House passes bill raising penalties for fetal deaths, adding ‘unborn person’ language

House lawmakers passed a measure Thursday that would increase penalties in cases resulting in fetal deaths, a move Democrats said could put access to in vitro fertilization and contraceptives at risk.

They also started debate on a separate bill dealing with child support during pregnancy.

House File 2575, passed 58-36, would increase penalties for the nonconsensual ending of a pregnancy, in addition to amending language on these crimes from referring to the termination of a “human pregnancy” to the “death of an unborn person.”

An amendment introduced — and later withdrawn — by Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, D-Ames, would include exclusions for the use of hormonal contraception, as well as for in vitro fertilization. The changes come following criticism from lobbyists on the bill’s language related to potential restrictions on birth control, as well as in the wake of the February Alabama Supreme Court case ruling that declared frozen embryos were children under the state’s 2018 state constitutional amendment to “ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child.”

Wessel-Kroeschell argued that because an “unborn person” in the legislation is defined as an human organism from fertilization to live birth, the bill could create the “same chaos” for IVF services in Iowa as what happened in Alabama. She also linked the legislation to efforts to ban abortion in the state and nationwide following the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“Advancing a fetal personhood agenda is just another attempt to deny Iowans reproductive freedom,” Wessel-Kroeschell said. “This legislation is a blatant attempt to advance an anti-abortion agenda and further enshrine the myth of fetal personhood in our state code. This bill will further stigmatize abortion patients and providers. It is nothing more than an anti-abortion propaganda and is part of a far reaching long term strategy to undermine the rights and well being of pregnant people.”

Rep. Skyler Wheeler, R-Hull, said the amendment and Democrats’ opposition to the bill were making claims that did not apply to the bill, as it deals with penalties for fetal deaths. He said the phrase “unborn person” is already defined by Iowa law, and concerns about the Alabama Supreme Court ruling are not applicable to the legislation.

“The legislators in here that are trying to turn this into another discussion — it really wasn’t that difficult, this definition is currently in code,” Wheeler said. “So if you are all worried about all these different things you bring up, you should have been worried about it a long time ago because the definition already exists.”

Bill would extend child support obligations to pregnancy and childbirth
Lawmakers also discussed a separate measure, House File 2363, that would require fathers of children born out of wedlock to pay for some medical costs related to pregnancy and birth of a child. Lawmakers said the proposal is an extension of current child support requirements under Iowa law, which typically start when a child is born.

While the bill’s floor manager Rep. John Wills, R-Spirit Lake, said the measure was meant to ensure pregnant women receive support during pregnancy from fathers, Democrats said the measure could have serious unintended consequences for pregnant women. Rep. Brian Meyer, D-Des Moines, a lawyer, said courts could order a woman to undergo a paternity test in utero for the establishment of parenthood, even in cases of domestic abuse or sexual assault.

Rep. Megan Srinivas, D-Des Moines, a physician, said the methods used to determine paternity of a fetus have a risk of infection as well as the potential to cause fetal abnormalities, miscarriages or the termination of a pregnancy.

Srinivas said she spoke about the legislation with OB-GYN providers who expressed concerns about potential court mandates for paternal testing before birth.

“Their biggest concern with this bill was that they would be forced to look one of their patients in the eye and tell them that even though you do not want this risky test, I have to do this because the court is ordering me to do so, abandoning their medical ethics and their promise to always do what is best for the patient,” Srinivas said. “… It puts the mother and pregnancy at risk without her consent. It enables that opening. I ask you: please respect Iowa’s mothers.”

The bill was deferred for later consideration.

©Copyright 2024, Iowa Capital Dispatch. Published under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Read more at iowacapitaldispatch.com.