ILNews

Coverage for unborn children up in air

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lawmakers failed to act on a bill that would have amended Indiana's child wrongful death statute to cover unborn children, thus defeating it for this legislative session in its current form.

Authored by Sen. Vaneta Becker, R-Evansville, Senate Bill 341 would have expanded the state statute on civil wrongful death claims to include fetuses that otherwise would have been considered "viable," or about the seven-month stage of pregnancy.

Becker has repeatedly sought this change since 2002, when the Indiana Supreme Court decided Bolin v. Wingert, 764 N.E. 2d 201 (Ind. 2002), and changed the scope of the state's Child Wrongful Death Act as it applies to unborn children. Justices determined that a 10-week-old fetus didn't fit the definition of "child" because the legislature that drafted the statute in 1881 only intended for babies born alive to be covered.

With this 2009 legislation, the Senate had voted 47-2 in favor of it in February and the bill made it through committee on the House side, but then it stalled before the full House when an amendment attempted to change its scope. The original bill would have covered any "viable" fetuses, but three separate amendments in recent weeks all pushed to include any "child in utero" - defined as a fetus at any stage of development who is carried in the womb. Those offering amendments were Sens. Tim Brown, R-Crawfordsville; Wes Culver, R-Goshen; and David Yarde, R-Garrett. Yarde also offered changes to include abortion language such as what isn't covered and what doctors must inform women about those procedures.

None of those senators' proposed changes were adopted, and the House sponsors Reps. Peggy Welch, D-Bloomington, and Trent VanHaaften, D-Mt. Vernon, withdrew the bill three times, most recently on Tuesday. SB 341 wasn't on the calendar for the deadline day Wednesday and is effectively dead in its current form. Neither Becker, Welch, nor VanHaaften could be immediately reached today for comment on the legislation.

However, that inaction comes as the General Assembly is passing similar language relating to criminal law coverage of unborn children. On April 6, the House voted 96-0 in favor of Senate Bill 236 increasing the penalty for fetal homicide relating to unborn children at any stage of development. That bill enhances the criminal feticide penalty from the current two- to six-year term to a six- to 20-year penalty, and also allows for an additional six- to 20-year prison term for anyone convicted of murder or attempted murder if they cause pregnancy loss. That bill has returned to the Senate for considerations of an amendment replacing references to the death of a child in utero with new language referring to the termination of a human pregnancy, matching existing language in the state's feticide law.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT