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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT