SB213 creates a new chapter in the Hawaii Revised Statutes titled the "abortion survivors protection act" to require that any infant born alive, including one born during an attempted abortion, be treated as a legal person entitled to medically appropriate and reasonable life-saving and life-sustaining care. The bill defines key terms such as "born alive," "infant," "healthcare provider," and "unborn child," and directs physicians and other providers to take immediate steps to preserve the life and health of a live-born infant. It also requires reporting of noncompliance to law enforcement and bars the use of a born-alive infant for research or experimentation except as needed to protect the infant's life and health.
The bill establishes a range of enforcement mechanisms. It creates criminal penalties for intentionally killing a born-alive infant, recklessly failing to provide appropriate care when death results, concealing the corpse of an infant to obscure whether the child was born alive, and knowingly violating the research prohibition. It also authorizes civil actions by the woman upon whom the abortion was performed or attempted, including money damages, punitive damages, treble damages tied to the abortion cost, and attorney's fees, while shielding the woman from damages except in limited frivolous-suit circumstances. In addition, the bill makes noncompliance grounds for professional discipline, including suspension or revocation of medical and nursing licenses.
SB213 would also amend existing licensing and criminal statutes, including the physician and nurse disciplinary provisions in chapters 453 and 457 and the infant corpse-concealment statute in section 709-901, to incorporate the new born-alive rules. The bill states that it does not alter existing abortion law, does not restrict a woman's right to obtain an abortion under applicable law, and does not create a right to abortion, but it would add new duties and penalties for providers when a live birth occurs after an attempted abortion. As drafted, it would expand state law enforcement and professional oversight in this narrow post-abortion context.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly protective of born-alive infants and strongly critical of any failure to provide care after a live birth following an abortion attempt. The findings section frames the measure as necessary to prevent denial of life-saving treatment and to ensure legal recognition of the infant as a person. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of support, opposition, or amendments from legislative discussion.
The main points of contention likely concern abortion policy, provider liability, and the scope of the bill's definitions and penalties. Supporters would emphasize infant protection, mandatory care, and accountability for medical providers; opponents may view the measure as duplicative of existing law, as an indirect restriction on abortion care, or as creating chilling effects through criminal, civil, and licensing penalties. The bill also raises potential debate over the definition of "born alive," the mandatory reporting requirement, and whether the civil remedy and professional discipline provisions could affect hospital and clinic practice.
SB213 would add a new chapter to the Hawaii Revised Statutes imposing affirmative duties on physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers to provide medically appropriate care to any infant born alive, including after an attempted abortion. It would also amend physician and nurse licensing statutes to make violations of the new chapter grounds for discipline, and it would revise the infant corpse-concealment statute so that a surviving infant from an attempted abortion is treated as a newborn child for purposes of that offense. The bill creates new criminal, civil, and professional consequences for noncompliance, while expressly stating that it does not change existing abortion rights or standards of care outside the born-alive context.
The bill is framed in highly protective, pro-enforcement terms, with findings emphasizing the State's interest in protecting human life and preventing denial of care to infants who survive abortion attempts. Because no committee testimony or votes are available, the record provided does not show measured legislative support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill's tone is assertive and morally charged, suggesting a strong pro-life orientation and a focus on accountability for providers.
The likely areas of contention are whether the bill is necessary given existing law, whether its definitions and penalties are overly broad, and whether it could burden abortion providers or create confusion in emergency medical settings. Supporters would likely focus on the duty to provide care to any live-born infant and the need for criminal and professional penalties. Critics would likely object to the bill's abortion-related framing, the mandatory reporting requirement, the possibility of second-degree murder or manslaughter charges, and the civil cause of action, arguing these provisions could have a chilling effect on lawful medical care. The bill also explicitly preserves parental refusal of non-necessary treatment, which may be a point of clarification rather than dispute.