FREE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TO S.B. 1457
(Reference to House engrossed Senate bill)
Page 1, line 11, after "against" insert ":
1. A person who performs in vitro fertilization procedures as authorized under the laws of this state.
2."
Line 25, after "sought" insert "solely"
Line 27, strike "any" insert "either"
Page 2, line 23, strike "severe fetal abnormality" insert "lethal fetal condition"
Line 24, after the comma strike remainder of line
Strike lines 25 and 26, insert ""lethal fetal condition" has the same meaning prescribed in section 36-2158."
Page 20, after line 43 insert:
"Sec. 15. Legislative findings and intent
The Legislature finds that prohibiting persons from performing abortions knowing that the abortion is sought because of a genetic abnormality of the child advances at least three compelling state interests. First, this act protects the disability community from discriminatory abortions, including for example Down-syndrome-selective abortions. The Legislature finds that in the United States and abroad fetuses with Down syndrome are disproportionately targeted for abortions, with between 61 percent and 91 percent choosing abortion when it is discovered on a prenatal test. See Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 1780, 1790-91 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring). The Legislature intends to send an unambiguous message that children with genetic abnormalities, whether born or unborn, are equal in dignity and value to their peers without genetic abnormalities, born or unborn. Second, this act protects against coercive health care practices that encourage selective abortions of persons with genetic abnormalities. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that empirical reports from parents of children with Down syndrome attest that their doctors explicitly encouraged abortion or emphasized the challenges of raising children with Down syndrome, and there is medical literature to that effect. See Preterm-Cleveland v. McCloud, No. 18-3329, __ F.3d __, 2021 WL 1377279, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 13, 2021) (citing David A. Savitz, How Far Can Prenatal Screening Go in Preventing Birth Defects, 152 J. of Pediatrics 3, 3 (2008) (arguing that "selective pregnancy terminations and reduced birth prevalence [of Down syndrome is] a desirable and attainable goal")). Third, this act protects the integrity and ethics of the medical profession by preventing doctors from becoming witting participants in genetic-abnormality-selective abortions. The Legislature finds that an industry that is associated with the view that some lives or potential lives are worth more than others is less likely to earn or retain the public's trust. All three of these purposes are also present for the similar prohibition in Arizona law on performing abortions knowing that the abortion is sought based on the sex or race of the child or the race of a parent of that child. The Legislature incorporates into its findings the statistics recently provided by this state and other states to the Supreme Court of the United States. See Brief of the States of Wisconsin et al. at pages 17-25, Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc., No. 18-483, 2018 WL 6042853, available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-483/72184/20181115122354603_18-483%20Brief%20of%20States%20of%20Wisconsin%20et%20al%20Supporting%20Petitioners.pdf."
Renumber to conform
Amend title to conform