Provides duties/obligations of medical personnel to born-alive infants resulting from an abortion punishable as a felony along with a civil action for compensatory/punitive damages/automatic one year license suspension.
Summary
H5296 creates a new chapter in Rhode Island’s health and safety laws called the “Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.” It declares that if an attempted abortion results in a live birth, the infant is to be treated as a legal person under state law and must receive medically appropriate and reasonable life-saving or life-sustaining care. The bill defines “born-alive,” “infant,” “physician,” and related terms, and it sets out duties for physicians and other healthcare providers to provide immediate care, arrange emergency transfer when needed, and not deny nourishment or necessary treatment to a born-alive infant.
The bill also addresses custody, research, and documentation. If parents had previously stated in writing that they do not wish to keep the infant in the event of a live birth, the infant would become a ward of the Department of Children, Youth and Families. The measure prohibits using a born-alive infant for scientific research or experimentation except as necessary to protect the infant’s life or health, and it requires birth and death certificates to be issued as appropriate. The act is intended to take effect immediately upon passage.
Impact
If enacted, H5296 would add a new statutory chapter to Title 23 and impose specific legal duties on physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers when an infant is born alive during or after an attempted abortion. It would create felony penalties of up to 10 years in prison and/or a $25,000 fine for intentional, knowing, or negligent failures to provide required care, and it would also authorize civil damages actions and professional discipline, including an automatic one-year license suspension upon conviction. The bill would also affect child welfare procedures by directing that certain born-alive infants become wards of DCYF, and it would require issuance of vital records consistent with the infant’s status.
Sentiment
The bill text and caption indicate a strongly protective, anti-neglect framing centered on born-alive infants, and the measure appears designed to ensure immediate medical intervention in rare abortion-related live-birth situations. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to assess beyond the bill’s stated purpose and enforcement structure. Based on the language, supporters would likely view it as a child-protection and medical-accountability measure, while opponents would likely see it as part of the broader abortion policy debate.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s application in abortion-related medical settings and its criminal and civil penalties for healthcare providers. Supporters would emphasize that the bill does not alter abortion law generally and only applies when a live birth occurs, while critics may argue that the definitions, mandatory care requirements, and felony/negligence standard could chill medical decision-making or overlap with existing medical standards and abortion rights. The provision allowing legislative intervention in constitutional challenges also suggests the bill anticipates legal dispute.