|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
|
The Daily Signal
The Nation Is
About to Debate Late-Term Abortions. Where Does Your State Stand?
Kelsey Harkness
May 08, 2015
As Congress prepares to resume a debate over whether late-term
abortions should be allowed in the U.S., a groundbreaking new study
finds that infants are able to survive outside the womb earlier on in a
pregnancy than the medical community once thought.
The study, which examined thousands of premature infants, may bolster a
national effort by the pro-life community to ban late-term abortions
nationwide.
“The latest science demonstrates the ability of very premature babies
to survive and even thrive, ever earlier in development,” said Dr.
David Prentice, vice president and research director of the Charlotte
Lozier Institute—the SBA List’s education and research arm.
Moreover, this study emphasizes that when we
intervene and care for them, they survive in even greater numbers and
at ages—even at 20 weeks post-fertilization—when doctors and the courts
previously considered them not ‘viable.’
The study, published in the The New England Journal of Medicine, showed
that with medical treatment, about 23 percent of infants born at 22
weeks survived. One in three of those survivors face serious
impairments, such as blindness or deafness.
One in three babies born at 23 weeks were also able to survive, with
half of those children surviving without serious problems.
The medical community generally cites 24 weeks as the viable age in
which a fetus is able to survive outside the womb.
Now, in the wake of this research, that consensus is being questioned,
invigorating the debate over whether women should be allowed, under the
law, to have a late-term abortion.
State Limits on Late-Term Abortions
The U.S. is one of only seven developed countries in which late-term
abortions after 20 weeks (five months) are allowed, according to a
report from the Charlotte Lozier Institute.
Late-term abortions performed after 20 weeks, when not done by
induction of labor (which leads to fetal death due to prematurity), are
most commonly performed by dilation and evacuation procedures, which
often involve removing the fetus with forceps or other instruments.
In 2013, a congressional report found that some 11,000 abortions take
place each year at 20 weeks or more after fertilization.
Despite there being no national law banning the procedure, a dozen
states have taken it upon themselves to limit abortion at 18-20
weeks—Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia.
Another 11 states—Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New
York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Rhode Island, and
Virginia—limit abortions after the 20-week mark.
Arizona, Georgia, and Idaho passed legislation limiting late-term
abortion, but court decisions blocked those efforts.
In total, 24 states and Washington, D.C., have no limits on late-term
abortions.
But now, with Congress set to take on the issue next week, that could
all change.
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
As states play out their own battles over whether to ban late-term
abortions, the nation is doing the same.
This week, House leaders confirmed a plan to take up a historic bill
that would ban abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The measure, titled the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” is
built around a broad consensus of research that shows unborn infants
are able to feel pain 20 weeks after fertilization.
“Pain receptors (nociceptors) are present throughout the unborn child’s
entire body and nerves link these receptors to the brain’s thalamus and
subcortical plate by no later than 20 weeks after fertilization,” the
bill, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., states.
To perform surgery on unborn children 20 weeks after fertilization,
children’s hospitals throughout the U.S. “routinely” administer fetal
anesthesia, which the bill states is “associated with a decrease in
stress hormones compared to their level when painful stimuli are
applied without such anesthesia.”
Hospitals have inconsistent policies regarding the age at which they
attempt to save premature babies.
Critics—including some physicians—argue the unborn child is “incapable
of experiencing pain until a point later in pregnancy than 20 weeks
after fertilization.”
The House legislation attempts to counter that argument, citing recent
medical research and analysis debunking the scientific grounds for that
theory.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told The Weekly
Standard today that he remains committed to the Pain-Capable Unborn
Child Protection Act, despite it failing in the House earlier this year.
“Life is precious and we must do everything we can to fight for it and
protect it,” he said. “Our commitment for the House to consider this
important legislation has been steadfast and I am proud of the work of
our members to prepare this bill for House consideration next week.”
Earlier this year, Republican leadership canceled a highly-anticipated
vote on the measure, angering voters who rallied around pro-life
candidates during last year’s election.
Female members of the GOP held up that vote, citing their concern over
a provision in the bill that would require victims of rape to report it
to law enforcement in order to legally obtain a late-term abortion.
Those like Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., were concerned about the reporting
requirement because the majority of rape victims don’t ever report
their rape to law enforcement.
Some pro-life advocates pushed back against efforts to remove that
language, believing that without the reporting requirements, women
could still readily obtain a late-term abortion.
When Republican leadership canceled the vote, many thought the
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act was dead.
But now, after lawmakers agreed to remove the rape provision, many are
hopeful the measure can pass Congress and reach the president’s desk.
In an earlier statement, however, President Obama vowed to veto the
legislation.
“[The legislation] disregards women’s health and rights, the role
doctors play in their patients’ health care decisions, and the
Constitution,” he said.
But those advocating for the bill, like Dr. Prentice of the Charlotte
Lozier Institute, say it’s the unborn children who need protecting.
As medical science continues to show the humanity of
babies still in the womb, it changes hearts and minds, and influences
laws to protect the youngest and most vulnerable among us.
Read this and other articles with links and photos at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|
