A Closer Look at Nebraska's Proposed "Fetal Pain" Ban
by Robin Marty, RH Reality Check
February 19, 2010 - 7:00am (Print)
By introducing the "Abortion Pain Prevention Act," Nebraska Senator Mike Flood has stepped away from his role as legislator and has instead positioned himself as a health authority...despite having no medical background.
But when it comes to determining when a fetus can feel pain, apparently your own anti-choice views have as as much influence on your opinion as actual medical science. In Nebraska, the debate between science and ideology could help determine the fate of the "Abortion Pain Prevention Act," which would ban all abortions in the state performed after 20 weeks conception, except in cases of potential maternal death.
According to state Sen. Flood, 20 weeks conception (or 22 weeks as most people track a pregnancy), is the point at which the fetus can feel pain, according to the Senator and based on conversations he has had with doctors.
Of course, the doctors with whom he conferred are on the record as being anti-choice.
As Dr. Jean Wright, Chair of Pediatrics at Mercer University School of Medicine has observed, 35 years ago neonatology was in its infancy: “The understanding of the physiology of the pre-term infant, the equipment, medications, physicians, and specialized units available to care for them were present, but limited. By contrast, today there are thousands of neonatologists, hundreds of Neonatoal Intensive Care units, and breaking discoveries in the world and womb of the developing fetus.” As an example, what was at one time unthinkable, today children are born and survive at just 23 weeks gestation, as medical science continues to push the frontier of fetal viability.
Dr. Jean Wright was a featured speaker at the Focus on the Family Conference of Medical Professionals and Spouses in 2008.
The Omaha World Herald interviewed numerous doctors to try and get a consensus from the medical community on exactly when a fetus feels pain. No recognized medical authority supports the contention of fetal pain.
The article also, interestingly enough, stated which of the doctors it questioned consider themselves to be anti-choice. Four out of five of the doctors who stated that a fetus can feel pain before the typically assumed 27-week point in development told the reporter that they are anti-abortion or at least support restrictions on women's rights to choose abortion (the fifth, Dr. Roland Brusseau, a perdiatric aenesthsiologist, did not offer his position one way or the other).
The contention that fetuses can feel pain is based on the response to needles, indicating the fetus may feel the stimuli. But, as the Herald article points out, the reflex doesn't mean that the needle can actually be "felt." Indeed there is no evidence a fetus can feel pain earlier than the third trimester. According to the article:
[I]n a review of fetal pain literature, University of California-San Francisco physicians reported in 2005 that “fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester,” or about 27 weeks into the pregnancy.
The review, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, said reflex movement isn't proof of pain, because it can occur without the brain being developed enough for conscious pain recognition.
...
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' position is that it “knows of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain at 20 weeks' gestation.”
It's a good thing anti-choice advocates don't let things like "scientific facts" or "studies" get in the way when creating legislation that affects women's human rights, their health and lives.
How about banning pain for everyone?
Robin,
I believe that some pro choice advocates' opposition to fetal pain bills have as much to do with their own ideology as fetal pain bills relate to pro life ideology, so I wouldn't go pinning the "ideology sticker" on pro life people if I were you, when you have your own ideology to support.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Are we trying to shape public policy that would restrict reproductive autonomy for women we don't even know?
"...breaking discoveries in the world and womb of the developing fetus.”
And doesn't that say everything right there. It's not the woman's womb, it's the fetus's!
Well, as we all know, the woman isn't a person-she's merely an incubator.
This follows logically from the fact that they believe the 'pregnancy' also is entirely the experience of the fetus.
I find their theory particularly unconvincing because the statement is that the fetus will move away from both a needle which actually pierces it AND from a needle which is NEAR it. There is no way that a fetus at that stage of development which has never before encountered a needle would be aware that a needle is POTENTIALLY painful, and so the fact that it moves away seems to me to indicate a reflex rather than avoidance of pain.
If the fetus was consciously avoiding pain, it would ignore the presence of needles until the first time it was pierced by one and only after having learned that they are a source of pain would it move away from them.
