House to vote on Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act on January 22nd

Good news from Life News about that Trent Franks-Marsha Blackburn bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks.

Excerpt:

Republicans in the House of Representatives will hold a vote on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade late this month on a marquee bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy because unborn children feel intense pain in abortions.

Top Republicans and leading pro-life groups have been promoting the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that bans abortions from after 20-weeks of pregnancy up to the day of birth.

[…]In a statement, Franks told LifeNews: “More than 18,000 ‘very late term’ abortions are performed every year on perfectly healthy unborn babies in America. These are innocent and defenseless children who can not only feel pain, but who can survive outside of the womb in most cases, and who are torturously killed without even basic anesthesia.   Many of them cry and scream as they die, but because it is amniotic fluid going over their vocal cords instead of air, we don’t hear them.”

[…]A November 2014 poll from Quinnipiac found that 60 percent of Americans support legislation limiting abortions after 20 weeks, including 56 percent of Independents and 46 percent of Democrats.

GOP leaders plan to vote on the federal 20-week abortion ban on January 22, 2015 – the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Can unborn children really feel pain after 20 weeks?

Yes:

During the hearing on the last bill, former abortion practitioner Anthony Levatino told members of the committee the gruesome details of his former abortion practice and how he became pro-life following the tragic automobile accident of his child.

Another bombshell dropped during the hearing came from Dr. Maureen Condic, who is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She testified that the unborn child is capable of reacting to pain as early as 8-10 weeks. This is when most abortions in America take place.

The bill relies on the science of fetal pain to establish a Constitutional reason for Congress to ban abortions late in pregnancy. The science behind the concept of fetal pain is fully established and Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into it. He first published reports in the 1980s to validate research showing evidence for it.

He has testified before Congress that an unborn child could feel pain at “eight-and-a-half weeks and possibly earlier” and that a baby before birth “under the right circumstances, is capable of crying.”

He and his colleagues Dr. Vincent J. Collins and Thomas J. Marzen  were the top researchers to point to fetal pain decades ago. Collins, before his death, was Professor of Anesthesiology at Northwestern University and the University of Illinois and author of Principles of Anesthesiology, one of the leading medical texts on the control of pain.

“The functioning neurological structures necessary to suffer pain are developed early in a child’s development in the womb,” they wrote.

“Functioning neurological structures necessary for pain sensation are in place as early as 8 weeks, but certainly by 13 1/2 weeks of gestation. Sensory nerves, including nociceptors, reach the skin of the fetus before the 9th week of gestation. The first detectable brain activity occurs in the thalamus between the 8th and 10th weeks. The movement of electrical impulses through the neural fibers and spinal column takes place between 8 and 9 weeks gestation. By 13 1/2 weeks, the entire sensory nervous system functions as a whole in all parts of the body,” they continued.

With Zielinski and his colleagues the first to provide the scientific basis for the concept of fetal pain, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand has provided further research to substantiate their work.

I would really like to see the House and Senate vote on this bill and send it to Obama, who will veto it. It is very important that Americans understand that electing a Democrat is not a pro-life thing to do. We need something very public that will show exactly how extreme Democrats are on the life issue.

17 thoughts on “House to vote on Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act on January 22nd”

  1. He WILL veto it: he believes that a child who makes it out of the womb following a botched abortion deserves death. This is an easy veto for the Abortion President. But, perhaps this “vote for death” of his will be better publicized.

    Like

  2. What is the pain of a soul? Of course, from a Christian perspective, life is from day one. While it would save 18,000 lives a year in the short run, in the long run it will block the ability to safeguard the majority of unborn victims, unless and until they can prove that the single cell feels pain. This is not going to stop the hoards of senseless and sociopathic young women from using abortion as birth control.

    Like

      1. I cannot possibly understand what you misunderstood in my comment. I am anti ALL abortion. I would love to save 18,000 babies. But then, is everyone on Capitol Hill going to sit around slapping themselves on the back over what a great humanitarian thing they have done, while 1.3 million babies continue to be murdered? life begins at conception. In fact, the Bible says that God know us before we are even conceived. The soul is immortal and the lost soul feels immortal pain. THAT is my point.

