T he text of proposed Senate Bill 158 reads in part: "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and for this purpose 'person' shall include all human life as defined herein." At conception there is cellular life, in biological terms. However, this bill attempts to integrate the presence of such cellular life with a legal definition of "personhood," with all the attendant rights of citizenry which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. When Congress equates cellular life with personhood, it is taking a substantial leap beyond the current views of the medical and scientific community that will have a major and lasting effect upon the health care of women in this country, the practice of medicine in this country, and the personal health practices of a large portion of our population. To declare rights for the conceptus equal to those of the woman will create competition for medical care, because the health interest of the fetus is not always consistent with the health interests of the pregnant woman. In fact, the physician potentially could be required to make medical decisions not in the best interest of woman or fetus, and possibly to the detriment of both. The majority of pregnancies in this country occur in circumstances in which the woman is understandably concerned with maintaining her own health and producing the healthiest child possible. Physicians offer care and advice to enhance the health and quality of life of the woman, both as an individual and as the bearer of children. In this role, the physician is committed to the best interests of the woman, who entrusts herself to his or her care. S. 158 would create insoluble problems for doctors in meeting this commitment. Some of the major advances in obstetrics over the past twenty years relate to the ability to evaluate the intrauterine status of the fetus and perform early delivery when indicated. Many of these premature births relate to maternal disease. Toxemia is a disease of pregnant women characterized by high blood pressure, possible convulsions, coma, and even death. Prevention of the more severe effects of this disease involves early delivery, with concomitant risk to the fetus. Failure to act in this situation for fear of abridging the rights of the fetus could result in the death of both mother and child. This bill would create impossible dilemmas for the practicing physician trying to meet his or her ethical responsibility to act in the best interest of the pregnant woman. Many diseases of pregnant women require procedures or medicines which pose a risk to the fetus. Examples include appendicitis and other abdominal surgery. Medications such as dilantin for the treatment of epilepsy and cortisone-like drugs for other conditions are necessary in the interest of the pregnant woman and pose an increased risk of fetal abnormalities. These are clearcut instances in which the physician has traditionally acted in the best interest of the pregnant woman. S. 158 would restrict this freedom. At issue is not only the concern pregnant women have for their own health, but also the desire of many women not to have a defective or severely handicapped child. Fortunately, we now have the ability to identify a number of these defects in early pregnancy and to offer a pregnant woman a choice as to whether or not she will bear a defective child. An example is Tay-Sachs disease. A baby born with this malady is doomed to die in early childhood. Are we to deny the woman the option of avoiding this tragic chain of circumstances for her and the rest of her living family? Women in today's society constitute an increasing part of our work force. As a result many are postponing childbearing and completing families after age 35. At this age, they are at increased risk that their pregnancy will have a genetic abnormality, Down's Syndrome, and current practice mandates that we offer them the opportunity for screening these unfortunate occurrences. The proposed legislation would essentially nullify our current efforts at genetic screening programs. The woman who is not pregnant also has a vital and justified interest in the maintenance of good health, which would be impacted by this legislation. For over ten million women in this country, the exercise of selfdetermination includes management of their reproductive functions by means of the intrauterine device and the birth control pill. If the legislation as proposed were to pass, any known contraceptive which interferes with the