As an example, what was at one time unthinkable, today children are born and survive at just 23 weeks gestation, as medical science continues to push the frontier of fetal viability.
I am getting really, really tired of the constant repetition of this 'fact' which strongly implies that being born at 23 weeks is a guarantee of survival. It glosses over the fact that almost HALF born at that stage do not survive and the half who do survive are likely to be incomplete because they don't have the opportunity to complete gestation.
The frontier of fetal viability hasn't moved at all -- they still develop exactly as they always have. What has changed is the ability to keep alive extremely fragile fetuses very close to that frontier by deploying "the knowledge...the equipment, medications, physicians, and specialized units". The need for all of which could be proactively lessened by providing women with early and continuing prenatal care, the most effective intervention in preventing premature birth.
Count me as one who is bewildered by the aversion to "pain." If your toddler requires injections daily, or any child requires spinal taps, chemo, or any of myriad forms of "painful" treatments, should those be withheld? Seriously. I don't know of ANYONE who gets out of this world without experiencing pre-death "pain," unless they are smacked by a semi and have no clue what happened. Frankly, I believe the sentience of late-stage feti fall into this category. Hooray for fetus-worshippers and their incessant attempts to defy centuries of tradition! Abortion is here to stay; only its accessibility and (sadly) its legality is in peril.
The anti-choicers' professed concern about the possibility of foetal pain here strikes me as incredibly disingenuous; they're just using it as an excuse to further restrict access to abortion (and ignoring science, of course). I've been informed by many anti-choicers that sentience/consciousness/ability to suffer are irrelevant in determining the morality of abortion...this 'foetal pain' stuff is yet another red herring.
In late term abortions, the fetus is either euthanized prior to the procedure, or the anesthesia given to the woman affects the fetus. I don't see why it's an issue at all. I guess it's just another anti-choice ploy to TRY to make it seem like they actually care about the fetus.
It's pro-choice or NO choice.
Once you've decided to terminate the life of that "parasite" growing in your uterous, why would you worry if it feels pain while you're killing it?? Who gives a damn, anyway? Its a non-human, totally worthless piece of tissue that needs to be extracted. So don't bother me with a guilt trip over if it feels the instrument decappitating & dismembering its wormy little body. Good riddance! ...now THAT is what I think is what pro Choice folks really want to say, isn't it? Be honest.
Gee, someone who can't read very well. So, all forms of medical treatment should be banned because they *might* cause pain upon an *act*ual child? Gotcha. The typical lack of logic, that is.... Also, *I* noticed an also not atypical failure to notice that the fetus responded to something that wasn't even touching it. *Where* would a fetus feel pain from, in that, then...? Oh, that's right, because it wasn't pain that it felt. It was just a reflex. Or, are you going to ban childbirth and C-sections, as well? No? Then, I guess it *is* like someone said and it *isn't* about fetal pain. Or, didn't you know that childbirth is VERY traumatic on fetuses and that C-Sections *al*so use medical instruments that approach the fetus. Oh, noes, the paaaiiiinnnn. *Rolls eyes*
So, you also view organ recipients as non-human? I guess that would make sense, since PLers, hypocritically, only deem fetuses worthy of the right to live in the presence of an infringement on a woman's right to bodily autonomy and *no* one else. And making organ recipients non-human while making fetuses human would lead to an actual logical conclusion for PLers, for *once*.
Umm, how would the transplanting of organs apply compared to the kind of pain a fetus would feel as his/her life is snuffed out?? Any kind of surgical procedure (which allows life to continue) would involve pain, for the recipient. But that will heal, & the patient will benefit later from the new organ. This is way off topic as any comparison to the question of does a fetus feel pain as he/she is terminated. Once the nervous system has developed, that would suggest the fetus CAN feel an invasive instrument ripping his/her limbs off. For that reason, if a woman has an abortion, will she insist her baby is anethetized before the procedure? Would seem the 'humane' thing to do, right? Can't say I've supervised any abortions before, but with all the investigations making headlines lately, I have my doubts anyone is taking the trouble to avoid fetal pain. If they do, it may be the kindest thing that happens to that doomed unborn life...
