Photo by Cissey Ye, via Flickr

October 11, 2017 Mollie Finnegan 1Comment

The House just took a step in the right direction.

A large part of the Pro-Life movement surrounds the idea that we are fighting for those incapable of fighting for themselves. Last week, the House passed legislation that is certainly a step in the right direction. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would make abortions after the 20 week mark illegal except in cases of incest, rape, or the mother’s life being threatened. The whole premise of the bill is to prevent a fetus from being aborted once it is established they can experience pain.

For this argument, it stands that a fetus is capable of feeling the dismemberment process at around 20 weeks, making it inhumane to subject it to that experience. A main argument expressed by the left is that there is no way to be certain that a fetus can feel pain. Another assertion made is that pain is relative anyway, so there is not a clear or objective way to measure one’s pain. This idea bothers me immensely because it is claiming that mercy is for those in pain. Just because you cannot ask them their pain level on a scale of 1 to 10, does not mean they should be discredited — and it does not mean they do not feel anything. In fact, researchers found that they do in fact feel pain in the womb.

A major factor often ignored by the pro-choice side is the treatment of fetuses during prenatal surgeries, which thanks to our developing technology is becoming a much more frequent medical practice. According to one prenatal surgical team, they habitually inject unborn babies with pain medication similar to anesthesia used on patients to prevent movement and manage pain levels. NICUs around the world are saving the lives of babies born just after the 20 week mark, in large part because they utilize techniques like these. While the mortality rate is still a significantly high, does that feed the argument that they are not worth saving? If babies are viable at a certain point, why is that still considered an appropriate time to terminate the pregnancy? For the rare cases that appear later in pregnancy which present a danger to the child or the mother, that case would still be considered an exception for this bill the House just passed.

“The whole premise of the bill is to prevent a fetus from being aborted once it is established they can experience pain.”

Technology that is capable of saving these premature babies has often been seen as a tool used in “the war on women” and become major threats against the “reproductive freedoms” that is used to argue for the unlimited abortion movement.

Unfortunately, it appears that this bill will have a very difficult time surviving the Senate due to the uncompromising approach the Democrats are prepared to take against the rights of the unborn. What is shocking about the democratic elite is that they seem to be in the minority on this issue, not only in the literal number of seats they occupy, but also across the electorate. According to survey conducted prior to last year’s election, just under 65% of the American public support restricting abortions performed after the 20 week mark. In this group, almost 80% of millennials supported the stricter laws which would make late term abortions much harder to obtain. In a separate poll, almost 75% of Americans wanted to see tougher laws put into place surrounding abortions, with 55% of voters having supported Hillary Clinton.

The fact is the Democrats simply do not represent the same opinion on this issue as a majority of the voters. This bill does not reverse the decision made with the passing of Roe v. Wade, but instead limits the ability to inflict pain on those who we can, and should, protect. Science is cited by the left to further many of their agendas, but in this case, they are ignoring it to prolong their ability to “protect their bodies” in the form of taking away a life.

Follow this author on Twitter: @mollie_finnegan

The Cincinnati Republic is Cincinnati’s conservative free press. Join us! Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

  • TZ

    Mollie are you nuts? It is inhuman to inflict pain? Really? Is that your standard? By that logic, we should ban all guns because they inflict pain. I must assume that you are also against capital punishment, war, and police violence and any other acts that inflict pain, because humans never, ever do that. Are you? Because if you are not against all pain infliction, what legal threshold for inflicting pain are you promoting? Or maybe your argument is hypocritical.

    Besides, the unborn do not have rights. The Pro-life movement uses the canard about protecting those who can’t protect themselves as a shield to force their close-minded views on the rest of us. Your argument boils down to trying to force your religious views on the rest of us who do not believe in imaginary gods. If your god cares about abortions, then he can sort it out, can’t he?

    You lie and the National Review lies when you say the majority view is abortion should be criminalized. Just because you do not like democrats doesn’t mean you are a majority or that we have to live by your rules. Let’s put it to a vote. I say most people think that abortion should be a personal choice. Most people do not want to put women in jail for abortion. Even if the majority felt that a woman does not have the freedom to control her own body, it doesn’t matter. At one time the majority felt slavery was fine. The majority voted for Hillary. The majority have never read the Constitution.

    More importantly, do you really want to put young women in prison for having an abortion? Or are you so ignorant that you think passing a law will eliminate abortions? So speak up. Are you promoting throwing women in prison for murdering their fetuses or not? If so, why does the 20 week threshold, or the feeling pain threshold matter? Why not throw them in jail for using contraception? Why draw an arbitrary line at the pain threshold? It makes no sense to pick that point from a religious or moral view, but it does make sense if you admit an outright ban would not be Constitutional or popular, so you just want to make it harder to exercise freedom.

    Freedom means that when others may have different views than you, you accept that. You have the freedom to decide for yourself to not have an abortion, why do you want to restrict the freedom of other women to make that same decision based on their own beliefs?