8mm
Posted on 07/14/2008 8:42:17 PM PDT by seanrobins
Illinois Senate Bill 1093 Introduced February 22, 2001 Amended in Judiciary Committee March 27, 2001 Passed by the state Senate on March 30, 2001 - - - - - 92_SB1093eng
SB1093 Engrossed LRB9207891WHtm
1 AN ACT concerning abortion.
2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:
4 Section 5. The Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 is amended
5 by changing Section 6 as follows:
6 (720 ILCS 510/6) (from Ch. 38, par. 81-26)
7 Sec. 6. (1) (a) Any physician who intentionally performs
8 an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the
9 particular facts of the case before him, there is a
10 reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus
11 outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall
12 utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to
13 be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to
14 preserve the life and health of the fetus.
15 (b) The physician shall certify in writing, on a form
16 prescribed by the Department under Section 10 of this Act,
17 the available methods considered and the reasons for choosing
18 the method employed.
19 (c) Any physician who intentionally, knowingly, or
20 recklessly violates the provisions of Section 6(1)(a) commits
21 a Class 3 felony.
22 (2) (a) No abortion shall be performed or induced when
23 the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician
24 other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion
25 who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care
26 for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. No
27 abortion procedure which, in the medical judgment of the
28 attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting
29 in a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in
30 attendance a physician other than the physician performing or
31 inducing the abortion who shall assess the child's viability
SB1093 Engrossed -2- LRB9207891WHtm
1 and provide medical care for the child. These requirements
2 This requirement shall not apply when, in the medical
3 judgment of the physician performing or inducing the abortion
4 based on the particular facts of the case before him, there
5 exists a medical emergency; in such a case, the physician
6 shall describe the basis of this judgment on the form
7 prescribed by Section 10 of this Act. In any event, a
8 physician inducing or performing an abortion which results in
9 a live born child shall provide for the soonest practicable
10 attendance of a physician other than the physician performing
11 or inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child's
12 viability and provide medical care for the child. Any
13 physician who intentionally performs or induces such an
14 abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
15 fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second
16 physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3
17 felony.
18 (b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born
19 alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in
20 attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional
21 skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of
22 the child as would be required of a physician providing
23 immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of
24 a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such
25 physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
26 violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.
27 (3) The law of this State shall not be construed to
28 imply that any living individual organism of the species homo
29 sapiens who has been born alive is not an individual under
30 the "Criminal Code of 1961," approved July 28, 1961, as
31 amended.
32 (3.5) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
33 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
34 protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent
SB1093 Engrossed -3- LRB9207891WHtm
1 with good medical practice, including the compilation of
2 appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the
3 life and health of the child.
4 (4) (a) Any physician who intentionally performs an
5 abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the
6 particular facts of the case before him, there is a
7 reasonable possibility of sustained survival of the fetus
8 outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall
9 utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to
10 be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to
11 preserve the life and health of the fetus.
12 (b) The physician shall certify in writing, on a form
13 prescribed by the Department under Section 10 of this Act,
14 the available methods considered and the reasons for choosing
15 the method employed.
16 (c) Any physician who intentionally, knowingly, or
17 recklessly violates the provisions of Section 6(4)(a) commits
18 a Class 3 felony.
19 (5) Nothing in Section 6 requires a physician to employ
20 a method of abortion which, in the medical judgment of the
21 physician performing the abortion based on the particular
22 facts of the case before him, would increase medical risk to
23 the mother.
24 (6) When the fetus is viable and when there exists
25 reasonable medical certainty (a) that the particular method
26 of abortion to be employed will cause organic pain to the
27 fetus, and (b) that use of an anesthetic or analgesic would
28 abolish or alleviate organic pain to the fetus caused by the
29 particular method of abortion to be employed, then the
30 physician who is to perform the abortion or his agent or the
31 referring physician or his agent shall inform the woman upon
32 whom the abortion is to be performed that such an anesthetic
33 or analgesic is available, if he knows it to be available,
34 for use to abolish or alleviate organic pain caused to the
SB1093 Engrossed -4- LRB9207891WHtm
1 fetus by the particular method of abortion to be employed.
2 Any person who performs an abortion with knowledge that any
3 such reasonable medical certainty exists and that such an
4 anesthetic or analgesic is available, and intentionally fails
5 to so inform the woman or to ascertain that the woman has
6 been so informed commits a Class B misdemeanor. The foregoing
7 requirements of subsection (6) of Section 6 shall not apply
8 (a) when in the medical judgment of the physician who is to
9 perform the abortion or the referring physician based upon
10 the particular facts of the case before him: (i) there exists
11 a medical emergency, or (ii) the administration of such an
12 anesthetic or analgesic would decrease a possibility of
13 sustained survival of the fetus apart from the body of the
14 mother, with or without artificial support, or (b) when the
15 physician who is to perform the abortion administers an
16 anesthetic or an analgesic to the woman or the fetus and he
17 knows there exists reasonable medical certainty that such use
18 will abolish organic pain caused to the fetus during the
19 course of the abortion.
