizes later abortions and is unnecessary. I encourage DOHMH to adopt this amendment ASAP.

  Comment added July 23, 2024 6:26pm

• Brooklyn Resident

  I am in strong support of amending Articles 203 and 205 of the NYC Health Code to modify the provisions regarding disposition of conceptus requirements.

  As they exist currently, Articles 203 and 205 only stigmatize later care. The proposed amendment still gives patients the ability to have the fetal remains be buried/cremated —except now they will get to *choose* whether they want to do so. Giving abortion patients more agency in their procedure is a *good* thing. Moreover, no longer requiring the burial/cremation of conceptus will help bring costs down for patients.

  Amending these articles is a step in the right direction for abortion rights and bodily autonomy in New York City.

  Thank you!

  Comment added July 23, 2024 6:31pm

• CJ

  I’m a New Yorker and I support this amendment. The comments opposed are from out-of-town anti-choice extremists hoping to flood the resolution to exert control over other people’s lives. They don’t even know what a BEC is but want to tell us what to do with our bodies.

  Comment added July 23, 2024 7:25pm

• Sande

  I heavily oppose these changes to Articles 203 and 205. Human remains deserve to be treated with dignity, even for those who have been poisoned or dismembered like babies in an abortion. (Abortionprocedures.com) These are still human beings, not plants, dogs, or fish. Changing the articles for the worse would just encourage filthy conditions like with Kermit Gosnell and Ulrich Klopfer. Our society treats convicted murderers and felons more humanely than unborn babies.

  If arranging for baby remains to be cremated or buried is “very traumatic” (Gretchen Van Wye) that’s because abortion always destroys a human being. (Almostaborted.life) Women deserve better than to be lied to about what abortion is and the damage it causes to their babies and themselves. There’s money in NYC Health’s budget and $1.8 million given (NY Abortion Action Fund 2023) plus $1 million (NYC Council 2022) for killing babies but not to bury them? Where are the thousands and thousands of bodies supposed to go?

  Comment added July 23, 2024 11:49pm

• Max F. Neuman

  Decisions about reproductive healthcare are deeply personal, and the government should not impose medically unnecessary burdens in people who seek abortion care. Families should be able to choose how to deal with deal tissue whether it is through cremation, burial, or any other means.

  New York can be a national beacon in the fight for abortion freedom, but only if it makes sure it’s regulations do not impose an unjustifiable burden on patients in need.

  I support the proposed rule.

  Comment added July 24, 2024 6:18am

• Brenda S. Hanson

  I am writing to make public comment on the proposed amendment to Articles 203 and 205 of the New York City Health Code.

  This rule change and proposed amendment reflects two disturbing cultural trends:

  1) The dismantling of the idea that human beings are special and deserve a high level of dignity. Respect for human remains is part of how dignity is demonstrated. It must be remembered that a “conceptus that has completed 24 or more weeks of gestation” (or any “conceptus” at all) is a genetically unique human being who would develop into a distinct individual if given time and a nurturing environment (such as a womb) to do so. When a pregnancy is terminated either spontaneously via nature or intentionally via chemicals or surgical methods, it is a human being with genetically unique cells, tissues, organs, systems, and that had – up to the point of termination – possessed potential. When such a genetically unique human’s life ends, it is incumbent upon the society in which we live to treat the body in which that life was contained with respect and dignity. A society that fails to do so is crude and inhumane. Thus, the proposed amendment should be rejected.

  2) The dismantling of language in such a way that science and reality itself are undermined. This is most pronounced in the removal of the word “woman” and replacement of this word with the words “pregnant person.” Scientific reality is observable and – in this case – is expressed both anatomically and genetically in the real world. Science reveals that women possess ovaries that produce eggs that can be fertilized by sperm to become a genetically unique human. Women possess fallopian tubes through which an egg travels to reach the uterus. Women possess a uterus within which a genetically unique human being can develop. Men do not possess ovaries, fallopian tubes, or uteruses. This is what science reveals. Changing the language in the rule to remove the word “woman” denies the exceptional nature of womanhood, the exclusive ability of women to bear children, and is both anti-science and anti-reality. In addition, the language changes do not improve the clarity of the Statute but create confusion within it. Thus, the proposed amendment should be rejected.

  Furthermore, the question must be asked: if this amendment is adopted, where will the bodies of the “conceptus” be disposed? These bodies must go somewhere. Will they be thrown into dumpsters and landfills? Will they be burned for energy? Will they be used as fertilizer after becoming compost? Where will the bodies go? Because these bodies must go somewhere, the proposed amendment should be rejected.

