North Dakota medical professionals testified in opposition to a bill on Monday that would define a human embryo as a person, telling lawmakers that the measure carries too many unanswered questions that could put a mother's life in jeopardy.

But supporters of the legislation, including Rep. Dan Ruby, R-Minot, the sole sponsor of HB1572, contend that life begins once a human egg is fertilized and that the bill would lead to a court challenge of 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, with the goal of allowing states to determine their own abortion policy.

Medical professionals and other legal experts disagreed during a packed committee hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, telling lawmakers that Ruby's bill is too sweeping and doesn't leave room for doctors to make tough calls when it comes to abnormal pregnancies.

"I hope that every woman who doesn't want their pregnancy would consider adoption because I have so many patients who would love to adopt a baby," said Stephanie Dahl, a Fargo physician. "However, I do not support HB 1572. This bill could literally tie the hands of physicians so they cannot treat women with some complications of pregnancy."

The bill would define a person as any organism with the genome of homo sapiens.

Dahl said the legislation would affect the way physicians treat situations such as an ectopic pregnancy, which can lead to massive bleeding inside the mother's abdomen if she is not treated properly.

"My question is if this bill is passed how will the law distinguish the fertilized egg that has implanted normally in the uterus or abnormally in the fallopian tube?" Dahl said. "Will there be a government official who will review all the records of ectopic pregnancies before treatment can begin?"

Fargo physician Steffen Christensen said there are too many gray areas in the law that would be affected by the bill, including fertilized embryos with genetic abnormalities.

"I think this bill is going to put some undue legislative oversight over medical procedures that should be left to our decisions," Christensen said.

Lawmakers on the committee also questioned the bill, asking what effect it would have on women seeking medical attention for various abnormalities that would require a physician to potentially terminate the pregnancy in order to save the mother's life.

"I see a whole multitude of legal problems that could result if this bill passes," said Sen. Curtis Olafson, R-Edinburg. "Medical professionals would be scared, and rightly so, to engage in the process of helping people through these decisions."

Ruby said the mother's life would be considered the most important one to save if any complications came up during the pregnancy.

"First and foremost, the treatment of the mother is just as important and takes no priority or reduced level than that of the baby," Ruby said. "But at that point when you know the baby is not going to survive you treat the patient that's most likely to survive."

Sen. Dave Nething, R-Jamestown, asked Ruby about adding a clearer intent in his bill if his goal is to give states the ability to adopt their own position on abortion.

Ruby defended the legislation saying if any unintended consequences from his bill arise then future legislatures can change other state laws in accordance. Ruby added that states are already allowed to make life or death decisions such as capital punishment.

Nething said he wasn't satisfied with Ruby's response.

"I come from the school that says that you should try to make your legislation as clear as possible," he said. "And I don't think we accomplished that. That's my concern."

Christine Hogan, a Bismarck lawyer who represents the North Dakota Women's Network, said the potential costs to North Dakota taxpayers to defend HB1572 could be in the millions and that the bill is too broad and unspecific in its definition of what constitutes as a person.

"Defining every human cell as a person would have unforeseen consequences we can't begin to account for today," Hogan said. "The proponents haven't even tried to account for these consequences. There are too many uses of the word person in the Century Code to conduct a comprehensive analysis of all the legal impacts."

Steven Cates, representing the North Dakota Family Alliance, said he has received letters from two law firms that would defend the bill pro bono if it were to become law.

"We have a solid law that has a solid chance of prevailing," Cates said.

Supporters and opponents of the bill filled the Brynhild Haugland room.

Among the supporters of the bill was Maria Lancaster, a Seattle-area woman who brought her 5-year-old daughter, Elisha Lancaster, who was adopted as a frozen embryo and then implanted in her mother's uterus where she gestated.

"She was pretty much a person in the freezer for those four years and she's pretty much a person right now," Lancaster told the committee.

Other supporters included 12-year-old Austin Emineth, who told lawmakers that his 16-year-old birth mother let another family adopt him instead of getting an abortion.

Also, McKenzie White, who is Cates' niece, told lawmakers that she was born premature.

"Do you know who is human?" White asked. "Do you know when? Were you human one second before you were born?"

Austin Langley, a 17-year-old from Warwick, told the committee that he didn't support the bill because of its potential consequences, adding his sister's baby died while still in the womb putting her life at risk.

"If we would have lost her we would have lost a nurse, we would have lost a sister, a daughter, a granddaughter because a doctor would be afraid of going to court because an embryo was stopping him from treating her, " Langley said.

Connie Hildebrand, representing the American Association of University Women, criticized the fact that the sole sponsor of the legislation is a male and it was being debated during Women's History Month.

"These decisions should be made without governmental interference," Hildebrand said.

After asking lawmakers to rewrite the bill last week, the North Dakota Catholic Conference did not testify on HB1572 on Monday, but did offer its support for HB1445, another abortion-related measure that would require a woman seeking an abortion to be told by a physician that she would be ending a human life.

"Everything we needed to say we said on Thursday," said Christopher Dodson, general counsel for the North Dakota Catholic Conference.

Two North Dakota Catholic bishops proposed a series of amendments to Ruby's bill on Thursday that they say would clear up any unanswered legal questions about the bill. Dodson said the committee has the amendments and that his organization will stay neutral on HB1572 unless the committee adopts the amendments.

No one testified in opposition to HB1445, but members of the audience did sign their names in opposition.

Nething said the committee is expected to make their recommendation on HB1572 later this week.

(Reach reporter Brian Duggan at 223-8482 or brian.duggan@;bismarcktribune.com.)