They oppose birth control, even though it presents the realistic solution to unwanted pregnancies. They oppose sex education, even though it helps young people make intelligent decisions about sexual activity and family planning. They oppose stem-cell research, even though it gives a newfound hope for curing devastating diseases.
Members of the pro-life movement are quite the champions of inconsistency, tenaciously vocalizing their concern for the unborn while displaying adamant contempt for measures aimed at preventing conception. Primarily inspired by religious conservatism, they maintain the paradoxical foundation of being "pro-life" by declaring abortion to be "murder" while displaying unwavering support for U.S. imperialistic endeavors, which — directly and indirectly — claim the lives of thousands.
Attempting to implement radical policies in order to promote their contradictory agenda, pro-lifers are turning to medical professionals as their next preaching mechanism. With several Wisconsin legislators acting as their political puppets, the zealots have pushed for state legislation, debated last Tuesday in State Senate chambers, which would require doctors to notify abortion patients 20 or more weeks into pregnancy that their fetus can feel pain during the procedure. Though the bill's supporters would have you believe the legislation is intended to offer anesthesia options to procedure patients, the proposal is merely a tool to spread the anti-abortion propaganda of desperate fanatics under an ideologically driven government mandate.
The proposal is a knockoff of the federal Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act recently introduced into Congress, which claims that a fetus 20 weeks after fertilization has the capacity to feel pain. The proposal's scientific foundation is primarily based on the testimony of one man, University of Arkansas physician "Sunny" Anand, who has made it clear that, despite his views, measuring fetal pain is an ambiguous process. Dr. Anand's claims have been ferociously rebuked in recent studies done by Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Journal of the American Medical Association, both of which reported that a fetus cannot experience pain until at least 27 to 30 weeks after fertilization. Other medical opinions go beyond that, insisting that the emotive aspects of physical suffering are not even possible until birth.
Despite a clear split in the medical community, the Awareness Act compels doctors, under consequence of a $250,000 fine, to read patients a document declaring, "The Congress of the United States of America has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain." This writer wonders when national legislators became the determinants of what merits scientific fact. Considering both legislative houses are controlled by men openly hostile to science, perhaps we should base medical truths on factual findings, not personal ideologies. The indirect consequence of this proposal would be its substantiation of the claim that life begins at fertilization, threatening the future legality of emergency contraception and other birth-control methods.
Even if these proposals possessed more solidified scientific foundations, the idea of pain notification is fundamentally ridiculous. Shall we notify the warmongers in the White House of the pain felt by innocent Iraqi children vaporized by American bombs? Do we tell health-care providers of the pain felt by those deprived of access to much-needed medicines and prescriptions? Should we, perhaps, describe to each and every citizen the pain the poor and the disadvantaged endure in an unsympathetic nation? Do we tell international corporations about the pain felt by the sweatshop workers they exploit for cheap labor in third world countries? The physical and emotional suffering of these individuals is not in scientific dispute. Yet no one cries for them.
The fetal pain bill seems to imply that women have abortions for purely unethical reasons. It's easy for proponents of the legislation to cry foul when they're completely disengaged from the problems that make a woman's most difficult decision her only decision. Guilt-tripping and demonizing based on medically-porous facts is unnecessary for those already enduring the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Medical professionals should be allowed to do their jobs in accordance with science, not ideology. No one will dispute that abortion is avoidable and undesirable, but the ethical and physical implications of the procedure are well known. Thinking that women's decisions will be swayed by fetal pain notification is absurd. It's perplexing that, instead of investing in proven pregnancy prevention methods, pro-lifers turn to radically unorthodox methods regardless of their legitimacy or potential effectiveness. Let policymakers implement constructive techniques that produce adequate results, instead of wasting time on radical rhetorical weaponry that will do little to address the problem.
Adam Lichtenheld ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and African studies.
