|
|
|
|
NRLC President Dr. Wanda Franz's
Opening Remarks to State Legislative Strategy Conference
Part Two of Four Good morning.
The November elections made a dramatic difference in statehouses across this country. Extremist abortion advocates who had long blocked mainstream pro-life legislation have lost their controlling positions in many legislative chambers and governors' mansions. For too long, either a governor's veto or the pro-abortion leadership in a state house has thwarted pro-life measures that the vast majority of their states' citizens have supported in poll after poll. At last, in many states we now have governors and legislators who will give due consideration to reasonable, mainstream prolife proposals that reflect the popular will. Today we welcome prolife leaders from states around the country to this day-long state legislative strategy conference to focus on how best to promote and enact mainstream prolife laws in this new climate. First, I want to talk about unborn pain legislation. Especially since 2007, when seminal medical research was published indicating that consciousness occurs even in the absence of the cerebral cortex, it has been clear that substantial medical evidence supports the conclusion that at least from 20 weeks after fertilization unborn children are capable of feeling pain. We know that pain receptors are present throughout the unborn child's entire body by no later than 16 weeks after fertilization and that nerves link these receptors to the brain's thalamus and subcortical plate by no later than 20 weeks. We know that by 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human. Exposed to such stimuli, they recoil, for example; and the level of stress hormones increases significantly in what is called the stress response. Surgeries on unborn children are increasingly common, and fetal anesthesia is routinely administered. During fetal anesthesia the level of stress hormones is much lower than it would be if surgical pain were experienced without anesthesia. Subduing or eliminating the stress response during surgery is crucial because it improves the survival rates of unborn children and aids their development in the long-term. Last year, Nebraska became the first state to enact the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, saving these unborn children from abortion. Based on Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority of the Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Carhart, which upheld the partial birth abortion ban, the Nebraska legislature concluded that there is a good prospect that the current Supreme Court would uphold Nebraska's assertion of a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of unborn children capable of feeling pain. Although the law went into effect in October, so far, it has not been challenged in court. Justice Kennedy has described what happens in a dilatation and evacuation (D & E) abortion--the most common methodology at the stage at which an unborn child can feel pain: "No one can dispute that, for many, D & E is a procedure itself laden with the power to devalue human life. . . . [F]riction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus. . . . The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human child or adult would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb." Whatever one's views on abortion, all but its most extreme advocates should be able to agree that 20 weeks into a pregnancy we should protect the unborn child from suffering the pain of an abortion--especially if there is no true medical emergency. We expect that bills similar to the Nebraska Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will be considered in a significant number of states next year. Second, I want to talk about displaying ultrasound images of unborn children. Just as medical science has advanced in its understanding that unborn children experience pain, it has improved the clarity and accuracy of ultrasound imagery of unborn children--truly giving us a window into the womb. Although ultrasound imaging is regularly used by abortionists to help determine the age and position of the unborn child they are about to abort, there has been no guarantee that the ultrasound image will be seen by the mother struggling with the decision that means life or death for her child. Legislation has been either lacking or ineffective--typically only requiring that a view be "offered" which in practice has meant that a waiver has been buried in documents that wind up being routinely signed by the mother. However, last year Oklahoma enacted stronger ultrasound legislation ensuring that the ultrasound display screen is positioned so that the mother can view it. In an airplane, passengers are not merely "offered" the option of affirmatively selecting to hear safety information about emergency exits, oxygen masks, and seat belts. While passengers can choose not to listen to the flight attendants--just as a mother can choose not to look at the screen--that does not mean the safety briefing can be omitted. It is unacceptable that a woman is kept in ignorance of what her unborn child looks like while she submits to the irreversible act of an abortion. And it compounds the tragedy when she finds out too late that, at time of her abortion, her unborn child was, yes, small but obviously her baby--not merely excess "tissue" to be sloughed off. We expect a number of states will be considering Oklahoma-style legislation to add requirements to their informed consent laws that assure that the ultrasound screen is displayed where the mother can view it. Third, I want to speak briefly about the problem of using public funds to subsidize health insurance that covers abortion as permitted by the Obama Healthcare Law. If it is not repealed before 2014, the Obama Healthcare Law provides for the establishment of insurance "exchanges." Unless a state opts out by appropriate state legislation, these "exchanges" will authorize the taxpayer subsidization of private health insurance plans that cover abortion on demand. Five states have already enacted legislation against this, and we expect that a significant number of other states will consider such legislation in 2011. Finally, I want to talk about the denial of medical care. At the other end of life's spectrum, this conference will cover state legislation to protect against the increasingly common practice by which ethics committees in health care facilities deny lifesaving medical care. In particular, this means the denial of medical treatment, food, and fluids to patients--against the will of the patients or their surrogates, typically family members. The denial can be based on a patient's disability, age, or other so-called "quality of life" considerations. Spurred by election victories, we are ready to engage in a tremendous task before us. It is my privilege to welcome you to this conference, where we will begin to tackle that life-saving task. Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |
