House majority falls short on fetal pain bill

[alphaman]

House majority falls short on fetal pain bill
Dec 7, 2006
By Tom Strode
Baptist Press

WASHINGTON (BP)--The House of Representatives failed Dec. 6 to reach the two-thirds majority needed to pass legislation requiring women to be informed of the pain their unborn children may experience if they have late-term abortions.

The House voted 250-162 for the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act but fell 25 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed for approval under the parliamentary rule by which it was considered.

The measure would have mandated an abortion doctor give a woman who is at least 20 weeks pregnant information about the pain her unborn child could experience during the procedure. If the woman still decides to have an abortion, she would have the option of anesthesia for her unborn baby in order to reduce his pain.

The vote apparently will be the last one involving abortion before Republicans surrender control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats in January. Congress is expected to adjourn by the middle of December.

Voting for the legislation were 210 Republicans and 40 Democrats. Nine Republicans joined with 152 Democrats and an independent in opposing the measure.

Rep. Chris Smith, R.-N.J., chief sponsor of the bill, said afterward the vote demonstrates “there is indeed an overwhelming concern for the suffering of the unborn during an abortion. The unfortunate thing is there are still those in the House who are simply not concerned about the pain unborn children feel nor do they see the importance in relaying this critical information to women.”

The vote “is proof-positive that we can pass this legislation despite the unwillingness of some extreme pro-abortion members of Congress,” Smith said in a written statement. “I remain determined to find an avenue to pass this legislation in the near future.”

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said a favorable vote by 60 percent of the House “is no small thing.”

“The other 40 percent will have to explain why they favor anti-pain laws for animals used for research or food but not for unborn humans,” Johnson said in a written release.

The White House issued a memo endorsing the legislation shortly before the vote.

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission joined other pro-life organizations -– including the Christian Medical Association, Concerned Women for America and Family Research Council –- in supporting the bill.

The National Abortion Federation applauded the result, with President Vicki Saporta calling the measure “an ill-advised bill, which would have intruded upon the physician-patient relationship and substituted political agendas for sound science and medicine.”

NARAL Pro-choice America, however, refused to lobby against the bill, even though it is one of the country’s leading abortion rights organizations.

Smith introduced the bill, H.R. 6099, in September as a revision of earlier legislation he sponsored. The new version called for the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a brochure to be provided to women seeking abortions about 20 weeks or more into their pregnancy. The brochure would inform such women there is “substantial evidence” unborn children at this point in gestation experience pain during abortions. The new measure also would not require a doctor’s medical license be revoked for violations but would still provide for civil penalties.

The pain experienced by unborn children at the mid-point of pregnancy was testified to during 2004 trials in legal challenges to a federal ban on partial-birth abortion.

In testimony before a federal judge in Lincoln, Neb., Kanwaljeet Anand, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said a partial-birth abortion “would be extremely painful” for an unborn baby at 20 weeks gestation, the Omaha World-Herald reported. Unborn children at 20 weeks have developed the sensory nerves, skin receptors and brain stem required to feel pain, he said. Studies have demonstrated unborn babies display pain physiologically, exhibiting an increased heart rate and the secretion of stress hormones, Anand testified. He also said the pain could be as great for an unborn child who is aborted by means of another procedure in which the baby is dismembered.

In a partial-birth abortion, a doctor normally delivers an intact baby, feet first, until only the head is left in the birth canal. The doctor pierces the base of the infant’s skull with surgical scissors, then inserts a catheter into the opening and suctions out the brain, killing the child.

Federal courts at both the district and appellate levels struck down the 2003 Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the cases Nov. 8 and is expected to issue a ruling in the first half of 2007.

Two 2004 public opinion surveys showed Americans strongly support giving information about fetal pain to women considering abortion when their pregnancy is 20 weeks or more. A Zogby poll found 77 percent support laws requiring women receive such evidence, and a Wirthlin Worldwide survey found 75 percent agree with such laws.

[alphaman]

Here are two things that really jumped out at me in the article:

“The other 40 percent will have to explain why they favor anti-pain laws for animals used for research or food but not for unborn humans,” Johnson said in a written release.

In a partial-birth abortion, a doctor normally delivers an intact baby, feet first, until only the head is left in the birth canal. The doctor pierces the base of the infant’s skull with surgical scissors, then inserts a catheter into the opening and suctions out the brain, killing the child.

[alphaman]

Nobody's got anything to say about this??

