Latest news with #HouseBill1373
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Abortion could be considered murder under fetal personhood proposal in North Dakota
A crowd listens to Ginna Cross, an out-of-state anti-abortion advocate, testify in favor of a bill to define a human being to include an unborn child on Feb. 5, 2025. (Mary Steurer/North Dakota Monitor) North Dakota lawmakers are weighing whether to allow women who obtain abortions to be charged with murder. House Bill 1373, referred to as a 'personhood bill,' would define a human being to include an unborn child in state laws relating to murder, assault and wrongful death lawsuits. The bill would also establish that an unborn child exists at the moment of fertilization. Rep. Lori VanWinkle, R-Minot, is the bill's lead sponsor. She said the Legislature's prior attempts to restrict abortion did not go far enough. 'This is a commonsense bill that will close a loophole that has allowed the murder of innocent lives to continue in this state,' she told the House Human Services Committee during a Wednesday hearing on the bill. No other states have passed a law like House Bill 1373 before, Ginna Cross, founder of an anti-abortion organization based in Wisconsin, said during the hearing. Abortion rights supporters said the bill would hand down severe punishments to what should be considered a personal choice. Even some members of the public who self-identified as anti-abortion said the bill could unfairly punish women who are coerced into seeking them, or who receive medical care for life-threatening pregnancy complications. Bradley Pierce, president of the Foundation to Abolish Abortion and a resident of Texas, said there's no need to worry about malicious prosecution if the bill passes because people would stop getting abortions altogether. 'It's never gonna happen in the first place,' he said. The bill contains exceptions for the unintentional death of a fetus resulting from: Ordinary medical procedures performed during diagnostic testing of a pregnancy Procedures to save the life of a mother, so long as those procedures are done alongside 'reasonable steps to save the life of the unborn child' Spontaneous miscarriage The proposal does not elaborate on what terms like 'reasonable steps' or 'spontaneous miscarriage' mean. Some medical providers specializing in vitro fertilization and other fertility services spoke against the bill. They said If the bill is passed as currently written, it would be impossible for those services to continue in North Dakota. The exemptions are not specific enough to give providers confidence that they wouldn't face prosecution or lawsuits, they added. Birth control, IVF protection needed in face of attacks, North Dakota bill sponsor says Supporters of House Bill 1373 maintained the bill would not criminalize necessary medical care, nor would it significantly affect IVF clinics. Chris Dodson, general counsel and co-director of the North Dakota Catholic Conference, also spoke against the bill. The North Dakota Catholic Conference opposes abortion, but does not believe in punishing women who seek them, he said. He also called the proposal 'obviously unconstitutional' and 'ultimately pointless.' The law would not survive in the courts, but forcing the state to defend it against litigation could waste hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money, he said. North Dakota's two previous laws restricting abortion access were challenged in court. The most recent of the two, which was adopted in 2023, was declared unconstitutional and voided by a district court judge last year. The state appealed the decision, which is now being reviewed by the North Dakota Supreme Court. North Dakotans rejected a similar personhood proposal in 2014. A ballot measure to add language establishing fetal personhood in the state constitution was voted down by roughly 64% of voters. A separate proposal heard by the House Human Services Committee on Wednesday, House Bill 1488, would legalize abortions for any reason through week 15 in pregnancy. The bill is proposed by Rep. Eric Murphy, a Grand Forks Republican. GOP lawmaker to propose bill preserving some abortion access in North Dakota He said the abortion bans in North Dakota and across the country have prevented doctors from taking care of their patients. He referenced reports by ProPublica that found women in Texas have died because doctors were too afraid to treat their miscarriages under their state's abortion law. 'This, my colleagues, is not pro-life,' Murphy said. Murphy proposes allowing elective abortions up to week 15, and for later-term abortions to be decided by committees of doctors. Abortions between weeks 16 and 26 would only be legal if done for a medical purpose, including a serious health risk to the mother, according to the bill. In order to perform abortions at this stage of pregnancy, health care professionals would need approval from a three-member committee of doctors appointed by their hospital. Those committees would also approve any abortions sought after week 26, though only if the abortion is deemed medically required. Doctors wouldn't need approval from a committee to provide abortions in emergency situations, the bill states. Murphy said obstetricians have told him they were reluctant to perform abortions under North Dakota's previous health care ban even when their patients faced severe pregnancy complications, because they feared they would be charged with a crime. 'These laws have meaning and they have consequences,' he said. 'And when physicians aren't willing to cross a line, people die.' The bill is opposed by several anti-abortion groups, including the North Dakota Catholic Conference and North Dakota Family Alliance Legislative Action. Some medical professionals who support abortion access also spoke against the proposal. Ana Tobiasz, an obstetrician/gynecologist, said doctors still would be reluctant to perform medically necessary abortions under the bill. 'While I appreciate that the bill sponsor's intent was to attempt to moderate North Dakota's dangerous abortion laws, including SB 2150 passed last session, I have several concerns about this legislation,' she said. 'HB 1488 does not resolve the vagueness of the serious health risk exception. It contains the same definition that has been successfully challenged in the North Dakota courts.' The committee did not take action on either bill on Wednesday. Last week, a legislative committee heard testimony on two bills from Rep. Karla Rose Hanson, D-Fargo, that seek to protect contraceptives and IVF. No action has been taken on those bills, either. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
29-01-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Birth control, IVF protection needed in face of attacks, North Dakota bill sponsor says
Abby Berger of Bismarck stands Jan. 29, 2025, before a legislative committee hearing with a photo illustrating the large number of syringes and vials needed to help her conceive her child. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor) State Rep. Karla Rose Hanson said Wednesday that bills protecting birth control and fertilization treatments are necessary because of efforts to erode reproductive health care rights. Hanson, D-Fargo, testified before the House Human Services Committee on two bills she is sponsoring — House Bill 1478 on contraception and House Bill 1477 protecting fertility treatments. She said she's bringing the bills because of past attempts to limit reproductive rights and current efforts. For example, lawmakers this session will consider House Bill 1373, known as a personhood bill, which would define a human being to include an unborn child, and an unborn child as existing from the moment of fertilization. Hanson said the bill would essentially make some forms of contraception a crime and threaten in vitro fertilization or IVF. 'Because of all these historical and current efforts, we do need an effort to protect infertility services,' she said Wednesday. 'My constituents have expressed deep concern about their ability to access a range of reproductive health care, including contraception … as well as infertility care and specifically IVF.' Hanson's comments came as she testified before the House Human Services Committee on two bills she is sponsoring — House Bill 1478 on contraception and House Bill 1477 protecting fertility treatments. Several people testified emotionally in support of fertility treatments that they said helped them start a family. Abby Berger of Bismarck displayed a large photo of her child, surrounded by the syringes and vials used in fertility treatments. 'This visual is a testament to the lengths families like mine will go,' she said. No one testified against either bill, and no opposing testimony was filed. The committee did not take action on the bills but did have questions and comments. Rep. Kathy Frelich, R-Devils Lake, said she was reluctant to single out contraception and fertility treatments when there are other much-needed medical treatments that are not protected by state law. Hanson referenced the court ruling in Alabama that shut down in vitro fertility treatments in that state. 'I don't want that to happen to families in North Dakota,' she said. The same committee will likely hear the personhood bill, sponsored by Rep. Lori VanWinkle, R-Minot, next week. There are other bills addressing reproductive rights this session. Nurses on Wednesday packed a hearing for House Bill 1282 on fertility benefits for public employees. Rep. Eric Murphy, R-Grand Forks, addresses abortion in House Bill 1488. A hearing has not yet been scheduled on that bill. Murphy, a professor at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine, proposes to allow abortions through week 15 of pregnancy in North Dakota. North Dakota's current abortion law, passed in 2023, has been deemed unconstitutional, but an appeal is pending to the North Dakota Supreme Court. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
29-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
4 States Consider Bills To Treat Women Who Get Abortions as Murderers
Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, bills aiming to criminalize abortion providers have proliferated. But it's relatively rare to see lawmakers propose criminalizing women who obtain abortions—well, it was rare, at least. In January, lawmakers in at least four states introduced proposals to make intentionally harming a fertilized egg or fetus punishable under homicide statutes, with no exceptions for women who get abortions unless they were forced or coerced into ending their pregnancies. These measures would leave pregnant women who seek abortions subject to criminal charges such as murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, and attempted manslaughter and open to wrongful death lawsuits brought by partners or family members. They could also seriously imperil care for women experiencing pregnancy complications and have major implications for in vitro fertilization practices. Indiana: House Bill 1334 was introduced by state Rep. Lorissa Sweet (R–Indianapolis) on January 13. It has attracted two co-sponsors so far and has been referred to the Committee on Courts and Criminal Code. Sweet's bill would modify Indiana's criminal code so that the phrase "human being" includes beings in utero and fertilized eggs. Human being "includes an unborn child at any stage of development from fertilization at the fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum," H.B. 1334 states. The measure would repeal the crime of feticide—the killing of a fetus—since the killing of a fetus by any means, including abortion, would count as murder or manslaughter. It would also make injuring an embryo or fetus actionable under wrongful death lawsuits, as well. Sweet's bill would further repeal a section of the Indiana criminal code saying "it is a defense to any crime involving the death of or injury to a fetus that the defendant was a pregnant woman who committed the unlawful act with the intent to terminate her pregnancy." Thus, a pregnant woman who tried to terminate her pregnancy could be criminally punished. North Dakota: A dozen lawmakers have signed on to House Bill 1373, which was also introduced on January 13. Its lead author is state Rep. Lori VanWinkle, (R–Minot). H.B. 1373 would amend certain sections of North Dakota code to say that the terms human being and person include an "unborn child" from "the moment of fertilization." These changes would apply "as the terms relate to the offenses of murder and assault, and civil actions for death caused by wrongful acts." Oklahoma: We've got Senate Bill 456, introduced on January 8 by state Sen. Dusty Deevers (R–Elgin) and co-authored in the Oklahoma House by Rep. Gabe Woolley (R–Broken Arrow). The bill, called the "Abolition of Abortion Act," amends the state's homicide statute. Oklahoma's homicide statute already says that "''human being' includes an unborn child" from the moment of conception, but it excludes from the definition of homicide acts "committed during a legal abortion to which the pregnant woman consented" and stipulates that "under no circumstances shall the mother of the unborn child be prosecuted for causing the death of the unborn child unless the mother has committed a crime that caused the death." S.B. 456 would repeal the abortion exclusion and the bit excluding pregnant women. Elsewhere, Deevers' bill would add language specifying that "even where the charge is murder, the provisions of this section shall apply if the victim is an unborn child and the defendant is the child's mother." South Carolina: House Bill 3537—dubbed the "Prenatal Equal Protection Act"—was introduced on January 14 and referred to the Committee on Judiciary. It was introduced by state Rep. Rob Harris (R–Spartanburg), and the bill currently has six co-sponsors. Harris' bill would amend the state's homicide and assault statutes to state that "'person' includes an unborn child at every stage of development from fertilization until birth." What these bills would mean: All of these measures would leave women who terminate or attempt to terminate their pregnancies criminally liable for harm to the unborn child. They also go beyond that. In defining human beings to include all embryos, from the moment of conception, they would have implications for in vitro fertilization, which often involves the creation of embryos that are frozen for later use and sometimes, eventually, destroyed. They could incentivize law enforcement to investigate women who naturally miscarry or pregnant women who act in ways that could be dubbed dangerous to their fetuses. And while they all include language theoretically meant to limit their applicability to situations involving spontaneous miscarriage or instances where a mother's life is at risk, we've seen already in some states how this can play out in practice. When faced with situations where a woman's health is threatened but perhaps not yet critically, medical professionals may be afraid to act, lest they harm her fetus and be found guilty of violating an abortion ban. Hospitals and doctors on the hook for homicide if they make the wrong decisions may be unlikely to err on the side that could leave them liable—which means women may be forced to continue doomed or life-threatening pregnancies. Language in these bills ostensibly designed to clear up confusion on this front could actually make things more confusing for medical professionals and more dangerous for pregnant women. For instance, the North Dakota bill specifies that its new rules don't apply to "the unintentional death of an unborn child resulting from…a procedure undertaken to save the life of a mother when accompanied by reasonable steps to save the life of the unborn child" (emphasis mine). The other three statutes contain similar language. This