        Like

        1. With respect, by your logic, the US should not have entered in a war with Japan until we had the nuke ready.

          The sanctity of life was chipped away at and it’ll have to be rebuilt the same way. ANY victory for unborn children is a victory worth having. Future pro-life legislation will not depend solely on this legislation’s basis.

          Like

          1. http://theconservativecitizen.com/2015/01/13/no-god-no-u-s-constitution-sorry-about-that/

            Interesting article. And good comments follow. We stand on the horns of a dilemma. How to justify returning to Christian values, id est, the moral code of God as handed down in the Bible. But America was never a theocracy, but a democratic republic. Ruled by the laws of men. Laws that are forever mutable. God said, “You shall not murder.” Man has said, “It’s alright to murder under the following circumstances.” As long as man is the moral authority, we will be rationalizing, splitting hairs. I once wrote about Logic vs. Dictum. America has chosen logic, which means the law is always open for debate, based upon the level of logic we employ. Under Dictum, what God says goes. Most every religion, Christianity as well as Islam, believes in some form of the ten commandments. America, though convicted by God-given conscience, prefers to call them “ten suggestions” and prefers to eschew them in favor of something more licentious. Fine. OK, pass the new abortion ban and we will rejoice because more babies will live. Or will they? As I have already been rebuffed with the idea that sociopathic women still got abortions when it was 100% illegal, so I counter that a new law will drive these abortions underground but they will still find a way to get it done. And they will feel no guilt in doing it, because they will have merely circumvented a man-made law, vs. the God-made law of “You shall not murder.”
            Somehow I am being vilified for daring to say that this is much too little too late. Somehow I am pro-abortion. I have received few more hurtful proclamations in all my life. My point is, and always was, that we are still playing God. We have just moved the needle a little as to where we begin to play God. I don’t want to play God at all. Only he has the right to take a life. The only persons he gives us the right to kill are those who wantonly kill others. If we were to truly follow God’s law, those who abort should be aborted. It is a far cry from that to saying we can play God up to 20 weeks. But, we are a godless country, so, let God be mocked, and he will have his day. As for me, call me whatever you want, think of me whatever you will. For my part, I will try to follow Matthew 6.

            As for your crack about Japan, you are talking about a personal and national right to self-defense. As stated earlier, I have a God-given right to take the lives of those who are trying to take my life. As war is messy, I’m sure we we often guilty of murder ourselves in some instances. After all, most G.I.s hated the Japanese, and that is equivalent to being a murderer in Jesus’ exposition on the spirit of the fifth (or sixth, depending on your denomination) commandment. But the stated intent was to protect the lives of our citizens and our allies from murderous aggression. So why would I feel any compulsion to wait until I could annihilate the enemy, since that is not the stated goal?

            Finally, I hope the Bill passes. I really do. I am not really insane enough to believe that we ever were a Christian country or that we will ever become one. I recognize that the more Christians a country has, the more citizens it has who are truly enlightened and working for the common good. But that is a far cry from seeking some Christian form of sharia law. People are free to be stupid in this country. People are free to make mistakes, buts those mistake aren’t something I should have to pay for. Unfortunately, that is more and more the case as we become less Christian and more selfish. Oh, well. God is the judge, not me. I continue to salute the flag until it is torn down and replaced or until I find a new place to live.

            Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” So I don’t really care what man’s law says, I care what God’s law says. The only way to get people to truly obey God’s law, regardless of man-made laws, is to change the hearts of people with the Gospel. This is where I spend most of my time instead of trying to legislate morality. And this is why I am strongly considering whether any kind of political commentary is of any value at all.

            Like

          2. It is not an either-or situation here. Why can we not change the hearts and minds AND change the laws? In fact, in order to spread the Gospel effectively, a person must be convinced she is a sinner, convicted of her sins. That is precisely what the law does: it is a powerful teacher. It is disingenuous to even imply that there were anything close to 1.3 million abortions per year prior to Roe and Doe, and that there would necessarily be the same number afterwards. (I do agree that there will be a “breaking-in” period.) In the same way, we know that pot-related DUI’s in Colorado were significantly below what they are now.

            It is a fact that having an abortion prior to the 1960’s was considered a heinous thing to do by most of society. And, the fact that we now live in a post-modern, post-shame, post-Christian society does not mean that our nation was never (substantially) Christian. Francis Schaeffer puts the fall below the “line of despair” around 1935, others around 1914 or so. Regardless, this was a major shift in the conscience of America.

