Requires a health care practitioner to exercise the proper degree of care to preserve the health and life of a child born alive, regardless of whether the birth was the result of an induced abortion.
HB 4087 would create Oregon’s “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act” and require a health care practitioner present at the birth of a child who is born alive to use the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the child’s life and health that would be provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age. The bill applies regardless of whether the birth followed natural labor, cesarean section, or an induced abortion. If the child is not born in a hospital, the practitioner must ensure immediate transport and admission to a hospital; if the birth occurs in a hospital, the practitioner must continue providing the required care.
The measure also defines “born alive,” “abortion,” and “health care practitioner,” and states that terms such as “person,” “human being,” “child,” and “individual” include an infant born alive for purposes of interpreting Oregon statutes, rules, and agency regulations. It further requires health care practitioners and certain clinic employees who know of a violation to report it to state law enforcement. Intentional or reckless failure to comply would be treated as unprofessional conduct and could trigger disciplinary action by the Oregon Medical Board under ORS 677.190 and ORS 678.111.
HB 4087 would also create private and public enforcement mechanisms. A person whose pregnancy resulted in a child born alive, or the person responsible for the fertilization, could sue for actual and punitive damages if lifesaving care was not provided, and several parties including the Attorney General and a prosecuting attorney could seek injunctive relief. The bill includes attorney fee provisions for prevailing plaintiffs and defendants in frivolous bad-faith cases, and it allows courts to protect the anonymity of the pregnant person in related proceedings by sealing records and using pseudonyms where appropriate.
In terms of state law impact, the bill amends ORS 677.190 to add violation of the born-alive care requirements as a basis for medical board discipline. It would therefore expand Oregon’s professional conduct rules for licensed practitioners and create new civil exposure, reporting duties, and confidentiality procedures tied to born-alive cases. The bill also expressly says it does not affirm, deny, expand, or limit legal status or rights before birth.
The general sentiment reflected in the available legislative history is negative or at least insufficient to advance the bill: a House motion to withdraw it from committee failed on a 21-32 vote, and the bill was left in committee upon adjournment. With no committee transcript available, the main visible divide is between supporters who favor explicit born-alive protections and opponents who likely object to the bill’s abortion-related framing, enforcement provisions, and potential effects on reproductive health care practice.
HB 4087 would amend Oregon medical discipline law by adding a new ground for unprofessional conduct and board discipline for intentional or reckless failure to provide lifesaving care to a child born alive. It would also create new civil causes of action, mandatory reporting obligations, and court-authorized anonymity protections in related cases, while clarifying statutory interpretation of terms like “person” and “child” to include infants born alive. The bill would affect health care practitioners, clinics, the Oregon Medical Board, prosecutors, the Attorney General, and parties to born-alive litigation.
The bill appears to have faced significant resistance in the House, as shown by the failed 21-32 motion to withdraw it from committee and its final status of being left in committee upon adjournment. With no transcript available, the recorded vote suggests the measure did not have enough support to move forward, while its sponsors and supporters likely viewed it as a child-protection and medical-accountability measure.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s application to births following induced abortion, the creation of civil liability and punitive damages, mandatory reporting to law enforcement, and the expansion of medical board discipline. Supporters would emphasize requiring lifesaving care for infants born alive and protecting anonymity in sensitive cases, while opponents would likely argue that the bill could chill lawful reproductive health care, invite litigation, and create ambiguity or overreach in medical decision-making and enforcement.