|
|
|
|
Pro-Abortionists Weigh
Risks of Challenging "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" Part Two of Three By Dave Andrusko
Next week we'll be running two, maybe three, separate analyses of the report on fetal pain orchestrated by a "working party" of the (British) Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). As you remember, its report not only denied that the unborn could experience pain at 24 weeks (let alone 20 weeks), but left open the possibility that this capacity might not exist for some time after that! While the British pro-abortionists chortled in glee and some American anti-lifers announced that this was a "serious setback," in fact RCOG's report is a minor bump in the road. When supposedly august scientists blather on about fluids in the amniotic fluid keeping the baby in a state of suspended, "sleeplike unconsciousness," you know you're in the presence of the ultimate triumph of hope over experience. What has this to do with Nebraska's first-in-the-nation "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act"? Well, if local pro-abortionists needed one more push to challenge the law in court, wouldn't this be it? After all the Nebraska law settles the demarcation at 20 weeks! In fact, they are very, very nervous. The Associated Press' Timberly Ross ran a very telling story a couple of days back. In it she wrote, "A ban on abortions starting at 20 weeks -- set to go into effect this fall -- is based on assertions from some doctors that fetuses feel pain by that stage of development. But it might be allowed to stand over fears that a losing challenge to the law would change the legal landscape for abortion, say lawyers on both sides of the debate." Really? Why? "If foes challenge the law and lose, the court could redefine the measure for abortion restrictions, throwing out viability--when the fetus could survive outside the womb--in favor of the point when a fetus can feel pain." Worse yet (from the pro-abortion point of view), "And if future medical advances were to show a fetus can feel pain at an earlier stage, abortions could be restricted earlier." My guess is that pro-abortionists are much too savvy to be taken in (as reporters were) by the poppycock RCOG report. Caitlin Borgmann, a law professor at The City University of New York who testified against the Nebraska law, told Ross, "It's a balancing act that anybody who wants to challenge the laws is going to have to assess, whether the strategic risks of bringing a lawsuit outweigh the likelihood of a victory." Some people, she said, might see a challenge "as too risky." The pro-abortion side still has time. The new law is not scheduled to take effect until mid-October. Personally, I can't wait for a court challenge. Please send all of your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are now following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha |
