"Born Alive Infants Act": Not sure what it is? Then read this.

[EverythingInLif]

What the bill says:

The title of the Bill is "To protect infants who are born alive." It does not accomplish this directly. Rather, it defines that any embryo, fetus or newborn who is "born alive" is a human person. Once it is considered a person, it is protected from harm by other, existing, laws.

The bill contains only two main sub-sections:

	The first defines the words 'person', 'human being', 'child', and 'individual', as including "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." Although the term "infant" normally refers to a newborn baby, here its meaning is extended to also include a fertilized ovum, pre-embryo, embryo and fetus.
	The second explains the term "born alive." As defined for a

"... member of the species homo sapiens, [it] means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion." ₃ 

The second definition was derived from "a model definition of 'live birth' that was promulgated by the World Health Organization in 1950 and is, with minor variations, currently codified in 30 States and the District of Columbia." ₄ When the bill became law, it was the first time that the personhood of a "born- alive" member of the human race was codified in federal legislation.

"Embryology textbooks say that the heartbeat begins [in a human embryo] at 18 to 22 days after fertilization." ₁ Thus, the law could theoretically apply to an embryo only three weeks after fertilization and a few days into pregnancy: i.e. a few days after the embryo attaches itself to the wall of the uterus. This is only barely into the first trimester. 

 Motivation for the bill:

The House Judiciary Committee justified the need for the act on the basis of recent "changes in the legal and cultural landscape." These include:

Intact D&X procedures (a.k.a. Partial Birth Abortions) have been widely publicized in recent years. This is a procedure that is generally used to terminate a pregnancy in which the fetus has died, or where the continued delivery of the fetus would very seriously disable the woman or threaten her life. The procedure involves the physician partly delivering the fetus, feet first. Its brains are removed; this allows the skull to collapse. The fetus is then fully pulled from the woman. This is considered by some to be infanticide, or something close to it. Although many state laws have been passed to prohibit D&X procedures, they have typically been so obscurely worded that they might have be interpreted as prohibiting a wide range of abortion procedures. The U. S. Supreme Court struck down an Nebraska D&X law in 2000-JUN by its usual 5:4 vote. Supreme Court Justice Thomas wrote that the procedure "approaches infanticide, and thereby dehumanizes the fetus and trivializes human life." The U. S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a similar New Jersey law in 2000-JUL. The Judiciary Committee was concerned that if a fetus that is half-born can be killed, then it is only a small step to killing a fully-born fetus.

On 2007-APR-18, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a 2003 federal law banning intact D&X procedures was constitutional. More details

Court decisions: The Judiciary Committee believes that two court rulings have "eroded the born-alive principle and created confusion regarding the legal status of [those] premature infants who survive abortions," but who have little or no chance to survive. The decisions are:

	The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's decision Stenberg v. Carhart, on 2000-JUL-26 and
	The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey on 1992-JUN-29.

These rulings relied heavily on the viability concept: i.e. whether the fetus can survive on its own. Some have concluded that, in some hospitals, "premature infants who have survived abortions are not legally-protected persons if they have little or no chance of sustained survival." At 22 weeks gestational age, premature infants' immature lungs prevent them from surviving more than a few hours. At 23 weeks, they have about a 39% chance of survival but will probably be seriously and permanently disabled. At 24 weeks, their chances of survival are 50%; they have a lower probability of being disabled.

Philosophical argument: Peter Singer, a bioethicist from Princeton University has argued in favor of infanticide. He suggests that parents should have the right to decide to kill their disabled or unhealthy newborn babies within 28 days of birth. There may be other bioethicists or even agencies in North America that favor infanticide; however, they are not particularly visible. Whenever the topic is discussed, Dr. Singer always seems to be the one person who is mentioned. His book, "Practical Ethics" discusses a wide range of ethical topics, such as abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, vegetarianism, the refugee problem and the protection of the environment. ₅ Singer reasons that a newborn baby has a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, etc. as do some animals. Thus, murdering a newborn is not necessarily any less ethical than killing an animal.

The House Judiciary Committee reasoned that if this bill became law, it would impress upon physicians that embryos, fetuses and newborn which are born alive are actual human beings under law.

[EverythingInLif]

Mar. 29, 2008 at 9:30 AM If you are passionate about these types of issues, please go to http://everythinginlife.forumcircle.com/index.php? and share your thoughts.

(Original Poster)

[Jessy0419]

Mar. 29, 2008 at 10:43 AM I agree this should be passed, but you should also amend this, IMO, to put a warning due to the describing of a D&X procedure.  Some people would consider this graphic and it should be labeled as such.