Prohibits the sale, or transport of organs or body parts of aborted babies. (8/1/16) (EN INCREASE GF EX See Note)
If enacted, SB 33 would significantly impact state laws pertaining to abortion procedures and the handling of fetal remains. It introduces strict regulations that define what constitutes illegal transactions involving fetal organs, aiming to prevent any commercialization of fetal remains. Furthermore, the bill establishes penalties that include imprisonment of 10 to 50 years for violations, which underscores the seriousness with which the Louisiana legislature views this issue. This could potentially deter practices that some opponents perceive as unethical, thus aligning state law with certain moral and ethical perspectives on abortion.
Senate Bill 33 aims to prohibit the sale, receipt, or transport of fetal organs and body parts resulting from induced abortions in Louisiana. The bill specifically enacts R.S. 14:87.3, defining the terms related to the sale and transport of fetal remains and imposing severe penalties for violations. It establishes that no person may knowingly buy, sell, receive, or otherwise acquire fetal organs or body parts, nor may they transport them with the intent to engage in a prohibited sale. The bill outlines specific definitions for terms like 'fetal body part' and 'unborn child', clarifying the scope of the legislation.
The sentiment surrounding SB 33 appears to be largely positive among legislators who advocate for stricter regulations on abortion and fetal organ sales. Supporters view it as a necessary measure to protect unborn lives and to address ethical concerns regarding the handling of fetal remains. However, there are notable points of contention among critics who argue that the bill could further restrict women's rights to make decisions about their own bodies and raise challenges for medical professionals. This dichotomy reflects a broader national debate on abortion and reproductive rights.
Notable points of contention surrounding SB 33 include concerns about its implications for legitimate medical practices. Critics argue that the bill’s stringent measures could interfere with legitimate medical research and procedures that require the use of fetal tissue for purposes such as disease research or diagnostic testing. There is also apprehension regarding how the definitions stipulated in the bill may lead to legal ambiguities, potentially complicating the legal landscape for healthcare providers. As such, while supporters celebrate the bill as a victory for the pro-life movement, opponents continue to voice concerns about personal freedoms and medical ethics.