Provides for the Viable and Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. (8/1/12)
The proposed law introduces significant changes to existing abortion regulations in Louisiana, emphasizing the recognition of unborn child viability at earlier stages of pregnancy. It mandates that physicians must perform ultrasound tests to ascertain fetal age and viability before conducting an abortion. The legislation also calls for a second physician's attendance during the procedure if the unborn child is deemed viable, further complicating the process of obtaining an abortion in these instances. Supporters argue that this law is a step towards diminishing the number of late-term abortions and addressing the perceived moral responsibilities associated with fetal pain.
Senate Bill 593, known as the Viable and Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, aims to regulate abortions by prohibiting the procedure after the unborn child reaches a post-fertilization age of twenty weeks, with stipulations for medical emergencies. The bill establishes a presumption of viability at this gestational mark, thereby imposing legal consequences for medical professionals who perform abortions past this point unless certain health criteria are met. These provisions reflect a legislative intent to protect unborn children presumed capable of experiencing pain, a claim supported by various medical findings outlined in the bill's text.
The sentiment surrounding SB593 is deeply polarized. Supporters, including various advocacy groups, view the act as a necessary protection for unborn children and an affirmation of the state's commitment to life. They emphasize the medical evidence of fetal pain and the protection of potential life. Conversely, opponents argue that this legislation encroaches upon women's rights and access to safe medical procedures. Critics contend that the bill could lead to undue complications for women facing difficult pregnancies and may prevent necessary medical interventions based on overly vague definitions of medical emergencies.
Notable points of contention regarding SB593 include the definition of 'medical emergencies' and the implications of imposing stricter regulations on medical professionals. The law's language restricts abortions and places the burden of proof on physicians to justify procedures conducted after viability. The adherence to the presumption of fetal pain and its implications raises questions about the intersection of medical science, legal interpretations, and reproductive rights, making SB593 a focal point for ongoing debates surrounding women's health and safety.