  When dignity is stolen from the least amongst us, it hurts us all. This proposed amendment is an act of destruction toward human dignity and should be soundly rejected.

  Comment added July 24, 2024 7:29am

• Marsha Volgyi

  Peace,
  I don’t know if there are any words that can open your heart to not go through with this “reclassification” and procedure of bringing these beautiful babies bodies to the funeral home.
  When we die and are asked by Jesus, who is the Son of God, of an accountant of how we lived our lives, be ready for eternity is long without God. Transform your life for God alone, not for Baal, satan, the evil one – for satan is a liar and wants you to suffer without love for eternity.
  I will pray for you.
  May God bless you,
  Marsha

  Comment added July 24, 2024 8:57am

• LC

  I support these changes as they relieve a financial burden presently placed on patients and the current rules promote the stigmatization of later abortion procedures.

  Comment added July 24, 2024 9:48am

• Diana McDonell

  The current regulation is appropriate and should be left in place.

  Comment added July 24, 2024 6:55pm

• Mary Reger

  Every human being deserves to be treated with dignity. It is barbaric & uncivilized to do anything else. Do not change the current code.

  Comment added July 24, 2024 11:30pm

• Teresa MInutolo

  I am writing to make public comment on the proposed amendment to Articles 203 and 205 of the New York City Health Code.
  This rule change and proposed amendment reflects two disturbing cultural trends:
  1) The dismantling of the idea that human beings are special and deserve a high level of dignity. Respect for human remains is part of how dignity is demonstrated. It must be remembered that a “conceptus that has completed 24 or more weeks of gestation” (or any “conceptus” at all) is a genetically unique human being who would develop into a distinct individual if given time and a nurturing environment (such as a womb) to do so. When a pregnancy is terminated either spontaneously via nature or intentionally via chemicals or surgical methods, it is a human being with genetically unique cells, tissues, organs, systems, and that had – up to the point of termination – possessed potential. When such a genetically unique human’s life ends, it is incumbent upon the society in which we live to treat the body in which that life was contained with respect and dignity. A society that fails to do so is crude and inhumane. Thus, the proposed amendment should be rejected.
  2) The dismantling of language in such a way that science and reality itself are undermined. This is most pronounced in the removal of the word “woman” and replacement of this word with the words “pregnant person.” Scientific reality is observable and – in this case – is expressed both anatomically and genetically in the real world. Science reveals that women possess ovaries that produce eggs that can be fertilized by sperm to become a genetically unique human. Women possess fallopian tubes through which an egg travels to reach the uterus. Women possess a uterus within which a genetically unique human being can develop. Men do not possess ovaries, fallopian tubes, or uteruses. This is what science reveals. Changing the language in the rule to remove the word “woman” denies the exceptional nature of womanhood, the exclusive ability of women to bear children, and is both anti-science and anti-reality. In addition, the language changes do not improve the clarity of the Statute but create confusion within it. Thus, the proposed amendment should be rejected.
  Furthermore, the question must be asked: if this amendment is adopted, where will the bodies of the “conceptus” be disposed? These bodies must go somewhere. Will they be thrown into dumpsters and landfills? Will they be burned for energy? Will they be used as fertilizer after becoming compost? Where will the bodies go? Because these bodies must go somewhere, the proposed amendment should be rejected.
  When dignity is stolen from the least amongst us, it hurts us all. This proposed amendment is an act of destruction toward human dignity and should be soundly rejected.

  Comment added July 25, 2024 6:35am

• Theresa M Gillis

  The proposed rule change allows a conceptus that has passed 24 weeks of gestation to be treated as medical waste, whereas the current rule requires that it be afforded burial or cremation. Whatever one’s view on the issue of when life begins and the status of a conceptus at 24 weeks, a conceptus that has passed 24 weeks gestation has the appearance of a miniature fully formed human body, in contrast to the form of conceptus at earlier stages. Perhaps there are medical and health care professionals who are perfectly comfortable tossing a 24 week old conceptus into medical waste. Undoubtedly there are others – irrespective of their view on when life begins — for whom such an act would be revolting.