[mcpeepants]

i usually leave abortion issues alone. i don't like abortion but i would not restrict a womans right to have one. i think this bill is just a backhanded way to ban abortion.

[alphaman]

i usually leave abortion issues alone. i don't like abortion but i would not restrict a womans right to have one. i think this bill is just a backhanded way to ban abortion.

Why? Because informing women that their babies will feel pain will force people to come to terms with the fact that fetus' are human? Whether it opens the back door or not, reality is reality.

The proof that the liberals are burying their heads in the sand lies with the fact that they support pain relief for animals used in testing and food!!!

It's absolutely disgusting.

[Kärnfysikern]

I dont se why a doc should force the information on the pregnant girl. If she wants to know she asks.

Its not the docs job to question a patients descision and there should be no law to force the doc to try and change the patients descision.

[mcpeepants]

Why? Because informing women that their babies will feel pain will force people to come to terms with the fact that fetus' are human? Whether it opens the back door or not, reality is reality.

The proof that the liberals are burying their heads in the sand lies with the fact that they support pain relief for animals used in testing and food!!!

It's absolutely disgusting.

It just the political nature of abortion. They referendum to completely ban abortion in South Dakota (I think) was rejected. Most of the legislation by people against abortion has been incremental because it easier to pass unlike the South Dakota referndum. Bills like this are just incremental because I can see the ultimate goal.

[alphaman]

I dont se why a doc should force the information on the pregnant girl. If she wants to know she asks.

Force the information? So would you want the doc to force the idea that a vasectomy will cause you pain?

Its not the docs job to question a patients descision and there should be no law to force the doc to try and change the patients descision.

So, informing the mother that the procedure will cause the baby pain is questioning her decision? How is that? Sure, the knowledge may cause the mother to reconsider, but how does the info alone suggest that coercion is taking place?

[alphaman]

It just the political nature of abortion. They referendum to completely ban abortion in South Dakota (I think) was rejected. Most of the legislation by people against abortion has been incremental because it easier to pass unlike the South Dakota referndum. Bills like this are just incremental because I can see the ultimate goal.

Well sure, the person who drafted the bill has an agenda, but who doesn't? I would say that the political "crapola" is more abundant in this legislation on the D side. Who's agenda is at a greater risk? Even though it's been proven that 20 week old fetus' feel pain and it's a legitimate concern -- the Democrats vote against to protect their pro-choice agenda. It's not hard to see how approving this one would hurt abortion in general. The minute they endorse pain relief for fetus', they admit they're human. I guarantee you there are Democrats who voted against their gut feeling on this one to support their liberal agenda.

[mcpeepants]

Well sure, the person who drafted the bill has an agenda, but who doesn't? I would say that the political "crapola" is more abundant in this legislation on the D side. Who's agenda is at a greater risk? Even though it's been proven that 20 week old fetus' feel pain and it's a legitimate concern -- the Democrats vote against to protect their pro-choice agenda. It's not hard to see how approving this one would hurt abortion in general. The minute they endorse pain relief for fetus', they admit they're human. I guarantee you there are Democrats who voted against their gut feeling on this one to support their liberal agenda.

Well I wouldn't say voting against this bill says you don't believe fetus's feel pain or aren't humans. Just politics on both sides. I'd prefer to let people decide these personal issues for themselves.

[Kärnfysikern]

Force the information? So would you want the doc to force the idea that a vasectomy will cause you pain?

Yes force. the article stated it would become mandatory for docs to tell the mother the child will feel pain. If a doc wants to tell the patient he should feel free to. If the patient isnt interested there shouldnt be some stupid law dictating what the doc has to say.

As far as I know if I undergo any kind of surgery there is no law stating the doc has to inform me its going to be painfull....

So, informing the mother that the procedure will cause the baby pain is questioning her decision? How is that? Sure, the knowledge may cause the mother to reconsider, but how does the info alone suggest that coercion is taking place?

So a doc saying "you know that this procedure will cause tremendous pain to your unborn child right?" isnt trying to question the descision?

The mother would have to be pretty stupid to not realise the above is true anyway. The bill seems like a pointless statement from the anti abortion crowd. There realy is no point in it imo....

[RA]

This thread is depressing. I feel bad for those babies.

[Snrf]

This thread is depressing. I feel bad for those babies.

Seriously...

[RA]

Seriously...

Was that a question?

[Snrf]

no I was agreeing with you

[Snrf]

surprised?

[RA]

no I was agreeing with you

Cool

[alphaman]

Well I wouldn't say voting against this bill says you don't believe fetus's feel pain or aren't humans. Just politics on both sides.

