Sec. 5.
As used in this act:
(a) "Anatomical part" means any portion of the anatomy of a human being that has not been severed from the body, but not including the umbilical cord or placenta.
(b) "Imminent threat to the physical health" means a physical condition that if left untreated would result in substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.
(c) "Live" means demonstrating 1 or more of the following biological functions:
(i) A detectable heartbeat.
(ii) Evidence of breathing.
(iii) Evidence of spontaneous movement.
(iv) Umbilical cord pulsation.
(d) "Perinate" means a live human being at any point after which any anatomical part of the human being is know to have passed beyond the plane of the vaginal introitus until the point of complete expulsion or extraction from the mother's body.
(e) "Physician" means an individual licensed by the state to engage in the practice of medicine or osteopathic medicine and surgery under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838.
History: 2004, Act 135, Eff. Mar. 30, 2005
Constitutionality: In Northland Family Planning Clinic v Cox, 396 F Supp 2d 978 (2005), the federal court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that the legal definition of birth act is unconstitutional because it places an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion, does not provide a sufficient maternal health exception, requires the physician to balance the maternal and neonatal interests in the life exception, and fails to give clear notice of the activities that are prohibited. (The case is now on appeal to 6th circuit.)The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the U.S. District Court's decision in Northland Family Planning v Cox (docket Nos. 05-2417 and 05-2418, published June 4, 2007), held that the Legal Birth Definition Act, an act initiated by citizen petition, is unconstitutional. The court held that "invalidation of the law is the only available course" since the act "imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by prohibiting the D and E procedure, because it failed to adequately protect the health of the woman, and because it was void for vagueness due to its confusing language."