LR-131 will have devastating implications

Nov. 8, my fellow Montana voters and I will decide on a ballot measure that will have devastating implications for pregnant patients and their families. LR-131, or the “Born-Alive Infant Protection Act,” would introduce extreme consequences for clinicians who provide compassionate care for dying infants

Proponents of LR-131 will tell you this measure will save babies. And they will tell you that the devastating pregnancy complications that lead to infant loss are “mythical situations.” As a high risk obstetrician who has been taking care of moms and their babies for over a decade, I can assure you that there is nothing mythical about pregnancy loss. The only myth is the belief that LR-131 will help Montana families or save the lives of babies. It absolutely won’t.

LR-131 is based on legislation written by D.C. lobbyists at the American United for Life. The main difference is that proponents for LR-131 removed language allowing parents to choose compassionate care instead of invasive interventions in certain situations. The proponent’s message in the Montana state voter pamphlet says that LR-131 “ensures humane comfort care for those who are not likely to survive,” however, the actual language of the referendum is missing language to ensure that would be the case. It states that health care providers must take “medically appropriate and reasonable actions to preserve the life and health of a born-alive infant.” There is no provision to allow the family to decline care. It also raises questions as to who ultimately decides what is medically appropriate and reasonable. These decisions should be made between the family and their health care team. The state should not have any role in making this decision for families. Ultimately, the terribly vague language in the referendum will lead to intervention at times when no intervention should be offered.

Pregnancy loss is tragic and every case is unique. Trying to apply a vague law to situations as complicated as second and third trimester pregnancy loss will only bring additional suffering to families who are already experiencing some of the worst news families can receive. These are families who have already picked out names, painted nurseries, built cribs — but whose pregnancies end for a number of devastating reasons.

When families find themselves in these tragic situations they have the option to elect what providers call “compassionate care.” We swaddle the infant in a blanket, allow the grieving parents to hold their child, and arrange for baptisms or other religious ceremonies. If LR-131 passes, this compassionate care would mean that clinicians offering this care are not aiming to “preserve the life and health” of an infant and could be jailed. Instead of allowing parents to say goodbye to the baby they waited months to meet, physicians will be forced to take these infants away and perform useless medical procedures, prolonging the infant’s pain and the parents’ heartache. Nothing about this is humane. 

Providers who refuse to obey LR-131’s cruel mandate will be severely punished, facing felony charges, a $50,000 fine, or up to 20 years in prison. This will cause extreme harm to providers and their families; exacerbate a physician-shortage in Montana; and further devastate future moms with pregnancy complications who need specialized care. This means more women and children will die while their doctors sit in jail for following their duties as medical providers and moral compasses. 

Proponents of LR-131 will continue to tell you that we are being dramatic, that there are no negative consequences to this measure. But they failed to take basic steps to ensure families could make decisions about declining invasive care. The health care community in Montana overwhelmingly agrees that LR-131 is bad for babies, bad for families, and bad for Montana. I urge you to join me in voting No on LR-131 on Nov. 8. 

——

Timothy Mitchell, MD, of Missoula is a specialist in maternal-fetal medicine