Approach to the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act passed by the House involves a complex of simple common sense questions, for none of which I have an answer.
The Born Alive Survivors Protection Act passed by our House has been attacked as an infringement on choice of women and an endangerment to the products of conception. Putting aside the more complicated issue of the minority of pregnancies that are induced by rape or incest, or with unsupportable fetal deformity, some aspects of this controversy are subject to questions of common sense, the basis of our traditions of common law.
The underlying event is an abortion, the intended ending of a potential human life. Most of these are due to a woman's decision not to have a child due to economic incapacity or inconvenience or perceived lack of options for support. Outside of the examples noted above, the pregnancy occurred as a consequence of irresponsible sexual behavior. The variabilities of each individual's situation determine the timing of the unwanted pregnancy's ending. Coincident with this are advances in medical practice that grant survivability of a delivered fetus ever earlier in a pregnancy. The intersection and overlap of these two processes create the new controversy.
Hypothetically and in reality, delivery of an undesired fetus is forced by pharmaceutical, physical, or chemical means, but that late-stage fetus may demonstrate signs of life. This is basically an inadvertently induced birth, an "unsuccessful" abortion. It occurs in a facility specifically designed to handle dead products of conception, not those demonstrating signs of life. To minimize semantic arguments, I shall refer to this potentially alive being as the "inadvertent born alive" (IBA) or a "living". Likewise, we will refer to the person from whose womb the inadvertent born alive was removed as the pregnancy carrier (PC), and the sperm donor as the pregnancy inducer (PI).
Historically a medical duty exists to preserve life whenever possible unless the wishes of the person (or a person holding power of attorney for healthcare for a legally judged incompetent) dictates otherwise.
Does the pregnancy carrier automatically assume this legal status over a living that was intended to be delivered dead but found to be living?
Current opinion seems to hold that the developing fetus in utero is the absolute property of the pregnancy carrier, therefore disposable at that person's direction unless that PC is adjudged incompetent.
When intentionally aborted but alive, is the now IBA still merely property of the pregnancy carrier? Does the historical medical duty now apply to the IBA? Is the PC's direction for the living now free of her bodily support to be killed or allowed a natural death through lack of medical support a moral, ethical, medical, and legally valid decision? Should this rare but foreseeable decision be made prior to the abortion?
When is a living outside the womb of its pregnancy carrier no longer chattel property of that person? Do parental rights exist when the PC had clearly not intended to be a parent?
Given that the pregnancy carrier made the informed consent and decision not to give birth to a living child, has she renounced any agency or power over that IBA?
Was not making absolutely sure that the fetus being aborted was not dead prior to removal from the PC a violation of this informed consent, a kind of malpractice?
The father, the PI of the unborn presumably has abandoned all interest in and responsibility for the unborn, and thus has no right of decision as to the treatment or failure to treat the inadvertent born alive, or for its future. Do parental rights suddenly accrue to the PI when confronted with an IBA "free" of the PC?
Why does the new law's requirement that medical practitioners attending the inadvertently born-alive take all medical actions possible under the circumstances including transferring the IBA to hospital "place the inadvertently born alive at greater risk", as many lawmakers and commentators have insisted? Given that the underlying process was intended to assure the death of the inadvertently born alive, this seems a self-contradictory argument.
As above, unless specifically ordered in a legally binding manner, medical practitioners at all levels are required by oath, ethics, and often law to do all possible to sustain life. Given that life support for newborns is not generally intended to be available at abortion clinics, why is providing Good Samaritan type medical care to the IBA and providing medical transport to a higher level of care inappropriate?
Under the above circumstances, a few of the inadvertently born alive may survive. What might be done with these now medically incompetent but living beings?
Does the pregnancy carrier retain decision power and rights over that now living individual?
If the pregnancy carrier does retain decisive property rights and/or automatic power of attorney for healthcare over the inadvertent born alive, could not the whole controversy be avoided by having all pregnancy carriers who intend and undergo abortion sign the equivalent of California's POLST, or Physician Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment, which places specific limits on medical practitioners with force of law and would therefore empower Allowing Natural Death, now prevalent amongst hospice patients?
Each of the above concerns is worthy of long discussion by itself. Let us go beyond political slogans and ideologies and discuss and decide based solely on our shared humanity and respect for all individuals.