20 (7) No person shall sell or experiment upon a fetus
21 produced by the fertilization of a human ovum by a human
22 sperm unless such experimentation is therapeutic to the fetus
23 thereby produced. Intentional violation of this section is a
24 Class A misdemeanor. Nothing in this subsection (7) is
25 intended to prohibit the performance of in vitro
26 fertilization.
27 (8) No person shall intentionally perform an abortion
28 with knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the
29 abortion solely on account of the sex of the fetus. Nothing
30 in Section 6(8) shall be construed to proscribe the
31 performance of an abortion on account of the sex of the fetus
32 because of a genetic disorder linked to that sex. If the
33 application of Section 6(8) to the period of pregnancy prior
34 to viability is held invalid, then such invalidity shall not
SB1093 Engrossed -5- LRB9207891WHtm
1 affect its application to the period of pregnancy subsequent
2 to viability.
3 (Source: P.A. 84-1001.)
4 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
5 becoming law.
- - - - -
March 30, 2001 (Discussion prior to vote):
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Thank you, Madam President, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate. Senate Bill 1093, as amended, provides that no abortion procedure which, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the child. The bill further provides that if there is a medical emergency, a physician inducing or performing an abortion which results in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practical attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the child. The bill additionally provides that a live child born as a result of an -- of -- of an abortion procedure shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. I'd be pleased to answer any questions there may be.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Any discussion? Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Thank you, Madam President. Will the sponsor yield for questions?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
He indicates he will.
SENATOR OBAMA:
This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator O'Malley.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your -- you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I -- I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and -- and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Further discussion? If not, Senator O'Malley, to close.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Thank you, Madam President and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate. The one thing the previous speaker did say is that this is a passionate issue. And -- however, I don't think it's challengeable on constitutional grounds in the manner that was described. This is essentially very simple. The Constitution does not say that a child born must be viable in order to live and be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says it must be born. And a child who survives birth is a U.S. citizen, and we need to do everything we can here in the State of Illinois and, frankly, in the other forty-nine states and in the halls of Washington, D.C., to make sure that we secure and protect those rights. So if this legislation is designed to clarify, resecure and reaffirm the rights that are entitled to a child born in America, so be it, and it is constitutional. I would appreciate your support.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
The question is, shall Senate Bill 1093 pass. Those in favor will vote Aye. Opposed, vote Nay. The voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Madam Secretary. On this question, there are 34 voting Aye, 6 voting Nay, 12 voting Present. And Senate Bill 1093, having received the required constitutional majority, is declared passed.
Provided for your own evaluation is the text of that Bill - which did pass in the Illinois Senate on March 30, 2001 - followed by some discussion and remarks delivered that day by Obama explaining his "Present" vote against the bill.
I think that it is pretty clear that Obama is opposed to ANY restriction on abortion, no matter how late in the game, no matter have developed or viable the infant may be.
Margaret Sanger would be proud.
Did he vote no, or present? I thought he voted present, which is just as bad, really. He just couldn’t bring himself to vote for a bill that even NARAL wasn’t opposed to, from what I’ve read.
Anyone who is pro-life cannot vote for B. Hussein Obama with a clear conscience, IMO.
Obama voted “Present” - which is the coward’s way out of voting “No”. Why he did that is beyond me, since he clearly stated in the comments he made that day that he opposed the bill.
Agreed. He probably thought he could make some excuse for it if he voted present, but I don’t think that’s gonna fly. People are going to understand that this is a bill that anyone with even a shred of human decency would support.
FYI PING
You'll notice he kept using the word "previable" - and seems to prefer 'fetuses' rather than recognize a living child...
He voted "present" as he was against the bill - but didn't have the guts to vote straight up or down.
And THAT ALONE should tell you everything you need to know about the duplicitous nature of his character.
He CANNOT be trusted.
Is "previable" even a word? If Obama's remarks were spoken, I suppose he can't be faulted for the non-hyphenated transcription; at first I thought the word was "PREH-vee-uh-Buhl." Obviously, Obama meant pre-viable. If a baby can survive outside the womb, though, would that not imply that it is not just "previable" or "pre-viable", but simply viable, regardless of whether it's supposed to be?
How can we call this Obama a "man"--
He's not a hu-man.
No, he's not a man.
He makes Goebbels seem cuddly as Dr. Phil by comparison.
Barak Kevorkian.
His quarrel with Bush's "No Child Left Behind" policy is that it should be "No 'Child' Left Alive"--
I don't want my daughters punished with a "baby"!
- - - - - - - - -
bump !!!!!
He voted present many many times. I think the American public should scrutinize his record to see this. This is not a man with core values or even consistent values. He’s a political hack, a fast talker.
I’m not saying that he could NOT be in time a good Senator, but at this point in the game...what does he bring to the table? What compelling reasons are there to vote for thisman? none
He’s not even ‘previable”
This will hang around the necks of his phony “Catholic” outreach committee like a flaming tire.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.