Republican lawmakers in Florida’s House of Representatives are considering a bill that would let parents seek monetary damages in the wrongful death of an “unborn child.”
It also prohibits lawsuits against the mother in the event of an “unborn child” wrongful death and allows parents to recover damages if negligence or intentional harm resulted in that death.
“This bill is about the value that a life of a child has to his or her parents and families,” said bill sponsor, state Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka (R-Fort Myers) in the House Civil Justice Subcommittee meeting on Jan. 18.
“Florida is only one of six states in our country that does not permit the civil action in the case of the wrongful death of an unborn child. This bill aligns Florida with the majority of the states by allowing parents of an unborn child to seek monetary damages from the person who committed a wrongful act and is responsible for that child’s death,” she said.
The bill does not give a definition for “unborn child.”
Despite receiving criticism from abortion advocates in their public testimony against HB 651, Ms. Persons-Mulicka pushed back against claims tying the law to abortion.
“This is not about abortion. And I’m trying very hard to not take offense that people are trying to make it about abortion,” she said.
Ms. Persons-Mulicka added, “Let’s have an honest conversation and call a spade a spade. They’re not talking about lawful abortion. In a lawful abortion, what is the wrongful act that would be caught under this statute? They’re worried about illegal abortions.”
State Rep. Ashely Gantt (D-Miami) filed an amendment to HB 651 with the intention of protecting abortion care providers from wrongful death suits, but it failed on party lines with 12 votes against and five votes in support.
During public testimony, a representative from Planned Parenthood voiced opposition to HB 651, while a spokesman for the Christian Family Coalition voiced his support.
Bonnie Patterson-James of Women’s Voices of Southwest Florida admonished the proposed bill.
“When will you stop your overreach into the private lives of your constituents?” she said. “Your duty is to protect the rights of the citizens of Florida, and fetuses do not pay taxes, nor do they vote.”
State Rep. Mike Beltran (R-Apollo Beach) admonished Ms. Patterson-James while voicing his support for the bill.
“And you’ve said that somebody who doesn’t pay taxes and doesn’t vote is not entitled to the protections of the law. I think that’s completely backward.
“Actually, we give more rights to minors or to people who are otherwise vulnerable or to the needy. We give more rights and more protections to them because they need it,” he said.
Others, including Ms. Gantt, questioned the lack of a clear definition of “unborn child” and the legal issues it raises when parents decide to use in vitro fertilization (IVF).
“If the bill doesn’t have a definition of an unborn child, what guidance would the court have in order to dismiss the case if it does involve an embryo?
“I think, as we see IVF become more accessible and different issues with fertility become more prevalent, we see nuances come up in in case law or in cases. So what guidance would the court have?” she said.
Mr. Beltran said there are situations where parents could lose viable embryos from mishandling or poor storage practices after spending thousands of dollars for the procedure. He said they need protection as well.
But abortion concerns and embryos were not the only issues brought up in debate on Jan. 18.
Some argued that HB 651 is too vague in its current form.
“With the vagueness of this bill, we’re looking at a situation where somebody who maybe doesn’t even know they’re pregnant yet could be served food that maybe had pineapple in it by a friend, suffer a miscarriage, and turn around and try to bring civil action against that person,” said Tsi Day Smyth of Women’s Voices of Southwest Florida.
“There are great parts of this bill. But the vagueness is incredibly dangerous, and it cannot possibly be passed the way it’s currently written.”
She also argued the bill is too “vague” in not defining an “unborn child,” and suggested that a fetus should not be considered an “unborn child” until it reaches the point of viability.
Ms. Gantt also called the bill “vague” and questioned why there was no statute of limitations offered. She also feared situations where “advocacy groups [would be] seeking out potential fathers suing different abortion care providers because that’s also very much a real possibility.”
The bill ultimately passed through the committee on party lines with 12 votes of support and five votes against.
State Rep. Fiona McFarland (R-Sarasota) said she would support HB 651 in part because of the greater numbers of pregnant women in the workforce.
“Every time I drove back and forth between Sarasota, where I represented [and the state capital], I was terrified that I was going to get in a car accident. Not my own life, but my baby’s life,” she said.
“There are so many more women who worked throughout their pregnancy than there were whenever this portion of the statute was conceived of. Let’s protect those women and their families as they work in the world.”
In her closing statement, Ms. Persons-Mulicka said that the concerns she shared with Ms. McFarland contributed to the creation of the law.
“I thought through the same scenario last session. I was pregnant, driving back and forth. If I was in a terrible car accident due to the wrongful act or negligence of someone else, and I lost my child, [the] child I talked to every day and cared for in my womb … I wouldn’t be able to go after damages,” under the current laws, she said.
“To me, that’s a wrong and a travesty in our statutes. It’s inconsistent with the other laws on the books. It’s inconsistent where the majority of the country is on this issue in valuing that life and giving that right to the parents.”
