Soon, fetuses outside the mother would be considered persons whether or not they are still connected to the mother.

Illinois legislators passed a House Public Act on Aug. 12 that offers new definitions in the ongoing abortion debate. The bill grouped together “person,” “human being,” “child” and “individual” as including all humans “born alive at any stage of development.”

The act is to become effective Jan. 1, 2006.

The act explains the term “born alive” as the complete expulsion or extraction from a mother, where the child is capable of pulsation, breathing or any type of muscular movements. The bill states that attachment to the mother’s umbilical cord does not affect a fetus’ individual personhood.

The infant’s extraction from its mother into a state of aliveness can occur from induced labor, cesarean section or induced abortion.

This act would be applied to cases of failed aborting surgeries. Should a mistake in an abortion occur that leads to a fetus with a functioning muscular, cardiovascular or respiratory system outside the mother, that infant would be deemed a person.

This bill clashes with the landmark Roe v. Wade case in 1973, which decided that prohibited abortion in any state was an illegal breech of privacy, said Ira Carmen, University political science professor who studies civil liberties issues.

“A critical question is whether the fetus is viable (and) can it subsist when removed from the female’s body?” Carmen said. “If yes, the proposed legislation is consistent with Roe v. Wade, which gives the states considerable authority to regulate late-term abortions. If no, then the bill runs afoul of Roe. Thus, if the fetus requires an umbilical chord for survival, it likely is not viable and the mother retains her right to choose.”

This bill complicates the mother’s right to choose by deeming an infant outside the womb a person, regardless of connection to the mother via umbilical cord.

“Evidently, (this bill’s) purpose is to protect the life of a fetus which now finds itself outside the womb,” Carmen said.

Many students on campus are unfamiliar with it.

Elton Chu, junior in engineering, said he thought the bill made sense but that its implications are backwards.

“The bill says that if a fetus is outside the womb with a beating heart or breathing, it’s alive,” Chu said. “What else would it be? When a fetus is inside the womb, it’s more unclear when it is alive or not.”

Chu related this bill to the continuing debate between pro-life and pro-choice advocates, picking it apart to decide which side it would please.

“I can understand how the pro-life side sees this as a victory, but at the same time, many of them believe a human-being is alive at conception, not when it’s functioning on its own,” Chu said.

Claudia Mallon, senior in LAS, expressed skepticism.

“I don’t think it solves any issues with the continued abortion debate,” Mallon said. “It is another technicality that answers no questions. It doesn’t seem to provide any resolution in any direction.”