A proposal to make unborn children treated as humanely as animals

Author: Jared Fallon

The war on abortion seems to be never ending, having 2 stark opposition groups that work tirelessly to either fight as the Pro-Choice or the Pro-Life reformists. After so many years of rhetoric and seemingly unchanging lines of argumentation, a group of 120 Congress members are taking a more unique approach to battling, or as the bill states, “informing” mothers of the implications of abortion.  Christopher Smith’s (R-NJ) House Resolution 3442 takes a slightly different spin than the average anti-abortion bill (and the long track record of Smith’s abortion efforts), calling his proposal the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2007”.

In the 22 page long bill Congress outlines a series of findings to help make the case for mothers being properly informed of the scientific (albeit somewhat one-sided) facts of unborn children. Select findings from the bill are as follows:

It has been found that after 20 weeks after fertilization,

• An unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain
• Unborn children draw away from certain stimuli in a manner which an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain
• An unborn child may experience substantial pain even if the woman herself has received local analgesic or general anesthesia
• Medical Science is capable of reducing such pain through the administration of anesthesia or other pain –reducing drugs directly to the unborn child

The bill’s foundation is that in review of current legislation, animals are treated better than unborn children, despite the fact that they are both capable of responding to harsh stimuli sensation. H.R.3442 makes the case rather compellingly by offering a look into the Human Slaughter Act of 1958 that requires “humane” treatment in reference to handling or slaughtering animals. This means that the animal must either be killed by a direct shot or blow or be given a method to lose consciousness before the animal is slaughtered. Furthermore, the bill provides a look into the Animal Wellness Act, outlining provisions for minimalistic pain and overall treatment conducted after the animal has been tranquilized.

The overall tone of the bill creates the notion that the most common methods of abortion after during or after the 20 week mark are inhumane and can torture the organism with substantial pain. Such methods include “…dismemberment, poisoning, penetrating or crushing the skull…(and/or sucking) the child’s brains  out before completing the delivery of the dead infant”. The bill is unique in that it does not necessarily make the claim that abortion is a method to kill children or that the organism is not a human until is completely born, but rather that we should have the same standards of treatment for unborn children as we do animals.

The proposed call to action for the bill begins on page 8, and would require the doctor administering the abortion to provide many pieces of information, with the most important factors including:

• The age of the unborn child
• A Department of Health and Services-approved “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure”, outlining the use of pain-relieving drugs, description of risks, and the administration of anesthesia, and a
• “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form”

The approach of the bill merely attempts to have the parents making the decision be informed of the “substantial pain” involved for the most prominent procedures, as well as the risk of administering techniques to ensure that the unborn child receive less pain. To see the exact provisions of the bill which include details as to what content is required in the brochures, timelines, and distribution of information, follow this link.

Whether or not you personally believe in such a proposal, Senator Smith does outline a strong case for reform requiring that unborn children be given, at least, the same treatment that animals are given in the event that parents do indeed choose to have an abortion. The bill certainly is worth review and, at the very least, offers a more middle-of-the-road call to action than the average pro/con abortion groups commonly support.