RICHMOND, Va. — “Fetal personhood” has emerged as the next step of the anti-abortion movement. By amending state constitutions or passing new laws, a number of state legislatures across the country are attempting to give fetuses the rights and protections of any human under the law. Legislation has been proposed in at least 13 states, as well as at the federal level. The states include Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia. While language differs from state to state, the idea remains the same: a fetus is redefined as an “unborn child” and will be considered human for legal purposes. In addition to “fetal personhood” bills, other states are considering legislation that identifies a fetus as an “unborn child” or uses language that indirectly personifies a fetus, including criminalizing abortion as assault or murder, or requiring child support payments beginning at conception. Among those states: Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and South Carolina. While the reality of these bills becoming law is relatively low, they come as part of a wave of legislation to further restrict abortion access following the Dobbs decision from the Supreme Court in June 2022. The decision overturned Roe v. Wade which had given constitutional protections to abortion access. National organizations, such as the National Association of Christian Lawmakers (NACL), have pushed these “personhood” bills as well as other anti-abortion legislation in legislatures nationwide. The NACL has had direct influence on legislation in states like Missouri. Jason Rapert, founder and president of NACL, said that the faith-based organization’s first piece of model legislation was the Heartbeat Act, which outlaws abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected. Following the adoption of this legislation in numerous states and the Dobbs decision, the NACL shifted its focus to life at conception legislation. “In this country, up until 1973, it was well understood that those babies were human beings … It's inherent as a part of many of these bills, because it is protecting those lives,” Rapert said. But while anti-abortion advocates say these bills would protect the “unborn,” abortion rights advocates say that these “personhood” bills would not be beneficial to pregnant people. Taylor Morton, a lobbyist and policy analyst for Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, said that anti-abortion bills are especially prevalent this legislative session. “The effort to establish “fetal personhood” is a disingenuous tactic used by those who oppose comprehensive sexual, reproductive healthcare,” Morton said. “It elevates the rights of a fetus to be equivalent, or even superior, to those of a pregnant person.” Sometimes these bills can be deceiving and seem to be promoted as being beneficial to women, Morton said. “On the surface, these bills really appear to be a means of supporting pregnant people and families,” Morton said. “But if you look closer, the bills are nothing more than an attempt to further an anti-abortion agenda by codifying that fetal personhood language.” Kansas has seen many bills that would make abortion more difficult to access despite voters rejecting an amendment in 2022 that would have said there was no right to an abortion in the state. Senate bill 425 and House bill 2653, in Kansas would establish an unborn fetus as eligible for child support. Bill 2653 passed through the House 83-40, with mostly Republican support, at the end of March. The bill was also introduced and received in the Senate, which referred it to the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs. Because the legislature is taking its April hiatus from bill hearings, the bill will not pass through the committee and on to the Senate during this legislative session. Sen. Ethan Corson, D-Prairie Village, said that bills are not labeled as “fetal personhood” bills because they would be met with more resistance. “The concept is embedded in a different, or less clear purpose,” Corson said. He said he could see these types of bills potentially leading to limited abortion access. “If you say that an unborn fetus has the same legal rights as a pregnant person, then that calls into question existing laws around reproductive healthcare and access to abortion,” Corson said. In Florida, the state Supreme Court – five of the seven justices were appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis – ruled to allow a proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion rights on November’s general election ballot. The same day, the court also ruled that the state’s newly enacted ban on abortions after six weeks can take effect May 1. This year the state’s legislature considered, but did not pass, a bill that would effectively ban all abortions unless a mother’s life was in danger. Similar to so-called “fetal personhood” proposals in other states, the bill declared that, “a person exists from the moment of fertilization,” and called legal abortions “a crime against humanity.” The “fetal personhood” bill, introduced by Republican Reps. David Borrero of Doral and Mike Beltran of Apollo Beach, languished in committees without a hearing or formal vote. The ban on abortions after six weeks, before many women realize they are pregnant, includes an exception to save the life of the mother. Abortions for pregnancies involving rape or incest would be allowed until 15 weeks of pregnancy, as long as a woman provides documentation, such as a restraining order or police report. But on the same day, in another case, the Florida Supreme Court agreed to allow voters in November to decide whether to guarantee abortion rights in the state, effectively overturning both the 15- and six-week abortion bans if 60% of voters approve under a new constitutional amendment. Republicans have moved quickly to campaign against the abortion vote already, calling the amendment deceptively written and an “extreme, unlimited abortion” plan. The amendment would guarantee women the right to abortions before fetal viability, generally recognized around 24 weeks. In Missouri, efforts to personify fetuses have been seen last legislative session and this session. Sen. Mike Moon, R-Ash Grove, and Rep. Brian Seitz, R-Branson, have proposed similar bills that would grant a fetus the same rights and privileges of any Missouri resident, beginning at conception. More indirect efforts to establish “personhood” have included a bill from Rep. Raychel Proudie, R-Ferguson, that allows child support to be requested beginning at six weeks from conception. Reps. Michael Burton, D-Lakeshire, and Dean Van Shoiack, R-Savannah, have proposed identical bills that would prevent “unborn children” from being considered employees for civil action purposes. The bill from Van Shoiack is the only one that has seen any traction this session, the rest have been stuck in committees or waiting to be referred to a committee. Van Shoiack’s bill was passed out of committee and is awaiting floor action. Simultaneously, initiative petition acts have picked up steam this year – both to ban abortion and to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. With abortion-related initiative petition efforts growing, the Missouri legislature has also made progress in the fight to limit the ability of Missourians to change the state constitution. Progress has been slowed by Democratic filibusters and disagreements over “ballot candy.” In this case, it refers to provisions that state that anyone who isn’t a Missouri resident and a U.S. citizen is barred from voting on constitutional amendments and that constitutional amendments funded or sponsored by governments of foreign countries or foreign political parties are unlawful. This is referred to as “ballot candy” because these provisions already exist in federal law. Rapert of NACL, the organization promoting fetal person legislation, said the next step will be working to outlaw abortion pills. In Virginia, which is surrounded by several states where abortion is entirely illegal or severely restricted and has become a refuge for those seeking abortions in the South, lawmakers efforted to protect access to contraceptives. Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin amended bills to codify such access and provide coverage through health insurance. Senate Bill 237 and House Bill 609 ensured health care providers the right to provide contraceptives and contraception-related information and allowed enforcement of the provisions through the attorney general’s office. Youngkin’s changes make the bills a public policy “suggestion” rather than law, according to the bill’s Senate patron. The governor “continues to support access to contraception while ensuring the protection of constitutional rights,” Youngkin’s press secretary, Christian Martinez, recently stated to Bloomberg News. The governor’s amendment to the health insurance bill allows organizations to opt out of coverage based on religious and ethical beliefs. Lawmakers voted to reject his suggestion. Reporters Rylie Oswald Al-Awhad of the KU Statehouse Wire Service, Serra Sowers of Fresh Take Florida and Emily Richardson of VCU Capital News Service contributed to this report. Murphy reports for the Missouri News network.
READ MORE