            The hearts and minds of people regarding abortion, according to polls, ARE being changed. Let’s change the laws too – in order to be consistent with this “new-found” morality. Really, if your argument were persuasively made in the late 1800’s, would we not have slavery right now?!? (Or, are you saying that violence will be necessary to end abortion? BTW, I do believe that before this war is won, the pro-aborts will turn to violence. They already have.)

            Changing the laws is a form of a call to holiness, which is multiply attested to in the Bible. Regardless, we are to “fight the good fight” even in, especially in, situations in which the call seems hopeless. We may well be past the tipping point, but that does not absolve us of our obligations to the preborn. I appreciate the fact that this war is being fought on different fronts and using different methods. I say let’s use them all – consistent with the Biblical worldview, of course.

            BTW, I, for one, really like your comments! God bless!

            Like

          3. I’m not going to lie. It really hurt to be called Pro-abortion. Perhaps I should be big enough to let it slide off, but one’s reputation is everything and I don’t want people getting a sniff that I am Pro-abortion. Words matter. I say many words. Sometimes I contradict myself politically. But people need to know that I don’t do so spiritually. The Bible, to me, is dictum, not up for debate, inspired very word of God, the Truth. Politics, on the other hand . . .

            Like

      2. I’m sorry. !.3 Million is only the United States’ Hitlerian contribution to the much larger world-wide numbers.
        We are talking about thousands instead of millions. Sure, I will take thousands, but not at the expense of millions. OK, it’s a start, but a very small one.

        Like

    1. There is nothing about a bill that bans abortion after 20 weeks that prevents us from continuing the fight to save the rest of the unborn babies. There is nothing about such a bill that makes it any harder to ban early abortions. You’re simply wrong about that.

      A 20-week abortion ban would save lives now and does not in any way prevent us from saving more lives in the future. Voting against such an abortion ban is sentencing thousands of babies to death without gaining anything.

      Like

        1. You’re welcome! I always chime in on this topic because I have gotten so tired of hearing this false idea that trying to ban some abortions is somehow a “compromise” or going to keep us from stopping abortion altogether. It’s just a cop-out so that people can feel pious about their inaction.

          Like

    2. I understand where you are going here, but I think several things should be noted: repealing Roe and Doe completely will also not stop “sociopathic young women from using abortion as birth control:” They were anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of illegal abortions just prior to Roe and Doe, but that was after the wheel slipped off the wagon in the 60’s. Prior to that, abortion was a rare and highly shameful thing that would result in the woman (correctly) be shunned from community involvement. Also, the law is a powerful teacher: always has been, always will be. In fact, Biblical doctrine teaches us that the OT law was put into place at least partly to convict us of our sins, so that we might come to repent and obey God.

      There is another potential value to these kinds of bills, a political one. When this bill is vetoed, will a Republican have the courage to stand up and say: “A few weeks ago, we were the recipients of a lecture from Senator Feinstein about the immorality of waterboarding / torturing terrorists. Senator Feinstein and our current president have repeatedly voted in favor of partial birth abortion and late term abortions. Now that the science has proven that children in the womb feel pain as early as 8-10 weeks, will the senator and president come out against the torture of innocent defenseless babies in the womb, and if not, why not?”?

      So, there are 3 possible goods that can come from this bill and the incremental approach. I agree that a one-and-done repeal is the best possible, and I respect the all-or-nothing crowd, but I do see some good coming from this, including the relatively small number of lives saved, every one of which is infinitely valuable in God’s eyes. Plus, it will give encouragement to the pro-life community to “pour it on!” I, for one, am getting much bolder with people about spreading the Gospel of Life – and, given how fast people run away from and shun me for speaking out, it is hard to believe that I can be too much bolder. :-)

      Like

  3. This is a good first step. No one worth their salt in the pro-life movement will stop after the bill is passed to protect other preborn humans.

    In the same vein, pro-life groups that won’t protect some preborn babies today in fear that we won’t protect all preborn children in the future doesn’t seem to understand human nature.

    We won’t have perfect people until Jesus returns so we shouldn’t expect perfect laws until then too. We need to work for as much as protection as we can in the time period that we live in. There is nothing immoral about taking that stand.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s