Loading policy item
HB 4087
This proposal did not become law. The bill would have legally mandated that any health care practitioner present when an infant is born alive would have had to provide the same standard of life-saving medical care to that infant as they would have toed any other newborn, regardless of how the birth occurred. It would have created a new civil cause of action for damages and injunctive relief against practitioners who fail this duty, would have established mandatory reporting of violations to law enforcement, classifies such failures as unprofessional conduct subject to medical board discipline, and would have defined statutory terms to include born-alive infants under certain legal definitions. Potential effects would have included expanded liability for providers, new litigation pathways for parents or fertilization parties, potential chilling effects on pregnancy termination services due to reporting mandates and civil exposure, and explicit cross-jurisdictional protections for providers performing lawful reproductive or gender-affirming care out-of-state.
Generated explanation · Introduced · Analyzed 8/19/2026 · Open official Introduced text
This proposal did not become law.
Affected groups have not been established in a brief for the latest available text. Check the official text for eligibility and exceptions.
No upcoming event is verified in the available records.
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
This proposal did not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would have required if enacted.
The bill would have legally mandated that any health care practitioner present when an infant is born alive would have had to provide the same standard of life-saving medical care to that infant as they would have toed any other newborn, regardless of how the birth occurred. It would have created a new civil cause of action for damages and injunctive relief against practitioners who fail this duty, would have established mandatory reporting of violations to law enforcement, classifies such failures as unprofessional conduct subject to medical board discipline, and would have defined statutory terms to include born-alive infants under certain legal definitions. Potential effects would have included expanded liability for providers, new litigation pathways for parents or fertilization parties, potential chilling effects on pregnancy termination services due to reporting mandates and civil exposure, and explicit cross-jurisdictional protections for providers performing lawful reproductive or gender-affirming care out-of-state.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure appears designed to establish a uniform statutory duty of care for infants born alive during pregnancy termination procedures, likely aiming to standardize clinical expectations and create civil accountability mechanisms where existing medical malpractice or board discipline frameworks might be perceived as insufficient. The explicit carve-out in Section 5 limiting the scope to post-birth clinical obligations suggests an intent to separate newborn care standards from pre-birth legal status debates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Face a new statutory duty to provide life-saving care to any born-alive infant, mandatory reporting of suspected failures to law enforcement, potential medical board discipline under amended ORS 677.190, and civil liability exposure. The amendment also explicitly shields them from license suspension or revocation for providing lawful reproductive or gender-affirming care out-of-state.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Gain standing to sue for actual/punitive damages or injunctive relief if a practitioner fails the mandated standard of care. Courts might have granted pseudonym/anonymity protections, but defendants retain the right to know plaintiff identities for litigation purposes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Would have had to treat violations of the new duty as unprofessional conduct under ORS 677.190(28) and process related disciplinary actions, while also applying new cross-jurisdictional protections for lawful out-of-state reproductive or gender-affirming care.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Would have had to adjudicate new civil claims, evaluate pseudonym/anonymity requests under strict judicial findings requirements, and interpret statutory definitions that include born-alive infants under certain legal terms without altering pre-birth rights.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Practitioners would have had to document and provide life-saving interventions for any born-alive infant, even during pregnancy termination procedures, and immediately report suspected failures to law enforcement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Increased malpractice insurance premiums, potential litigation costs, and administrative burdens from mandatory reporting and civil defense. Providers might have faced clinical decision-making pressure or hesitation in late-term pregnancy management.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Civil actions are available regardless of whether the underlying abortion was lawful, potentially creating parallel liability tracks. Anonymity provisions reduce public identification risks but require judicial oversight. The law does not fund implementation or create a regulatory agency; enforcement relies on private litigation and board discipline.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Clinical and legal system
A practitioner successfully would have provided immediate, life-saving resuscitation to an infant born alive during a complex late-term procedure, avoiding severe disability or death, while the civil liability framework ensures consistent clinical standards across all providers regardless of facility type.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Providers and patients
Potential effect if enacted: A provider performing a lawful abortion in a rural clinic faces a costly, protracted civil lawsuit and medical board investigation over a borderline clinical judgment regarding infant resuscitation, leading to defensive medicine practices that restrict access to pregnancy termination services statewide.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The distinction lies between lawful civil liability and board discipline versus potential misuse of reporting mandates and standing provisions to exert coercive control or bypass standard evidentiary thresholds.
Sources · Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The measure prioritizes uniform post-birth clinical accountability and civil recourse over provider autonomy and privacy in pregnancy termination contexts.
