Fetuses could have the same legal protections as children under bill the House has passed
Abortion and IVF access dominated the April 9, 2025, House floor debate on the proposal allowing for wrongful death suits of fetuses. (Photo by)
After stalling last year, a bill allowing parents to claim damages in the wrongful death of a fetus received approval in the House on Wednesday, with Democrats raising opposition over reproductive rights.
Under the bill, HB 1517, parents could claim damages for mental pain and loss of support from the fetus at any stage of development, meaning jurors could determine the salary the fetus could have earned over its life as part of the money parents could be entitled to in wrongful-death suits. It cleared the chamber along party lines.
The proposal clarifies that suits couldn't be brought against mothers or medical providers abiding by the standard of care, but some Democratic lawmakers raised concerns about abortion and IVF access and pregnant people trying to escape abusive relationships.
Weston Democratic Rep. Robin Bartleman said the bill angered her.
'Everyone can get sued now because of this bill. This is not about justice, it's about cruelty,' she said, pointing out that the bill doesn't provide protections for IVF clinics and hospitals.
However, Democrats' attempts to allow only the pregnant person to bring suits and to shield people helping someone secure an abortion from the wrongful death suits failed.
'This is about establishing that life begins at conception, so let's clear the air, and let's just say the thing that's what it's about, because if it wasn't, there wouldn't have been so much avoiding the questions or the answers to direct questions,' Miami Democratic Rep. Ashley Gantt said.
St. Augustine Republican Rep. Sam Greco, the House sponsor, said the bill was not about abortion.
'This is about a loss that that is is so hard to understand and so hard to believe that money or anything is never going to make one whole,' Greco said. 'But when a terrible tragedy like the loss, the wrongful loss, of an unborn child occurs because of wrongfulness, because of a wrongful act, mothers, parents, should have the ability to seek to be made whole in those circumstances.'
The Senate companion, which Vero Beach Republican Sen. Erin Grall is sponsoring, is up for its second of three committee hearings Thursday. But other Republicans' support for the bill is faltering, with former Senate President Kathleen Passidomo also expressing hesitancy about opening medical providers up to lawsuits over the death of a fetus, even at one month of gestation.
'We're losing OBGYNs. Who's gonna wanna come to Florida?' Passidomo said during the April 1 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing of SB 1284. Passidomo, who also criticized the proposal last year, is chair of the Rules Committee, which Grall's proposal must go through before reaching the Senate floor.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investigators looking at who sent Hegseth's Signal texts, sources say
Pentagon investigators are looking into whether Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth personally wrote the text messages detailing the military's plans to strike Houthi targets in Yemen or whether other staffers typed out those details, according to two people familiar with the ongoing probe. The Defense Department's Office of Inspector General has spent several weeks interviewing Hegseth's current and former staff members to figure out how United States strike details taken from a classified system wound up in a commercial messaging app known as Signal. "Because this is one of the DOD IG's ongoing projects, in accordance with our policy we do not provide the scope or details to protect the integrity of the process and avoid compromising the evaluation," DOD IG spokesperson Mollie Halperin told ABC News. The details were relayed in two chat groups that included Hegseth - one with Vice President JD Vance and other high-ranking officials, and a second one that included Hegseth's wife, who is not employed by the government. MORE: Pentagon watchdog launches probe into Hegseth use of Signal chat ahead of Houthi airstrike It remains unclear how soon the findings will be released. Hegseth is scheduled to testify for the first time as defense secretary on Tuesday, where Democratic lawmakers are expected to question his handling of classified and sensitive information. The sharing of the details reportedly occurred around the same time in mid-March when key members of President Donald Trump's National Security Council, including Hegseth, inadvertently shared details about the March 15 missile strike in Yemen with the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. Much of the same content was shared in the second encrypted chat with family members and others -- a chat group that Hegseth had created on his personal phone during his confirmation process that included his wife, Jennifer Hegseth, the two officials told ABC News. MORE: What to know about Signal, which the Pentagon previously discouraged workers from using In addition to looking at whether the information was classified and who wrote it, investigators are also asking whether any staff members were asked by Hegseth or others to delete messages, according to one person familiar with the IG probe. The government is required under law to retain federal communications as official records.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
ICE deportation blocked by Boston judge: Migrants now in shipping container in Djibouti
By Lindsay Whitehurst Migrants placed on a deportation flight bound initially for South Sudan are now being held in a converted shipping container on a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where the men and their guards are contending with baking hot temperatures, smoke from nearby burn pits and the looming threat of rocket attacks, the Trump administration said. Officials outlined grim conditions in court documents filed Thursday before U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Boston, who is overseeing a lawsuit challenging Immigration and Customs Enforcement efforts to swiftly remove migrants to countries they didn't come from. Authorities landed the flight at the base in Djibouti, about 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) from South Sudan, more than two weeks ago after Murphy found the Trump administration had violated his order by swiftly sending eight migrants from countries including Cuba and Vietnam to the east African nation. The judge said that men from other countries must have a real chance to raise fears about dangers they could face in South Sudan. The men's lawyers, though, have still not been able to talk to them, said Robyn Barnard, senior director of refugee advocacy at Human Rights First, whose stated mission is to ensure the United States is a global leader on human rights. Barnard spoke Friday at a hearing of Democratic members of Congress and said some family members of the men had been able to talk to them Thursday. The migrants have been previously convicted of serious crimes in the U.S., and President Donald Trump's administration has said that it was unable to return them quickly to their home countries. The Justice Department has also appealed to the Supreme Court to immediately intervene and allow swift deportations to third countries to resume. The case comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by the Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The legal fight became another flashpoint as the administration rails against judges whose rulings have slowed the president's policies. The Trump administration said the converted conference room in the shipping container is the only viable place to house the men on the base in Djibouti, where outdoor daily temperatures rise above 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius), according to the declaration from an ICE official. Nearby burn pits are used to dispose of trash and human waste, and the smog cloud makes it hard to breathe, sickening both ICE officers guarding the men and the detainees, the documents state. They don't have access to all the medication they need to protect against infection, and the ICE officers were unable to complete anti-malarial treatment before landing, an ICE official said. 'It is unknown how long the medical supply will last,' Mellissa B. Harper, acting executive deputy associate director of enforcement and removal operations, said in the declaration. The group also lacks protective gear in case of a rocket attack from terrorist groups in Yemen, a risk outlined by the Department of Defense, the documents state. Associated Press writer Rebecca Santana contributed to this story. AG Andrea Joy Campbell: Know your rights when it comes to ICE (Viewpoint) White House says Mayor Wu calling ICE 'secret police' is 'disgusting' and 'dangerous' Milford High student released from ICE detention: 'Nobody should be in here' 'He's going to be set free' — supporters of Milford teen arrested by ICE cheer release Judge orders Milford teen arrested by ICE to be released on bond Read the original article on MassLive.
