Besides the anti-life amicus that ripples through them, what common denominator is there in the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) bills?
For newcomers, the former says, it is an abomination, no matter where you stand on the abortion issue, to tear apart an unborn child who has developed to the point where she can feel pain. The latter says merely let’s upgrade informed consent laws to tell women that should they change their mind half-way through the two-drug chemical abortion procedure, there is a good chance they can reverse the effect of the first drug, provided they didn’t take the second.
Let’s back up for a second first. What is the most common refrain any pro-life initiative hears? It’s a “woman’s choice.”
But APR is a “woman’s choice.” It is genuinely a choice, not one she was rushed into or coerced into. So what do pro-abortionists say?
APR is “fake science,” aka unproven, so they are really “helping” these women who have come to regret their decisions.
What about fetal pain legislation? Guess what? Pro-abortionists reach into their bag of sophistry and pull out…”fake science.”
What can we say? Well, what about the 300 healthy babies who have been saved by this APR protocol and the over 100 women who are currently pregnant awaiting delivery?
What about the many studies that demonstrate the unborn child is quite capable of experiencing pain by the 20th week? As NRLC President Carol Tobias said at a press conference where the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act was formally introduced in the Senate:
It is common to read in articles about this legislation that unborn children do not have the capacity to experience pain at 20 weeks fetal age. Those kinds of claims ignore the facts.
There is a large body of evidence that includes testimony from such experts on fetal pain as Professors Kanwaljeet “Sunny” Anand and Colleen Malloy.
In a 10-page report submitted to a federal court and accepted as expert testimony, Prof. Anand wrote, “It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children.”
Dr. Anand does not wish to be drawn into the abortion debate but his testimony stands.
Testifying in Idaho, Dr. Matthew Harrison, medical director at Abortion Pill Reversal, a national medical organization, “said he has co-authored a study on the reversal procedure’s effectiveness that was approved for publication,” according to reporter Kyle Pfannenstiel. “But, the results are not ready for the public as it has not undergone peer-review.”
So my question is this. What if there comes to be indisputable evidence to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt both that the unborn child can experience pain by 20 weeks and the chemical abortions can be reversed?
The answer? It would make absolutely no difference to the pro-abortionists. None. They just cling to these excuses now because the media megaphone repeats them uncritically.
The real common denominator is that pro-abortionists want unlimited abortions for any reason, or none, throughout pregnancy—and, if you push them, many would say beyond birth.
And it’s just too bad if unborn child suffer unimaginable pain while being ripped to pieces and tough luck if an aborting woman comes to her senses and wants to save her baby.
The post
What if all the excuses pro-abortionists use were proved to be bogus? appeared first on
NRL News Today.
