Provides equal Medicare for infants born-alive as a result of abortion procedure/natural delivery with violations subject to criminal penalties for medical personnel/loss of license/civil action for damages.
S0277 would create a new chapter in Rhode Island’s health and safety laws called the “Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.” The bill declares that any infant who shows signs of life after an attempted abortion is a legal person under state law and must receive medically appropriate and reasonable life-saving or life-sustaining care. It defines “born-alive” broadly to include any infant completely expelled or extracted from the mother who shows evidence of life, such as breathing, heartbeat, umbilical cord pulsation, or movement, regardless of gestational age or whether the birth followed natural labor, cesarean delivery, or induced abortion.
The bill imposes affirmative duties on physicians and other health care providers to provide immediate care to a born-alive infant, including calling 911 and transferring the infant to a hospital when a live birth occurs outside a hospital. It also prohibits denying nourishment or medically appropriate care to such infants, bars their use in research except to preserve life or health, and provides that parents may refuse non-medically necessary treatment. If the mother and, if applicable, the husband previously stated in writing that they do not want to keep the infant if a live birth occurs, the infant would become a ward of the Department of Children, Youth and Families.
The bill would significantly affect Rhode Island law by adding criminal, civil, and professional discipline consequences for noncompliance. A physician, nurse, or other health care provider who intentionally, knowingly, or negligently fails to provide required care could face felony penalties of up to 10 years in prison and/or a $25,000 fine. The bill also creates a private right of action for compensatory and punitive damages, allows wrongful death claims, and authorizes automatic license suspension for at least one year following conviction. It states that it does not alter existing abortion law, but it would add a separate enforcement framework for infants born alive during abortion procedures.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly protective of born-alive infants and supportive of mandatory medical intervention. The findings emphasize the state’s interest in protecting human life and assert that born-alive infants should receive the same legal and medical protections as other newborns. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate in the supplied materials.
The main point of contention inherent in the bill is its relationship to abortion rights and medical practice. Supporters would likely view it as a child-protection measure ensuring care for any infant who survives an abortion attempt, while opponents may see it as an anti-abortion measure that could create criminal liability for clinicians and potentially interfere with medical judgment in emergencies. The bill’s broad definitions, negligence standard, and mandatory reporting/transfer requirements are likely to be the most debated provisions.
S0277 would add a new chapter to Title 23 of the Rhode Island General Laws governing born-alive infants, creating mandatory care obligations for health care providers and new enforcement mechanisms. It would expose providers to felony criminal penalties, civil damages, professional discipline, and license suspension for failing to provide medically appropriate care to a born-alive infant, while also directing custody to DCYF in certain prewritten noncustody situations. The bill would not expressly change the state’s abortion statutes, but it would create a parallel legal regime affecting hospitals, clinics, physicians, nurses, and other licensed health care personnel involved in abortion care and neonatal emergency response.
The bill is framed in strongly protective, pro-life terms and is presented as a measure to ensure that any infant born alive receives immediate medical care. The legislative findings and operative provisions show clear support for intervention and accountability, with no countervailing language in the provided materials. Because no committee transcript or vote record was supplied, there is no direct evidence of bipartisan support or opposition in the record provided, but the subject matter suggests a highly polarized policy debate.
The central controversy is whether the bill is a narrow born-alive protection measure or a broader abortion-related restriction. Supporters are likely to emphasize that it applies only after a live birth and requires ordinary medical care, while opponents may argue that the bill could criminalize clinicians, impose vague negligence standards, and create pressure in abortion-related medical emergencies. Additional points of contention include the felony penalties, automatic license suspension, the requirement to call 911 and transfer the infant, and the provision allowing intervention by sponsoring legislators if the law is challenged.