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
The ‘Trump did it' defense: Colleges' and companies' new excuse to roll back wokeness
'Trump made me do it.' Across the country, this is a virtual mantra being mouthed everywhere from businesses to higher education. Corporations are eliminating woke programs. Why? Trump did it. Universities are eliminating DEI offices and cracking down on campus extremism. Trump did it. Democratic politicians are abandoning far-left policies. Trump did it. For those who lack both courage or conviction, the claim of coercion is often the next best thing. The 'TDI defense' is born. They did not invent Trump, but they needed him. For years, schools like Harvard and Columbia ignored warnings about the rising antisemitism on campuses. They refused to punish students engaged in criminal conduct, including occupying and trashing buildings. These administrators did not want to risk being tagged by the far-left mob for taking meaningful action. Then the election occurred, and suddenly they were able to blame Trump for doing what they should have been doing all along. Administrators are now cracking down on extreme elements on campuses. At the same time, hundreds of schools are closing DEI offices around the country. Again, most are not challenging the Trump administration's orders on DEI or seeking to adopt more limited responses. They are all in with the move, while professing that they have little choice. In other words, schools are increasingly turning to TDI to end DEI. The legal landscape has changed with an administration committed to opposing many DEI programs as discriminatory and unlawful. However, it is the speed and general lack of resistance that is so notable. In most cases, the Trump administration did not have to ask twice. Trump seemed to 'have them at hello,' as if they were longing for a reason to reverse these trends. Many will continue to fight this fight surreptitiously. For example, shortly before the Trump election, the University of North Carolina System Board of Governors voted to ban DEI and focus on 'institutional neutrality.' But then UNC Asheville Dean of Students Megan Pugh was caught on videotape, saying that eliminating these offices means nothing: 'I mean we probably still do anyway… but you gotta keep it quiet.' She added, 'I love breaking rules.' The Board, perhaps not feeling the same thrill, reportedly responded by firing her. However, Pugh's approach to rules in general has long been followed by college administrators. After the Supreme Court declared that universities like Harvard and UNC were engaging in racial discrimination in admissions, some schools set out to eliminate the overt uses of race while seeking to achieve the same results covertly. The same pattern is playing out in businesses. Over the last few weeks, companies ranging from Amazon to IBM have removed references to DEI programs or policies. Bank of America explained, 'We evaluate and adjust our programs in light of new laws, court decisions, and, more recently, executive orders from the new administration.' Once established, these DEI offices tended to expand as an irresistible force within their institutions and companies. Full-time diversity experts demanded additional hirings and policies on hiring, promotion, and public campaigns. Since these experts were tasked with finding areas for 'reform,' their proposals were treated as extensions of that mandate. To oppose the reforms was to oppose the cause. While some executives and administrators supported such efforts, others simply lacked the courage to oppose them. No one wanted to be accused of being opposed to 'equity' or being racist, sexist, or homophobic. The results were continually expanding programs impacting every level of businesses and institutions. Then Trump showed up. Suddenly, these executives and administrators had an excuse to reverse this trend. They could also rely on court decisions that have undermined longstanding claims of advocates that favoring certain groups at the expense of others was entirely lawful. This week, the Supreme Court added to these cases with its unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, to remove impediments to lawsuits by members of majorities who are discriminated against. For many years, lower courts have required members of majority groups (white, male, or heterosexual) to shoulder an added burden before they could establish claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In a decision written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court rejected that additional burden and ordered that everyone must be treated similarly under the law. Many commentators noted that the ruling further undermined the rationales for disparate treatment based on race or other criteria within DEI. In other words, more of these programs are likely to be the subject of federal investigations and lawsuits. Of course, if these executives and administrators were truly committed to the programs in principle, they could resolve to fight in the courts. The alternative is just to blame Trump and restore prior policies that enforce federal standards against all discriminatory or preferred treatment given to employees based on race, sex, religion, or other classifications. Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey once observed that 'to err is human. To blame someone else is politics.' That is evident among politicians. For years, many moderate Democrats voted to support far-left agendas during the Biden administration, lacking the courage or principles to oppose the radical wing of the Democratic Party. Now, some are coming forward to say that the party has 'lost touch with voters.' Rather than admit that their years of supporting these policies were wrong, they blame Trump and argue that the party must move toward the center to survive. The calculus is simple: You never act on principle when you can blame a villain instead. It is not a profile of courage but one of simple convenience. No need for admissions or responsibility — just TDI and done. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