Potential effect if enacted: Standardized care expectations for born-alive infants and explicit legal pathways for redress.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Cross-jurisdictional protections that shield providers from license discipline for lawful out-of-state reproductive or gender-affirming care.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Expanded litigation exposure, potential chilling effects on lawful reproductive care delivery, and administrative burdens from mandatory reporting and board discipline.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is strictly derived from the provided introduced bill text. No external sources or prior versions were used. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
5 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Not a qualifying replacement
The introduced bill remains the only available adopted text; no qualifying replacement appears in proposed amendments.
AI assessment dated 2026-09-29. This classification is separate from enactment and legal effect.
Evidence snapshot: 2026-09-29. Later legislative records are not automatically reassessed.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_a · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
The introduced bill remains the only available adopted text; no qualifying replacement appears in proposed amendments.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. Sections 2 to 8 of this 2026 Act shall be known and may be cited as the 5 Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. 6 SECTION 2. As used in sections 2 to 8 of this 2026 Act: 7 (1) “Abortion” means the use or prescription of a drug, medicine, instrument or other 8 substance or devic”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. Sections 2 to 8 of this 2026 Act shall be known and may be cited as the 5 Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. 6 SECTION 2. As used in sections 2 to 8 of this 2026 Act: 7 (1) “Abortion” means the use or prescription of a drug, medicine, instrument or other 8 substance or devic”
Introduced
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_b · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
No replacement transition is documented.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. Sections 2 to 8 of this 2026 Act shall be known and may be cited as the 5 Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. 6 SECTION 2. As used in sections 2 to 8 of this 2026 Act: 7 (1) “Abortion” means the use or presc”
Introduced
“Gut and stuff” research tracks substantial replacements of a bill’s substantive text. Policy change is assessed separately: a rewrite can retain the same purpose. A proposed amendment is counted as adopted only when the official evidence supports adoption.
Two subscription subagents independently examine the same official evidence without seeing each other’s answers. An additional subagent can adjudicate disagreements against the sources. Unsupported conclusions, missing evidence, and unresolved disagreements remain uncertain. Agreement is not a guarantee of accuracy.
Session totals count each HB or SB once, including bills that did not become law. Resolutions and memorials are excluded. Counts describe the research inventory, independent of your search, interests, following, and status filters. Missing or unassessed bills are not negative findings.
The replacement watch is a rule, not an AI assessment: a bill whose introduced text is a short study bill (a study word, at most three sections, under 400 words) or a blank form (a run of blanks, 300 words or fewer) is listed once a proposed amendment is posted for it. In the 2021 to 2026 training sessions, 271 of 374 such bills were later replaced; the rate is historical and says nothing about a particular bill’s intent.
Assessments are published research snapshots. Opening this page reads saved research and does not run an AI review. Refreshes require another evidence export, independent assessment, and validated import; reports do not continuously refresh. Each bill’s evidence and reviewer provenance are available on its detail page.
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Representative Court Boice, Representative Dwayne Yunker, Senator David Brock Smith, Representative Gregory Smith, Representative Boomer Wright
Regular sponsors: Representative Vikki Breese-Iverson, Representative Matt Bunch, Representative Ed Diehl, Representative Darcey Edwards, Representative Darin Harbick, Representative Jeffrey Helfrich, Representative Bobby Levy, Representative Rick Lewis, Representative Kevin Mannix, Representative Emily McIntire, Representative Virgle Osborne, Representative Mark Owens, Representative Anna Scharf, Representative Alek Skarlatos, Senator Kim Thatcher, Representative Jami Cate
House carrier
Representative Court Boice
Propositions and Motions
A carrier presents the measure or report but is not necessarily its sponsor or author.
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
5 events
Full timeline
5 entries shown.
In committee upon adjournment.
Motion to withdraw from Health Care failed.
Ayes, 22; Nays, 34--Andersen, Bowman, Chaichi, Chotzen, Dobson, Evans, Fragala, Gamba, Gomberg, Grayber, Hartman, Helm, Hudson, Isadore, Javadi, Kropf, Lively, Marsh, McDonald, McLain, Munoz, Nathanson, Nelson, Nguyen D, Nosse, Pham H, Rieke Smith, Ruiz, Sanchez, Tran, Walters, Watanabe, Wise, Speaker Fahey; Excused, 3--Levy E, Sosa, Valderrama; Excused for Business of the House, 1--Edwards.
Referred to Health Care.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
“Requires a health care practitioner to exercise the proper degree of care to preserve the health and life of a child born alive, regardless of whether the birth was the result of an induced abortion.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.