House sparks ‘personhood’ debate as it advances liability for unborn child death

TALLAHASSEE, FLA. 2/10/22-Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, R-Fort Myers, right, talks about the bill she is co-sponsoring that would institute a 15-week abortion ban during the House Health & Human Services Committee, Thursday at the Capitol in Tallahassee. The bill passed the committee. COLIN HACKLEY PHOTO

Republicans say a new measure will ensure parents are compensated in the event their unborn child is killed due to negligence. But Democrats say it is sparking a fresh debate on abortion.

The House Judiciary Committee advanced a bill (HB 651), which would change Florida’s Wrongful Death Act. The Florida Supreme Court has previously said that statute doesn’t apply to unborn children, but the legislation seeks to change that.

Some critics say the bill, intentionally or not, could open women who abort pregnancies to lawsuits from partners, and could even expose doctors providing in vitro fertilization services to liability if pregnancies prove unviable.

But Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, a Fort Myers Republican, said the legislation merely takes definitions already in Florida law. The intent is to make clear if a negligent act results in the death of an unborn child, parents have a civil remedy.

Notably, Mulicka-Persons sponsored a six-week abortion ban signed last year. She said she has no problem debating personhood and the value of unborn life, but this bill doesn’t tackle those controversial subjects.

“It’s about a real loss. And not a loss that was spontaneous or that just happened, but a loss that was caused by the wrongdoing of another person,” she said. “Most people I’ve talked to were shocked that we don’t already provide recovery.”

Democrats on the committee slammed the legislation as an attempt to extend personhood to a fetus at every stage of pregnancy, starting at conception.

“This bill is a backdoor to further reduce women’s access to reproductive health care,” said Rep. LaVon Bracy Davis, an Ocoee Democrat.

Even some Republicans worried the bill reaches too far. Rep. Paula Stark, a St. Cloud Republican, said she fears the bill will bring unintended consequences. She supported the bill in committee but said she won’t support it on the floor unless the language evolves.

“I know that the intent of this bill is solid in your heart,” Stark said. “However, I think this bill is way too broad and has too many consequences outside of the expressed intent.”

But Rep. Will Robinson, a Bradenton Republican, said fears about abortion are clouding a simple issue. He suspected the bill would win unanimous support without heightened fears about the broader abortion topic.

“I can’t imagine as a parent, with the husband and wife putting together a nursery and having the most egregious accident happen, and have to come home to an empty or the knowledge that there will be an empty nursery because of the death of their unborn child,” he said.

Some abortion opponents say that expansion of personhood doesn’t go far enough. Andrew Shirvell, founder of the Florida Voice of the Unborn, said he wants more consequential language than what the Legislature is considering now.

“There are hundreds of thousands of unborn children that are frozen as human embryos in this country, including tens of thousands in Florida,” he said.

That’s precisely the fear many civil rights advocates raised when suggesting this could allow physicians to refuse to provide legal women’s health care.

“This will lead to doctors denying necessary health care and will increase the likelihood of pregnancy complications,” said Kara Gross, legislative director for the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Similar debate surrounded a companion bill (SB 476) that advanced in the Senate last week. That legislation still must be heard by the Senate Rules Committee.

The House bill is now ready for debate on the floor.