Rep. Gino Bulso Looks To Expand Definition Of “Unborn Child” In Wrongful Death Lawsuit Eligibility

Image Credit: Gino Bulso / Facebook & Antony-22 / CC

The Tennessee Conservative [By Olivia Lupia] –

Representative Gino Bulso (R-Brentwood-District 61) has filed a bill which would seek to expand the state’s definition of a person for whom a wrongful death action may be brought to include an unborn child from fertilization to birth.

HB1528 would specifically redefine the word “person” used in the statute to determine who is eligible to bring a wrongful death suit to align with the state’s definition found in the portion of Tennessee Code which defines terms relative to healthcare and abortions. 

The current statute dictating succession to cause of action in wrongful death suits says the definition of  “person” includes “an unborn child at any stage of gestation in utero”, but Bulso wishes to change the definition of “unborn child” to “an individual organism of the species homo sapiens, beginning at fertilization, until the point of being born alive.”

The bill would also extend the period after which a spouse is presumed to have abandoned or willfully withdrawn from a deceased spouse for purposes of bringing a wrongful death claim from two to three years. This means a surviving spouse could not pursue a wrongful death suit or be awarded any portion of a judgement if it determined they abandoned the deceased spouse at least three years ago, and eligibility would then pass to the child or next of kin of the deceased.

Theoretically, this would ensure that a wrongful death suit could not exclude an unborn child at any developmental state and could potentially pave the way to wrongful death suits being applied to abortions. 

Bulso ran a more specified version of this concept last year as the Unborn Child Protection Act which sought to hold abortion drug manufacturers and sellers accountable by allowing the next of kin to an unborn child who was the victim of an abortion, including the mother of the child who took the pill, to take civil action against the abortion-inducing drug makers and sellers.

The intent of the legislation was to build on pre-existing federal law that prohibits the mailing of abortifacients and serve as a massive deterrent to these drug manufacturers, sellers, and distributors since they could have been sued for up to $5,000,00 by the person who purchased their product for the exact purpose it was made.

Unfortunately, the bill was stalled in the committee process and did not make it to the House or Senate floors for a vote.

He also attempted to take the first step toward enshrining protections for the unborn in the Tennessee Constitution through HJR0007, which closely mirrored some verbiage from the Unborn Child Protection Act, but the resolution never made it out of committee.

Bulso’s more subtle approach via HB1528 could have a better chance of success in the legislature as it focuses on simple linguistical changes and doesn’t appear to greatly alter the intent or application of the current statute, but this will largely depend upon which committee(s) the bill is assigned to and the willingness of Republican legislators to listen to Bulso’s reasoning for the proposed changes.

About the Author: Olivia Lupia is a political refugee from Colorado who now calls Tennessee home. A proud follower of Christ, she views all political happenings through a Biblical lens and aims to utilize her knowledge and experience to educate and equip others. Olivia is an outspoken conservative who has run for local office, managed campaigns, and been highly involved with state & local GOPs, state legislatures, and other grassroots organizations and movements. Olivia can be reached at olivia@tennesseeconservativenews.com.