Republican Claims of Fetal Pain: Fact or False Science?

On Jan. 22, 1973, Roe v. Wade became "the decision heard 'round the world" as citizens on opposite ends of the abortion debate either cheered with joy or screamed in outrage. It held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in the earlier months of pregnancy without restrictions from the state possibly in the later trimesters, but only as it pertains to mother and prenatal viability.

Since then, abortion has been philosophical, ideological and political warfare.

With the Democratic Party predominately championing a woman's right to reproductive procedures that she chooses and the Republican Party primarily serving as the voices of dissent, the abortion issue has become political capital that is utilized like a savings account when it becomes necessary.

Veering from the standard of viability -- most abortions are banned at 22 to 24 weeks when the fetus is likely able to survive outside of the womb -- the state of Nebraska has passed a law that bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the idea of fetal pain.

With the successful passing of the measure in his home state, U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns, has decided to reintroduce an unorthodox federal discussion on abortion first proposed by Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback in 2004.

Reintroduced every year since then, the measure would require that women be informed of the possibility of fetal pain and be offered the option of using anesthesia. Because the medical community cannot reach a consensus on when the fetus develops the hormone that allows it to feel pain of any kind, it cannot gain traction, and never moves forward.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says it knows of no legitimate evidence showing that a fetus can ever experience pain. With the fetal brain not developing until 20 to 40 weeks, and the pain hormone not developing until some point in the last trimester, they do not report of any legitimate research done to support the measure.

However, Johann feels differently: "How does anybody -- prolife or prochoice -- oppose this?" he asks, "If the baby feels pain ... then it is an issue of human compassion."

Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, a group representing North American abortion providers, said such legislation "keeps resurfacing but it has not moved forward -- and should not move forward -- since there is no credible scientific evidence to support the bill."

Though there is no science to support the bill, it skillfully plays on the feelings of the mother to reduce abortion in the United States.

With abortion clinics being bombed and women attempting to do self-abortions at home, it is a volatile issue that stirs people on a visceral level. Signs of dead infants on picket signs have become the norm outside of clinics that offer the service, and women who are already in a fragile state of mind are called murderers and baby killers as they walk through the doors.

By now, speculating that the fetus feels pain, it is obviously tat Johann hopes more women will get in touch with their maternal instincts and choose to continue their pregnancies to full term.

However, in many instances, maternal instincts are not the issue. With abortion clinics most prevalent in minority communities, it has become a form of birth control for some young women who have not been educated on protecting themselves. Young women who have been raped, molested or violated often use abortion as a means of moving on with their lives as best they can, while always missing their unborn children and regretting their decision.

While it is noble for Republicans to treasure infant life, it is also hypocritical. They purposely re-define self-righteous religious crusading as social justice, while simultaneously ignoring the reality that the Jesus they claim to serve would shelter and assist anyone in need. Because these young mothers with no support, income, occupation, or education who comprise the majority of abortion seekers, are the very ones who will be in need of resources such as welfare and WIC -- assistance Republicans would like to see cut. Many of these babies will be dropped off at hospital doors and found in trashcans in alleys or end up becoming wards of the state. These so called prolifers are allegedly concerned with giving a child a life, while exhibiting a blatant disregard for the quality of that life once it begins.

Why should we allow helpless babies to be born into this world with no possibility of a promising future all for political gain? While I agree that frivolous abortion is an abomination, I would rather the products of conception be terminated before I see another homeless youth on the street struggling to defend himself.

This is not, nor should it be, an easy decision -- and for very good reason. It's not our decision to make. A woman's body is her own, and we can disagree with what she chooses to do with it, but ultimately she has to be the one to live with the ramifications of her choice in ways that only she knows.

And a Republican Party that takes pride in separating the government from private citizen affairs as it pertains to economic measures should exercise that same restraint and conservatism as it relates to the intimate choices a woman makes concerning her body.