Strong sanctity of life legislation proposed
A flurry of bills have been filed. . . and may have a chance this session.
From, The Kentucky Citizen Digest, March/April, 2002.

While there is a host of pro-family bills stalled in committees, legislation having to do with the sanctity of life is faring better than most.  On February 6, the Kentucky Senate passed SB 115, a bill that defines an unborn child as a person for purposes of homicide laws.  The bill’s sponsor is Dick Roeding (R-Lakeside Park).

Pro-abortion opponents of the legislation are disturbed by the bill’s recognition of the humanity of a fetus and fear that it could be used to eventually undermine Roe vs. Wade, the U. S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision overturning state abortion restrictions.  Supporters of the bill counter that if a pregnant woman is killed, resulting in the death of her unborn child, that current law does not allow the murderer to be prosecuted for the unborn baby’s death.

A similar bill, HB 315, sponsored by Tom Kerr (D-Taylor Mill), would allow for  civil penalties to be awarded when a person was found to be liable for deliberate or negligent acts against a woman, resulting in the death of her unborn child.  The bill has numerous cosponsors, but has not had a hearing as of yet in a committee.

The bill moving fastest through the various legislative channels is Joe Fischer’s (R-Ft. Thomas) HB 138 to prohibit human cloning.  It passed the House in a 91-0 vote on January 22, is currently stalled in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, but is expected to come out for a full Senate vote.  The bill would prevent the cloning of a human and would also prohibit products resulting from cloning to be imported into the state.  The University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville are uncomfortable with certain provision in the bill, fearing it could hamper future research.  They are unlikely to oppose the bill, however, since it has proved popular among legislators and their constituents.

Another measure appears poised to move in the Senate as well.  SB 109, sponsored by Jack Westwood (R-Erlanger), would classify the abortion drug RU-486 as an abortifacient, making it subject to abortion restrictions currently on the books. The bill would also allow pharmacists to refuse, as a matter of conscience, to prescribe drugs that may be used as abortifacients.

Pro-abortion groups do not like either bill. They are likely to make the specific demand that the pharmacists’ conscience provision be limited only to drugs whose primary purpose is as an abortifacient, rather than allow the conscience provision to cover drugs that may be used to bring about an abortion “as a side-effect of the drug’s other intended purpose.” Many bill supporters say, though, that such a provision would gut the bill, making in ineffective.

One other effort that is worthy of note is Sen. Katie Stine’s bill to clean up the confusion on the  Informed Consent legislation of 1998.  Pro-choice persons in authority have maintained that the 24-hour waiting provision can commence with a simple phone call.  Stine’s SB 151 clarifies the original intent, mandating a face-to-face consultation with the client so all questions can be answered.

On the positive side, the potential hasn’t been greater for a major passage of prolife bills since the 1998 session, when Informed Consent and Clinic Regulations were passed.  But as in the 2000 session, prolife bills have passed easily in the Senate where Republicans hold sway, yet have had trouble in the House where key pro-choice Democrats have stalled them.  The dynamics are the same, but prolife groups are hopeful that they still may be able to get substantive prolife legislation passed this session.        

Key Family Foundation Contacts: Kent Ostrander , Executive Director Martin Cothran , Senior Associate Policy Analyst