Florida Republicans say an effort to allow expecting parents to collect damages in a wrongful death suit of an unborn child wouldn’t apply to frozen embryos created from in vitro fertilization (IVF), but abortion-rights advocates say that the plan would reduce access to reproductive health care.
A Friday ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court categorizing frozen embryos as children could leave fertility clinics vulnerable to wrongful death suits, according to Florida Phoenix partner publication Alabama Reflector. Meanwhile, the Florida Legislature is contemplating proposals, HB 651 and SB 476, permitting suits to recover damages for the wrongful death of fetuses at any stage of development in the womb, even if the fetus wouldn’t have been able to survive outside of the womb.
“I’m not afraid or shy away from a discussion on abortion, or the value of life, or the overarching theme of personhood, or taking a hard look at protections for IVF and embryos, but none of that is what this bill is about,” said Republican Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka of Lee County. She’s the House sponsor of the proposal. “It’s very narrow in nature. It’s about the mother. It’s about the father. It’s about the value of the life of an unborn child, and it’s about a real loss. Not a loss that was spontaneous or that just happened, but a loss that was caused by the wrong duty of another person.”
Abortion-rights advocates slam bill establishing personhood at conception in wrongful death suits
So far, the bills have mostly been approved on party lines in committee hearings. Wednesday’s House committee hearing was not the exception. All seven Democrats in the Judiciary Committee voted against the proposal, citing concerns about how it would establish personhood at conception and potentially harm IVF, healthcare workers and women seeking abortions.
“We synthesize that there is no exception for abortion in the bill because the bill sponsors said it’s unnecessary. We also synthesize that there’s no protection for practitioners, and put all those things together, there is not an unintended consequence. There is a consequence,” Orange County Democratic Rep. Lavon Bracy Davis said during the committee hearing. “I’m gonna go ahead and say the quiet part out loud: This bill is a backdoor to further reduce access to reproductive health care.”
Definition of an unborn child
The proposals define an “unborn child” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” This is the same definition in the criminal penalties related to the death of an “unborn child.” The requirement for the fetus to be carried in the womb leaves IVF out of the scope of the bill, Persons-Mulicka said. Brevard County Republican Rep. Thad Altman called the definition balanced.
But for some like Andrew Shirvell, the founder of Florida Voice for the Unborn, the bill doesn’t go far enough to protect fetuses.
“There are hundreds of thousands of unborn children that are frozen as human embryos in this country including tens of thousands in Florida. We need to expand the definition. This definition in the amendment is too narrow,” he said.
Persons-Mulicka and the Senate sponsor of the bill, Republican Erin Grall, also sponsored the 15-week abortion ban in effect in Florida and the six-week abortion ban that would go into effect if the Florida Supreme Court upholds the 15-week ban.
The justices are deliberating whether they will allow a proposed amendment to enshrine abortion access in the Florida Constitution to appear on the ballot in November. Both Persons-Mulicka and Grall have also insisted that their bills couldn’t be used against someone who gets an abortion allowed under Florida law.
Potential consequences
Although the pregnant person can’t be sued under the bill, there are no such protections for healthcare workers or others aiding someone get an abortion. Abortion-rights advocates criticized that aspect of the bill, saying it would make it harder for someone to get an abortion, even when medically necessary.
“What this deceptive bill does is completely different from what have we heard from the sponsor. The intent is to intimidate healthcare providers and make them fearful of providing abortion care by threatening them with lawsuits. This will lead to doctors denying necessary health care and will increase the likelihood of pregnancy complications not being timely addressed for fear of being sued,” said Kara Gross, senior policy counsel at the ACLU of Florida.
Additionally, opponents of the bill also said it could heighten the shortage of healthcare workers in the state. By 2035, Florida could have a projected shortfall of about 500 OBGYNs, according to a 2021 workforce analysis from IHS Markit.
Ultimately, the bill contributes to a climate of fear along with other bills that have come out of the Legislature in recent years, said Democratic Rep. Yvonne Hayes Hinson of Alachua and Marion counties.
“Since I’ve been here, legislation of the legislation that has been passed, in my opinion and others’, create a climate. The entire state of Florida is in fear. They are in fear. That’s why we have a shortage of laborers. We’re about to have a shortage of doctors,” she said during the committee hearing.
She continued: “Men are in control. They’re in control of planting the seed. If they didn’t plan the seed we wouldn’t be here. Lack of sex education is definitely a problem. We should be having sex education. If you really don’t want abortion teach men and women how to keep from getting pregnant.”
