Minnesota House narrowly rejects bill to require lifesaving care for infants born after abortion

ST. PAUL — The Minnesota House defeated House File 24, a bill that would have required that infants born alive following an abortion be given life-preserving medical care, after a roll call that the clerk announced as 67 ayes and 66 nays.

Representative Knudson, the bill’s author, described HF 24 as a straightforward measure to “provide protections for babies that survive an abortion” and to make “clear in state law that all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice are used to preserve the life and health of these babies.”

Proponents urged colleagues to treat infants born alive the same regardless of how they came into the world. Representative Engen recounted the premature birth of his son Everett at 28 weeks and credited first responders and hospital staff for lifesaving care: “They performed that lifesaving care, that’s why he’s here today.” Representative Robbins said the measure restores a bipartisan standard of care, arguing that “if a baby is born alive, it should be incumbent on us to try to preserve the life of that child.” Representative Knudson told members, “If this law saves 1 life, then that’s good enough.”

Opponents said the bill would narrow current legal protections and could complicate neonatal and postpartum medical decision-making. Representative Liebling said current Minnesota law already recognizes “an infant who is born alive shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law,” and argued HF 24 would limit that protection by focusing the definition on infants born alive as a result of an abortion. “If you vote yes on this bill, you are saying that infants born alive in this state are not people,” Liebling said, characterizing the drafting as problematic.

Debate included competing claims about how often infants survive abortion attempts and how past law and reporting treated such cases. Representative Liebling summarized a review of Department of Health reports and said the reporting definition used under the prior law was broad and did not demonstrate any clear cases of infants born alive after an abortion being saved under the old statute. Representative Davis and others recounted personal and historical survival stories they said illustrate the bill’s purpose; Representative Davis cited several examples and a figure she said showed 24 babies in Minnesota survived an abortion from 2015 to 2022, while Representative Knudson and others said the state typically sees “3 to 5” such infants per year.

Members also debated the emotional and medical context for late-term complications and neonatal care. Representative Backer, an EMT, described responding to deliveries and urged support for the bill: “Babies’ lives matter. If it’s 3 or 5 or 2 a year, they matter.” Representative Liebling and other opponents cautioned that the bill’s language could force invasive interventions in cases where families and clinicians determine comfort care is appropriate.

After debate, the clerk closed the roll and announced the result: “There being 67 ayes and 66 nays, the bill is not passed.” HF 24 did not receive the necessary support to move forward in the House.

The debate revisited earlier changes to state law: speakers referenced a 2015 statute and a 2023 repeal that removed prior language. Supporters framed HF 24 as restoring protections removed in 2023; opponents said current law already requires appropriate medical care for any infant born alive, regardless of circumstances, and that HF 24’s drafting would narrow that protection.

Votes at a glance: House File 24 — Motion to pass HF 24 (author: Representative Knudson); roll call announced as 67 ayes, 66 nays; clerk stated the bill was not passed.