  Under the rule – both as it exists and under the proposed amendment — even a small part of a dead body must be treated respectfully by being be buried or cremated. The current rule regarding a conceptus that has passed 24 weeks strikes a balance – allowing a less fully formed conceptus to be treated like medical waste while preserving a small measure of respect for a conceptus that has passed 24 weeks and has all – not just some – of the parts of a human body – albeit unborn.

  There seems to be no justification for disrupting this balance.

  Comment added July 25, 2024 7:04pm

• diana marie culliford

  about NY deciding that aborted babies are not human remains, I disagree. This is totally NOT HUMANE. All aborted baby parts are definitely human remains, shame on you if you allow this. Please please do not do this, it is shameful and wrong. How would you feel if it was your own baby.

  Comment added July 25, 2024 7:07pm

• Greg

  I strongly oppose these amendments. No other laws in society matter if we cannot start with the respect of life at all ages and stages. What does New York/NYC presently do with other bodies that are murdered?

  Comment added July 30, 2024 1:16pm

• Donald J

  Will NY continue to allow abortions after birth with this rule?

  Comment added July 30, 2024 11:39pm

• Marisa Nadas, MD, MPH

  I would like to share my strong support for the proposed amendment of Article 203 and 205 of the NYC Health Code.

  The requirement of burial for any fetus >24wks has been a burden on our hospitals, our providers, and most of all our patients. Our providers and patients have been required to have a conversation and sign papers related to the disposition of the fetus even if that has not been aligned with the patient’s priorities and state of mind. We have had to do this purely to meet regulations, not because this is in the best interest of the patient. This harkens to other states’ requirements for medically unnecessary components of abortion care that patients and providers have to adhere to in order to be within the law.

  Furthermore, it has required time and resources spent to create a pathway for fetal remains to go to the morgue from the operating room, and has taken staff time due to the additional morgue specimens and challenges working with OCME on this topic. This is all time and resources spent on something that is, again, not medically necessary or patient-centered.

  It is patient-centered and good care to allow the choice of disposition of fetal remains to be up to the patient, and not determined by laws or regulations. These amendments will improve the care provided to New Yorkers.

  Comment added August 2, 2024 1:39pm

• FI

  I think the new language is good and more inclusive and I support the changes.

  Comment added August 14, 2024 12:57pm

• Samantha Hinds

  I agree with designee disposal. Using red tape to force a fake “burial” creates an atmosphere of false punishment, is the un-American state enforcement of specific religious rituals and sanctities on the non-consenting general public, and could cause additional trauma to recovering patients. We need to keep ineffective, moralizing bureaucratic bloat out of state legislation.

  Comment added August 14, 2024 1:17pm

• Adriana Benedict

  Possible Health Medical, P.C. is a New York provider of abortion care and other reproductive and sexual health services through a site owned and operated by Possible Health Inc., http://www.heyjane.com (the two entities are hereafter referred to as “Hey Jane”). Since 2021, Hey Jane has served over 60,000 patients, including thousands with shipping addresses in New York City (the “City”). Many of these patients reside in restrictive states and travel to the City to access telemedicine care.

  Hey Jane commends the Proposed Rule’s addition of a provision to allow certification of induced terminations of pregnancy by designees. This facilitates the preservation of confidentiality for practitioners who may face privacy and security risks due to their provision of abortion care. The Proposed Rule’s impact on practitioner confidentiality could be further strengthened if the reporting form did not require the identification of the specific type of license held by the attending practitioner. For small practice groups which may only have a single practitioner with a particular type of license, disclosing the practitioner’s licensure more specifically than “physician” or “advanced practice practitioner” could result in the ability to identify the attending practitioner.

  Hey Jane further commends the Department’s removal of most of the HIPAA identifiers from the reporting form, which helps preserve the confidentiality of patient information. The confidentiality of patient information could be further strengthened if the reporting form did not require the date of prescription, which is also a HIPAA identifier. As an alternative to the date of prescription, the reporting form could collect the month of prescription, which is less likely to be linked to a particular patient. The additional modifications to the reporting form suggested above would allow telehealth providers to have greater confidence that submission of the reporting form protects practitioner and patient confidentiality as much as possible. This is especially important after Dobbs stripped away the constitutional right to privacy in abortion care, and as anti-choice groups are using litigation to gain access to termination of pregnancy reports maintained for public health purposes.

  Respectfully submitted,

  Adriana Benedict, JD, SM
  General Counsel, Hey Jane

  Comment attachment
  Hey-Jane-Comment-on-Proposed-Rule-August-2024.pdf

  Comment added August 15, 2024 3:24pm