I understand how you believe a woman has the right to reject her pregnancy- for any reason she deems right, in her own eyes. This controvercy will likely always rage between our two views til God judges every one of us at the end of our lives. Oh yeah, if you're an atheist, scratch that last part...
Actually, what we know about a fetus and pain that's supported by medical data generally supports that before late in the second or into the third trimester, fetal pain is likely a nonissue.
Here are a couple more medical (not political) links for you on that in addition to the information this article itself provided:
• http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/1588
• http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/8/947
As well, know that in ID&X procedures, and also in many later 2nd tri D&Cs (individual provider practices vary, but we're usually talking anywhere from 17 weeks onward), a medication is given to the fetus which stops its heartbeat a day, sometimes two or three, before an abortion procedure, so it's often a nonissue then, too.
Really, I think that if one has not overseen abortions before, or doesn't know about how they go medically, it really is best not to leap to conclusions. But per what you hear out and about, are healthcare providers, including abortion providers, going to give the comfort of the patient they are actually caring for, and have a chart for, the most attention when it comes to their pain management and address that most? Absolutely. No matter the situation, to do anything else would mean they wouldn't be doing their jobs.
I also figure that as a Mom, you probably trusted your obstetrician, no? Do undertand that it's obstetricians doing these kinds of studies, and I think we can very safely say that OB/GYNs (which many abortion providers also are) are clearly concerned with BOTH mother and fetus, and accurate fetal development is part of their area of expertise.
Must you lifers be such dramaqueens and TRY to demonize those of us who think women are people with rights, and among those rights is the right to deny anyone and anything from using their bodies? And no, I wouls never say such a thing. You know why? Because pain is a non-issue. Also because I'm not some heartless baby-hater like you seem to ASSume pro-choicers are. You know what they say about those who ASSume, right?
It's pro-choice or NO choice.
So, if you aren't a heartless baby hater, then I may say you ASSume that it IS WRONG to perform a partial birth abortion, for example? You know, when a baby is 1/2 out of the mother, then the instrument is jammed into the back of his/her skull, & all of the brain is sucked out, so the skull can be collapsed? Hmm. Can't see much difference from the invasion further in the womb when a fetus is decapitated in a "regular" abortion. But heck, that's just me. The 'fetal pain' this topic is concerned with (does the fetus feel pain as he/she is terminated?) ...I have a hunch its YES.
There's only ONE choice, in Pro Choice.
You seem to have missed the information about late term abortions and fetal pain. But why read? It's more fun to write sci-fi soap operarettas on this site. Face it, if a fetus is developing without a brain, it won't feel pain. It the fetus has all its organs developing outside its body, it won't feel pain. And for abortions that take place before 22 weeks, the central nervous system of the fetus is not intact, as in not functioning.
All that said, good women every day have to make extraordinarily difficult decisions about a pregnancy. I just wish people would give women the trust and compassion they deserve when they do have to make these really tough decisions for morally right choices.
It's only been said about eighty million times here on the site, but there is no such thng as a "partial-birth" abortion.
That's a political term, not a medical one, and one that was designed for political purposes with the express intention of misrepresentation. The way you are describing ID&X procedures (which is the actual kind of termination done for the latest term pregnancies, and most often has always been done for stillbirths) is also not at all in alignment with the practices of most doctors who perform those procedures. The way you're using language here is also really unsound: we could use violent language like you are with any number of surgeries, for instance, we could talk about someone's gallbladder being "ripped out" when it was removed. But if other surgies don't involve "ripping" or "jamming" or "stabbing" it makes no sense to talk about abortion and other gynecological procedures that way.
Of course, when y'all talk like this, usually either you don't know any better about medical practices or assume everyone else doesn't, but you need to remember that some of us actually do, so talk like this just looks silly, uneducated and like a very obvious ploy.
