|
|
|
|
The Day after the Signing of the
Historic "Pain-Capable Unborn
Child Protection Act" Part One of Three By Dave Andrusko Part Two talks about the wonderful concert on behalf of the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation. Part Three is an announcement about endorsements from NRL PAC. Be sure to stop by www.nationalrighttolifenews.org and send your comments on any or all articles to daveandrusko@gmail.com. Thanks. If you'd like, follow me at http://twitter.com/daveha.
Since we informed you yesterday that the governor of Nebraska was about to sign a historic pro-life bill, Dave Heineman not only signed LB1103 into law, he made it clear he intends to defend the law if, as expected, it is challenged in court. The law, along with another pro-life measure Heineman signed Tuesday, "represent the values and beliefs of most Nebraskans," the governor said. Pro-lifers would argue that a bill that says, "You don't kill unborn children capable of feeling pain" (as Mary Spaulding Balch, NRLC's State Legislative Director, succinctly described the thrust of the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act") represents the values and beliefs of almost all Americans! At least one pro-abortion advocacy group appears to be licking its chops in anticipation. ''If some of these other anti-abortion bills have been chipping away at Roe v. Wade, this takes an ax to it,'' Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the Associated Press (AP). "It absolutely cannot survive a challenge without a change to three decades of court rulings." But if the Supreme Court were to eventually uphold LB 1103, would it really be a radical change in three plus decades of jurisprudence or a logical extension of some of what the Court has been saying as far back as 1992 or something else? An AP reporter offered a better way at looking at the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" in his story: it "raises fresh legal issues." The logic of LB1103 might be summarized this way. The Supreme Court has often affirmed that the state has an interest in what happens to unborn life. As the Court said in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "the State has legitimate interests from the pregnancy's outset in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child." The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue of the pain an unborn child feels while being torn to pieces. That issue is now ripe for review, because there is a considerable body of medical evidence that the unborn child is able to experience pain at 20 weeks. Dr. Jean Wright, an anesthesiologist specializing in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, offered an illuminating metaphor in congressional testimony. "[A]n unborn fetus after 20 weeks of gestation, has all the prerequisite anatomy, physiology, hormones, neurotransmitters, and electrical current to close the loop and create the conditions needed to perceive pain. In a fashion similar to explaining the electrical wiring to a new house, we would explain that the circuit is complete from skin to brain and back." And, contrary to the impression often left in media accounts, "The Supreme Court has never said that a law must contain a 'mental health exception' to be constitutional," according to Balch. Exceptions are only made in LB1103 for cases of a medical emergency (to prevent the death of the mother or to prevent severe and long lasting physical damage to a major bodily organ), or to increase the probability of a live birth. We will, of course, keep you up to date, moment by moment. Julie Schmit-Albin, the executive director of Nebraska RTL, may have said it best. "The Nebraska Legislature has taken a bold step which should ratchet up the abortion debate across the nation," she told the AP. "What we didn't know in 1973 in Roe v. Wade ... we know now." Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. |
