Declaring fetuses to be people would gut reproductive rights in Florida
For Floridians who are already deeply uneasy about women losing the right to control their own bodies, what happened Wednesday in the House Judiciary Committee was truly terrifying. One by one, lawmakers voted yes on legislation that would, for the first time, declare fetuses to be people from the moment of conception — turning wombs into war zones before most people even know they are pregnant.
Bill sponsor Jenna Persons-Mulicka, R-Fort Myers, did her best to hide the radical nature of her legislation, which creates civil liability for anyone who causes the “wrongful death” of a fetus in utero. But everyone in that committee hearing room — and those watching remotely — knew exactly what was at stake. Conveying full rights on a fetus would be a shattering blow to reproductive independence for Floridians capable of becoming pregnant, reaching past debates over viability and bans on abortion at a specified number of weeks. HB 651 would kick in at the very start of a pregnancy, and create an easy stepping stone from wrongful deaths (including from abortions) to anything that threatens the health of a fetus, even if it is meant to benefit the mother’s health.
Floridians should bombard their state senators and representatives with messages letting them know that this potential law is far too radical for anyone who cares about freedom. Then they should turn to their congressional representatives and call on them for legislation to nip this hazardous movement in the bud.
They can start by letting lawmakers know they see through the pretense here. Persons-Mulicka pointed out, more than once, that the language of her legislation (HB 651) specifically excludes a pregnant person. But that’s a nearly negligible speed bump, especially if Florida’s Supreme Court picks up this theme and uses it to obliterate abortion rights in Florida.
Think they won’t? Think again. Justice Carlos Muniz was already hinting in that direction last week, during oral arguments over a ballot question that would (with voters’ approval) explicitly protect abortion rights in Florida. But advocates of so-called “fetal personhood” think they’ve found a way around that language. By declaring a fetus to be a person, the Legislature and/or court would at best set up a collision course between two competing interests that just happen to share a body — along with the well-being of medical personnel being asked to care for both.
Because the fetal personhood bill does not protect the doctors, nurses and other people who perform abortions, even if the procedure is otherwise legal. Taken in context, that looming threat is clearly a large portion of the intention behind this bill.
Proclaiming that fetuses are people, even at very early stages of pregnancy, would — as Rep. Kristen Arrington, D-Orlando, pointed out — likely have one immediate and potentially deadly consequence for all people capable of giving birth in Florida. In other states that have passed such radical legislation, obstetricians are fleeing: “We would be losing the best and the brightest, and creating maternity deserts,” Arrington said.
It seems to be no coincidence that this legislation so quickly follows Muniz’s remarks. It sends a clear message that many Florida lawmakers don’t care about a woman’s freedom to choose her own reproductive fate — that they do not care whether a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, whether a woman’s health is at risk, whether the fetus would ever be viable outside the womb. In fact, this step could force brutal choices, including the potential strain of litigation, upon a woman who wants to carry her pregnancy to term but has to balance her own body’s needs against the well-being of the unborn child.
That’s why Floridians should go on the defence, immediately and vociferously. Adopting this legislation would put Florida dangerously close to a society where teachers, scientists, attorneys, and parents of school-aged children live under the threat of being reduced to mere vessels for pregnancies, whether or not those pregnancies are intentional or wanted.We hope other lawmakers see the dangers here. That they — like Rep. Paula Stark, R-St. Cloud — see the threat that’s rising behind seemingly mild legislation. In Wednesday’s meeting, Stark voted yes. But if the legislation reaches the floor in its current form, she said, that would change. “This is just way too over-broad,” she said.
We believe Stark will keep her word; she’s been willing to buck the party line to defend reproductive freedom before. But unlike her, we don’t see a way to fix this legislation. Any step in this direction would be a step too far, and most Floridians are capable of figuring that out.