implies that doctors who act to save a pregnant woman's life while endangering her fetus could still be liable for homicide or wrongful death if later deemed to have not taken enough "reasonable steps" to protect the fetus. Under this paradigm, doctors and hospitals may fear that intervening "too early" in a miscarriage will leave them liable, even when intervening too late can leave a mother vulnerable to sepsis and death. Only the South Carolina statute explicitly states that "mistake or unintentional error on the part of a licensed physician or other licensed healthcare provider or his or her employee or agent or any person acting on behalf of the patient shall not subject the licensed physician or other licensed healthcare provider or person acting on behalf of the patient to any criminal liability." Dusty Deevers is at it again: The Oklahoma state senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize pornography production or possession, making it punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Deevers did this last year too, with a bill broad enough to ban sending sexy selfies to someone who's not your spouse. Deevers' new legislation would set "criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison for production, distribution, or possession" of porn, per Deevers' press release. "It also provides heightened 10-to-30-year criminal penalties for organized pornography trafficking." More states try to regulate algorithms: In Virginia, House Bill 1624 "breaks down the activities performed by social media algorithms and provides a list of features for which minors must have verifiable parental consent," explains Max Gulker of the Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this site) in a post laying out potential negative consequences of this approach. Meanwhile, in Missouri, Attorney General Andrew Bailey has put forth a bonkers proposal, in which social media platforms are required to let users "choose among competing content moderators." Tech companies themselves would be forbidden from moderating, censoring, or suppressing "content on the social media platform such that a user is unable to view that content if their chosen content moderator would otherwise permit viewing that content." Aside from massive technological feasibility concerns here, this would also introduce even more massive liability concerns. Platforms like X, Facebook, Truth Social, etc., would presumably still be legally liable for certain types of content on their platforms and yet not be allowed to have any control over it. They would also be totally denied the opportunity to differentiate themselves based on things like platform moderation styles and rules. Bailey is calling this half-baked idea a "Regulation Securing Algorithmic Freedom for Social Media Users." He's currently "taking public comments" and collecting "additional evidence about the deceptive practices of the social media companies," according to his office. Professor gets $1 million "to understand illicit decision making" in massage businesses: A reader of this newsletter recently alerted me to an article from Wake Forest University about the work one business school professor is doing "to detect and disrupt human trafficking"—and the ample government funding she's gotten to do so. It's a perfect example of the misguided way U.S. authorities approach exploitation and abuse in the sex trade. It seems the National Science Foundation has given $1 million to Stacie Petter, a professor at Wake Forest's School of Business, so that Petter and partners can spend three years "investigating the massage therapy industry" by "gathering information from dozens of people who approach the issue wearing different lenses." "I can't go interview people about their illicit business activities. I can't ask someone why they made the choice to pay someone under the table or why they are allowing their massage therapists to engage in commercial sex for tips," said Petters. "We have to go about getting insights in a different way by making assumptions and running experiments. So, we're using agent-based modeling, or a form of simulation." Alas, government grants intended to fight human trafficking tend to go to either prostitution stings or academic researchers doing endless theory work, like this. But what victims of sexual exploitation need is not "rescue" (aka handcuffs and jail) by cops or theoretical modeling of their abusers' decisions by a bunch of business school professors. They need help acquiring the things needed to live outside of the exploitative paradigm—things like housing, transportation, and decent jobs. Instead of spending millions of dollars on nonsense academic studies, we should be spending it on material resources for people who need help leaving abusive pimps, partners, etc. About time: The White House is opening up the press briefing room to online content creators of all sorts. "We encourage anybody in this country: whether you are a TikTok content creator, a blogger, a podcaster—if you are producing legitimate news content, no matter the medium, you will be allowed to apply for press credentials to this White House," said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday. The post 4 States Consider Bills To Treat Women Who Get Abortions as Murderers appeared first on
