Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cpforlife.org

Pages 31 through 33 are the relevant texts. I’ll convert them and post it in a few minutes. BBL


31 posted on 08/21/2008 9:56:05 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: cpforlife.org

82nd Legislative Day

April 4, 2002

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

The question is, shall Senate Bill 1655 pass. All those in

favor, vote Aye. Opposed, vote No. The voting is open. Have all

voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who

wish? ...the record. On that question, there's 15 voting Yes, 36

voting No, 4 voting Present. Senate Bill 1655, having failed to

receive the constitutional majority, fails. Senate Bill 1661.

Senator O'Malley. Madam Secretary, please read the bill.

ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:

Senate Bill 1661.

(Secretary reads title of bill)

3rd Reading of the bill.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator O'Malley.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

Thank you, Madam President -- or, Mr. President. Excuse me.

The -- the package that is before you, this is the first bill,

28

1661. It's associated with 1662 and 1663 that follow. This

package is known -- has become known as the "Born Alive" package.

1661 creates the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act, creates a

cause of action where medical care, as provided for in Senate Bill

1663, is not provided. I'd be happy to answer any questions there

may be.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion? If not,

the question is, shall Senate Bill 1661 pass. All those in favor,

vote Aye. Opposed, vote No. The voting is open. Have all voted

who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish?

Take the record. On that question, 31 voting Yes, 11 voting No, 10

voting Present. Senate Bill 1661, having received the required

constitutional majority, is declared passed. Senate Bill 1662.

Senator O'Malley. Madam Secretary, please read the bill.

ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:

Senate Bill 1662.

(Secretary reads title of bill)

3rd Reading of the bill.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator O'Malley.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. 1662 is the second component of the

"Born Alive" package, and it defines a born-alive infant in order

to resecure the rights of children who are born under any

circumstances to equal protection under the law. Be -- again, I'd

be happy to answer any questions there may be.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion? If not,

the question is, shall Senate Bill 1662 pass. All those in favor,

vote Aye. Opposed, vote No. The voting is open. Have all voted

who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish?

29

Take the record. On that question, there's 30 voting Yes, 12

voting No, 10 voting Present. Senate Bill 1662, having received

the required constitutional majority, is declared passed. Senate

Bill 1663. Senator O'Malley. Madam Secretary, please read the

bill.

ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:

Senate Bill 1663.

(Secretary reads title of bill)

3rd Reading of the bill.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator O'Malley.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

Mr. President, again, thank you. This is the third component

of the "Born Alive" package, and what it provides is that a child

born under any circumstances would receive all reasonable measures

consistent with good medical practice. Also requires a second

physician to give an opinion of viability and to deliver such

reasonable measures of care as are defined in 1663. Again, I'd be

happy to answer any questions there may be.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Is there any discussion? Senator Cullerton.

SENATOR CULLERTON:

Would the sponsor yield?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Sponsor indicates he'll yield.

SENATOR CULLERTON:

Senator O'Malley, which one of these bills was the Medical

Society -- did they testify against? Was it all three of 'em or

just this one?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator O'Malley.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

30

You know, I -- I really can't speak for them, but I suspect

their major issue was with 1661.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Any further discussion? Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA:

Thank you, Mr. President. Will the sponsor yield for a

question?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Sponsor indicates he'll yield.

SENATOR OBAMA:

Yeah. Just along the same lines. Obviously this is an issue

that we've debated extensively both in committee and on the Floor,

so I -- you know, I don't want to belabor it. But I did want to

point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion

in committee, one of the things that we were concerned about, or

at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this

would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and

the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this

situation. So, can you just describe for me, under this

legislation, what's going to be required for a doctor to meet the

requirements that you've set forth?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator O'Malley.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

Senator Obama, first of all, there is established, under this

legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would

receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical

practice, and that's as defined, of course, by the -- you know,

the practice of medicine in the community where this would occur.

It also requires, in two instances, that -- that an attending

physician be -- be brought in to assist and advise with respect to

the issue of viability and, in particular, where there's a --

31

there's a suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child --

may -- may be -- may be viable - that there's a suspicion - so

that the attending physician would make that decision as to

whether that would be the case. The other one is where the child

is actually born alive and then is -- is -- is actually born

alive, in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as

practically possible for a second physician to come in and

determine the viability.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA:

So -- and again, I'm -- I'm not going to prolong this, but I

just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the

objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts

the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since

they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a

nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you

want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the

doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's

say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just

coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to

call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure

that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that

correct?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator O'Malley.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

In -- in the first instance, obviously the physician that is

performing the procedure would make the determination. The second

situation is where the child actually is born and is alive, and

then there's an assessment -- an independent assessment of

viability by -- by -- by another physician at the soonest

32

practical date -- or, time.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA:

Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I

think, as -- as this emerged during debate and during committee,

the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation

would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending

physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable

fetus and that, let's say for the purposes of the mother's health,

is being -- that -- that labor is being induced, that that

physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the

physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in

fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that

this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that

that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try

to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would

be involved in saving that child. Now, if -- if you think that

there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe

this bill makes sense, but I -- I suspect and my impression is, is

that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that

they would be under that obligation, that they would already be

making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a -- an

additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency

situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed

simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the

physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that's

the case - and -- and I know that some of us feel very strongly

one way or another on that issue - that's fine, but I think it's

important to understand that this issue ultimately is about

abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who

are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor

33

who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked

after. Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Is there any further discussion? Any further discussion? If

not, Senator O'Malley, to close.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the comments from the

previous speaker, but I can assure you that the interests of

everybody, I think, in -- in this State would be to protect the

life of a child, including the physicians who are involved there.

And I believe that the second-opinion physician would actually, in

many ways, protect not only the interests of that child, which is

its primary responsibility, but to make sure that if there -- was

any error in judgment of any kind by the -- the primary physician,

that -- that -- the -- the -- the burden association -- associated

with -- with that failure and decision would be minimized. And

so, I would request your support of this legislation so that this

package can move to the Illinois House, where it can be given some

serious consideration. Thank you.


32 posted on 08/21/2008 10:50:34 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson