SB 384 would create Oregon’s “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” and impose duties on health care practitioners when an abortion or attempted abortion results in a child born alive. The bill requires the practitioner present to use the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the child’s life and health that would be used for any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and to ensure transport to a hospital if the birth did not occur in a hospital. It also requires reporting of violations to state law enforcement by practitioners or clinic employees who know of a breach.
The measure further defines “born alive” and amends Oregon’s general statutory definition of “individual” to include an infant born alive at any stage of development. It states that nothing in the act changes the legal status of a fetus before birth, but it creates new enforcement mechanisms for post-birth care after abortion, including a Class C felony for knowingly or recklessly failing to meet the required standard of care, with a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, a $125,000 fine, or both. The bill also authorizes a civil action by the person whose pregnancy was terminated or attempted to be terminated, with mandatory attorney fee awards for prevailing parties and provisions allowing courts to protect a plaintiff’s identity.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it adds new criminal, civil, and definitional provisions to Oregon law related to abortion and newborn care. It would create a new statutory duty for medical professionals, establish mandatory reporting requirements, and expand the definition of “individual” in ORS 174.100 to include born-alive infants. It would also apply only to abortions or attempted abortions occurring on or after the effective date.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided material, there is no documented legislative debate or voting pattern to assess. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a child-protection and medical-accountability bill, but it is also likely to be controversial because it directly regulates abortion-related care and creates felony and civil liability for practitioners. The main point of contention would likely be whether the bill is necessary to protect infants born alive after abortion attempts or whether it imposes punitive requirements that could affect abortion providers and medical practice.
Impact
SB 384 would amend Oregon’s statutory definitions and create new provisions governing the care of infants born alive after an abortion or attempted abortion. It would impose a legal duty on health care practitioners, require reporting of violations, create a Class C felony for knowing or reckless noncompliance, authorize civil lawsuits with attorney fees, and expand ORS 174.100’s definition of “individual” to include born-alive infants. The bill would affect abortion providers, clinic employees, health care practitioners, and courts handling related criminal and civil actions.
Sentiment
No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded public sentiment in the materials. From the bill text, the measure is clearly intended to be protective of infants born alive and to hold providers accountable, suggesting support from sponsors who favor stronger post-birth safeguards. At the same time, the criminal and civil penalties indicate the bill would likely draw opposition from abortion-rights advocates and some medical stakeholders who may view it as punitive or duplicative of existing medical standards.
Contention
The central contention is whether the bill is a necessary safeguard for infants born alive after abortion attempts or an overbroad restriction on abortion care. Supporters would likely emphasize the duty to preserve life, mandatory hospital transfer, and accountability for failures to provide care. Opponents would likely focus on the felony penalty, private right of action, mandatory reporting, and the bill’s potential to chill medical decision-making or create legal exposure for practitioners. The definition of “born alive” and the amendment to the general definition of “individual” may also be disputed as having broader legal implications beyond the bill’s stated purpose.