Just politics? Wake up dude. Did you read how the procedure is done?

I'd prefer to let people decide these personal issues for themselves.

Yeah, you're right. Teenagers (the vast majority of those who are responsible for abortions) always make wonderful decisions on their own.

[alphaman]

Yes force. the article stated it would become mandatory for docs to tell the mother the child will feel pain. If a doc wants to tell the patient he should feel free to. If the patient isnt interested there shouldnt be some stupid law dictating what the doc has to say.

As far as I know if I undergo any kind of surgery there is no law stating the doc has to inform me its going to be painfull....

Well I guess you would have to force someone who profits from murdering these babies, so you're right.

So...... they would have no interest in letting the patient -- the fetus -- know it's going to be painful. They're not paying and they won't be around afterward to complain.

So a doc saying "you know that this procedure will cause tremendous pain to your unborn child right?" isnt trying to question the descision?

I doubt the doctor (the one who profits) would do it quite like that. It would probably take place more like a car salesman who has to tell the customer about the lemon law.

The mother would have to be pretty stupid to not realise the above is true anyway. The bill seems like a pointless statement from the anti abortion crowd. There realy is no point in it imo....

Don't assume that everyone is as intelligent as you are. And as someone who has children -- I can tell you that the reality of them being real people isn't realized until the minute they pop out, so it's very easy for a pregnant girl to write the whole thing off on today's world.

[Tock]

Yeah, you're right. Teenagers (the vast majority of those who are responsible for abortions) always make wonderful decisions on their own.

So you think the government should make those decisions for them?

Fact is, lots of people make lousy decisions. Should the government be a watchful nanny and make sure they step in and take control whenever someone is on the verge of making a decision you think is a bad decision?

Not me. I don't want a government that big. Nor do I want government making decisions for me.


Christians would say that a Babtist that converts to Islam makes a bad decision. Should someone step in and make him reconsider? Or should Muslims be required to tell converts that they might end up in the Christian Hell?

[alphaman]

So you think the government should make those decisions for them?

Yes. If I was thinking about killing someone right now, and the government had no qualms about it, would that make it ok?

[Tock]

Yes. If I was thinking about killing someone right now, and the government had no qualms about it, would that make it ok?

Killing a person is not ok. An unborn baby is not, in the eyes of the law anyway, a person. So, abortion is ok.

As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing that makes life "sacred." Humans are nothing more than very complex animated blobs of matter. Some folks allege that people have souls, yet no proof of such things are offered. Nobody has ever seen one, there is no way to measure such things, no way to describe them. Some people allege that animals have souls, others disagree.

There are practical reasons not to kill people once they are born. But so long as most people in a society beleive that abortion is ok, it will continue to be ok. Me, I'm gay, so I don't really have a dog in this fight, other than to resist basing abortion laws on religious doctrines or other religious BS.

[J.S.N.]

see this is where a hot button issue like abortion splits left and right wing opponents to the point where they don't even use their heads. obviously the right wingers have their agenda, but is it really a bad thing that the women should be notified that the fetus can feel pain? (a zygote forms a head by six weeks so i imagine a 20 week old fetus is pretty well developedn) IMO for a huge decision like an abortion, the patients should be educated as much as possible.

[mcpeepants]

Just politics? Wake up dude. Did you read how the procedure is done?



Yeah, you're right. Teenagers (the vast majority of those who are responsible for abortions) always make wonderful decisions on their own.

The bill is just trying to legislate common sense. Who doesn't know the baby they're trying to abort can't feel pain? I'm the baby is alive and almost every living thing feels pain. I didn't say anything about teenagers so don't put words in my mouth.

[Kärnfysikern]

Well I guess you would have to force someone who profits from murdering these babies, so you're right.

So...... they would have no interest in letting the patient -- the fetus -- know it's going to be painful. They're not paying and they won't be around afterward to complain.

I doubt the doctor (the one who profits) would do it quite like that. It would probably take place more like a car salesman who has to tell the customer about the lemon law.

Its not like abortions are a huge income for docs and I doubt any doc take joy out of performing a abortion....

Don't assume that everyone is as intelligent as you are. And as someone who has children -- I can tell you that the reality of them being real people isn't realized until the minute they pop out, so it's very easy for a pregnant girl to write the whole thing off on today's world.

Imo its better to do a abortion then to let a child grow up with say a drug absuing mom, a abusive dad, loveless parents or a host of other things.

I dont have a firm position yet on late abortions. But this law is just silly.