First off, the fetus is euthanized PRIOR to an IDX procedure by a shot of dygoxin. In other words, the fetus is not alive when the procedure is performed. Therefore, I don't think it's wrong because it provides a woman with an intact fetus to hold and grieve over. Plus it's much safer than a D&E and much less brutal. And no, a fetus is not decapitated. During a D&E, the fetus is dismembered, but not decapitated. There is a difference. And I guess you haven't read the British Medical Journal, which has proof that a fetus doesn't feel pain until abortions are no longer legal unless it's for maternal health or fetal anomoly? I have the link if you would like to read it.
And where do you get your info on pro-choice? If there was only one choice, then it would be called pro-(insert choice here). It's not. It's pro-CHOICE. I support the choice of abortion, adoption AND motherhood, as does the rest of the community. We are not pro-abortion. When will you lifers stop lying and demonizing?
It's pro-choice or NO choice.
How do your posts fall within the guidelines of civil discourse?
So I'm letting you see another side to your perspective, & this is un-civil? I am only agreeing with what Pro Choice is supposed to mean. You have TWO choices, but ONE moral delema. We can go back & forth over when a fetus feels pain (which is by the 9th week, by the way) but as long as you're determining you have the right to terminate a seperate life developing in a mother's body, you probably don't want to think about if or when he/she feels pain as abortion is performed. Its a matter of simply asking, do I have the "right" to play God? If you don't believe in God, then its a lot easier to answer that. But if you DO, then this decision is profoundly personal, between you & God. I, for one, would not want to risk making the WRONG 'choice'...
So I'm letting you see another side to your perspective, & this is un-civil?
This is what you think you're doing?
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD
"...this decision is profoundly personal, between you & God..."
I think you are exactly right. To seek a termination or not in any pregnancy is a profoundly personal decision that should only happen between the mother and her God.
No one else should be involved.
And that, ConcernedMom, includes you. You get to make the decision about your own pregnancy terminations and everyone else gets to make their own decisions.
------
such a kind and good-hearted affirmation. I am happy to hear these messages from both religious and secular pro-choicers alike.
If your curious, I'm debating what appears to be a secular anti-choicer, Logical Brian. It's very draining, so I'd understand if you have a life to attend to. I'm hoping to find such a life myself ;)
But enjoy, and scroll down far: http://hubpages.com/hub/Abortion-Pro-Life-Tebow-Commercial
Wait, isn't this the same poster who was saying that if her minor daughter needed an abortion, she would want to be notified so that she could be there to give 'support'? Wow, after all her hellfire and damnation references in this thread, I can sure see why judicial bypass needs to be available in HER daughter's future!
Crowepps. I said I'd want to know if my daughter was SEEKING an abortion, so I could be there to support her IN CHOOSING LIFE, & let her get an ultrasound first, to prove that a real human being is growing in her belly. And to work out a means of SUPPORT for that new life. At the time I wrote that post, I did not clarify that my daughter would be informed of BOTH choices (life or death of her baby) & greatly counselled to carry to birth, then if she was under 18, the child would be given up for adoption...
I said I'd want to know if my daughter was SEEKING an abortion, so I could be there to support her IN CHOOSING LIFE
Translation: "I'd want to know, so that I could throw a hissy fit at her for even thinking such a thing. Oh, and give her an earful for being a slut, too."
& let her get an ultrasound first, to prove that a real human being is growing in her belly.
Translation: "Drag her to the local crisis pregnancy center, into the examination room, and make her look at that monitor even if I have to pry her eyelids open myself. Sure, she knows there's a human fetus inside her, but I want to make the whole idea of getting an abortion as traumatic as possible for her."
At the time I wrote that post, I did not clarify that my daughter would be informed of BOTH choices (life or death of her baby)
Translation: "You can go to Heaven with your loved ones, or burn in Hell for the rest of eternity."
& greatly counselled to carry to birth
Translation: "If you abort, then you are no longer my daughter, and you are no longer welcome in this house."
then if she was under 18, the child would be given up for adoption...
Translation: "If she's under 18, then of course I get to decide what becomes of her, and her child. What, you think her own wishes matter or something??"
Yep, you are exactly the kind of person who is demanding the passage of these types of tattletale laws so society will enforce what you believe is your ownership of your children, and also exactly the type of parent who makes judicial bypass necessary.
