SB 1457 — abortion; unborn child; genetic abnormality

Save the life of the woman having the abortion.

2.

Avert substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the woman having the abortion.

C.

Notwithstanding any other law, public monies or tax monies of this state or any political subdivision of this state or any federal funds passing through the state treasury or the treasury of any political subdivision of this state or monies paid by students as part of tuition or fees to a state university or a community college shall not be expended or allocated for training to perform abortions.

D.

Notwithstanding any other law, this state or any political subdivision of this state shall not enter into a contract or commercial transaction with an abortion provider or an affiliate of an abortion provider.  This subsection does not apply to a contract or commercial transaction that is subject to a federal law that is in conflict with this subsection, as determined by the department of administration in a written decision made available to the public.

D.

E.

This section does not prohibit the state from complying with the requirements of federal law in title XIX and title XXI of the social security act.

END_STATUTE Sec. 6.

Use of public monies forprohibited; human cloning, abortion or other prohibited research;

prohibition;human cloning research involving fetal remains from abortion;

other prohibited research;

Notwithstanding any other law, public monies or tax monies of this state or any political subdivision of this state, any federal monies passing through the state treasury or the treasury of any political subdivision of this state or monies paid by students as part of tuition or fees to a state university or a community college shall not be expended or allocated for or granted to or on behalf of an existing or proposed research project that involves abortion,fetal remains from an abortion or human somatic cell nuclear transfer or any research that is prohibited by title 36, chapter 23.

END_STATUTE Sec. 7.Sec. 6.

"Viable fetus" has the same meaning prescribed in section 36-2301.01.END_STATUTE Sec. 8.Sec. 7.

END_STATUTE Sec. 9.Sec. 8.

"Surgical abortion" means the use of a surgical instrument or a machine to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will cause, with reasonable likelihood, the death of the unborn child. child. Surgical abortion does not include the use of any means to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after a live birth, to terminate an ectopic pregnancy or to remove a dead fetus.  Surgical abortion does not include patient care incidental to the procedure.

 Surgical abortion does not include the use of any means to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after a live birth, to terminate an ectopic pregnancy or to remove a dead fetus.  Surgical abortion does not include patient care incidental to the procedure.

END_STATUTE Sec. 10.Sec. 9.

END_STATUTE Sec. 11.Sec. 10.

END_STATUTE Sec. 12.Sec. 11.

END_STATUTE Sec. 13.Sec. 12.

For the purposes of this section, "abortion-inducing drug" means a medicine or drug or any other substance used for a medication abortion.END_STATUTEabortion. Sec. 14.

END_STATUTE Sec. 13.

Any report filed pursuant to this section shall be filed electronically at an internet website that is designated by the department unless the person required to file the report applies for a waiver from electronic reporting by submitting a written request to the department.END_STATUTEdepartment. Sec. 15.

END_STATUTE Sec. 14.

Sec. 15.

Legislative findings and intent The Legislature finds that prohibiting persons from performing abortions knowing that the abortion is sought because of a genetic abnormality of the child advances at least three compelling state interests.

First, this act protects the disability community from discriminatory abortions, including for example Down-syndrome-selective abortions.

The Legislature finds that in the United States and abroad fetuses with Down syndrome are disproportionately targeted for abortions, with between 61 percent and 91 percent choosing abortion when it is discovered on a prenatal test.

See Box v.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., 139 S.

Ct.

1780, 1790-91 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring).

The Legislature intends to send an unambiguous message that children with genetic abnormalities, whether born or unborn, are equal in dignity and value to their peers without genetic abnormalities, born or unborn.  Second, this act protects against coercive health care practices that encourage selective abortions of persons with genetic abnormalities.  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that empirical reports from parents of children with Down syndrome attest that their doctors explicitly encouraged abortion or emphasized the challenges of raising children with Down syndrome, and there is medical literature to that effect.  See Preterm-Cleveland v.

McCloud, No.

18-3329, __ F.3d __, 2021 WL 1377279, at *2 (6th Cir.

Apr.

13, 2021) (citing David A.

Savitz, How Far Can Prenatal Screening Go in Preventing Birth Defects, 152 J.

of Pediatrics 3, 3 (2008) (arguing that "selective pregnancy terminations and reduced birth prevalence [of Down syndrome is] a desirable and attainable goal")).  Third, this act protects the integrity and ethics of the medical profession by preventing doctors from becoming witting participants in genetic-abnormality-selective abortions.

The Legislature finds that an industry that is associated with the view that some lives or potential lives are worth more than others is less likely to earn or retain the public's trust.

All three of these purposes are also present for the similar prohibition in Arizona law on performing abortions knowing that the abortion is sought based on the sex or race of the child or the race of a parent of that child.  The Legislature incorporates into its findings the statistics recently provided by this state and other states to the Supreme Court of the United States.  See Brief of the States of Wisconsin et al.

at pages 17-25, Box v.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc., No.

18-483, 2018 WL 6042853, available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-483/72184/20181115122354603_18-483%20Brief%20of%20States%20of%20Wisconsin%20et%20al%20Supporting%20Petitioners.pdf.

      APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR APRIL 27, 2021.

  FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE APRIL 27, 2021.