So you would demonize her, FORCE her to have a sonogram, and then BULLY her into making the choice YOU think is best? I pity your daughter. Like Crowepps said, this is why judicial bypasses exist.
It's pro-choice or NO choice.
Let me guess. Dr.Hern was an abortionist, no? Love the comparison to the Taliban. NOW who's being extreme? I am fully recognizing what happens in a legal abortion. I've seen REAL pictures of all the pieces taken in utero of a fetus & placed on a surgical tray, so the abortionist can be sure he doesn't leave anything behind that could cause infection. I post by knowlege of many articles I've read on how an abortion is done. Are you guys saying a fetus really is NOT decapitated & dismembered as he/she is aborted? Then I apologize for not agreeing with you. But that's what happens when you give more than one side to an issue. As long as you have the 'right' to abort, nothing is going to stop you if you choose that option. Again, its between a woman & her conscience. This is my point, in a nutshell...
I've seen REAL pictures of all the pieces taken in utero of a fetus & placed on a surgical tray
Is that like the REAL pictures of women in Playboy people may feel are a very accurate representation of women's bodies?
Photographs of anything are always problematic (and I say this both as someone who works in reproductive health and as someone who has worked as a pro photographer). And in this case, it's particularly so since often there is no verification of what you are looking at, at what stage, or from what exact procedure. To verify photos as credible, I'd also be looking for information on releases from patients and/or a source for what study was done to justify (and have permission for) taking them if there wasn't an independent release listed otherwise.
I might also bear in mind that trays from almost any surgery look pretty darn creepy, especially in photographs (all the more so in flash photograhpy: eek!), and/or especially to people not used to looking at the insides of human bodies outside of the body in general.
Again, there are people who actually work in reproductive health and abortion here, who have observed or performed numerous procedures. I'd suggest considering they/we, who have not needed to rely on questionable photos or potentially biased (in any direction) articles, do actually know what we're talking about and are truthful. Especially since we're probably also some of the same people you trust with your whole reproductive health and/or childbirths.
As someone who teaches documentary research and the ethics of photography, I'd add that photographs, especially digital, do not lie BUT they do not tell the whole truth. To tell the whole truth, as Susan Sontag wrote, would require narratives. Sadly, the narratives that anti choicers add to their images in their literature and web sites are often misleading or are an outright lie.
Additionally, in the age of scanning and manipulating digital files, the images easily become props, objects for consumption and circulation that are often so far removed from reality that they become an urban legend like the one of Malachi. This origin of this image varies according to the web site's author. The cause of death of this fetus, later named Malachi, has always been assumed to be abortion but there is no documentation. Further, no is no evidence that they body parts came from the same fetus. Essentially, this image has become the poster "child" for the gory-seekers and for the hysterical in the anti choice community. The image raises many ethical concerns about its legitimacy and about the moral and psychological needs of those who continually use it to support their antiabortion stance.
Let me guess. Dr.Hern was an abortionist, no?
Dr Hern is a brave and honourable man and one of the few doctors who performs medically necessary late term abortions in the US.He receives death threats every week from the religious right. I appended that .sig file just after one of your own assassinated George Tiller.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD
Vigillante justice is in NO WAY endorsed by those who defend the unborn. George Tiller's killer acted independently of any Pro Life involvement. But of course, when one of YOUR own murdered an old man standing near a high school with posters of an aborted fetus, did that upset your pro choice supporters? Hmm. Didn't hear a peep.
Harlan Drake, the man who shot Jim Pouillion had no opinion on abortion. The only reason he shot Pouillion was because he felt that the sign the man displayed at high school students was highly offensive. Drake also shot one other person and was on his way to shoot a third. He was on a killing spree that had NOTHING to do with abortion. Roeder on the other hand, shot Tiller because he wanted to stop abortions. His crime had EVERYTHING to do with abortions.
I find it funny that pro-lifers make Pouillion out to be a martyr, when his own son said that his intentions were malicious towards women in general because he had an extreme distaste towards them.
Oh and I've seen PLENTY of pro-lifers who agreed with what Roeder did.
It's pro-choice or NO choice.
