Senate Bill 51
Jeff at Have Coffee Will Write has a nice piece yesterday about the new definition of “woman” being written into Senate Bill 51. I urge you to take a moment right now to read it, then come back here for a discussion of the rest of the bill.
This bill, entitled The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005, is one nasty piece of legislation, sponsored by Sam Brownback (R-KS) and cosponsored by 32 of the Usual Suspects whose names I believe deserve inclusion here.
Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] Sen Allen, George [VA]
Sen Bunning, Jim [KY] Sen Burns, Conrad R. [MT]
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] Sen Coburn, Tom [OK]
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] Sen Crapo, Mike [ID]
Sen DeMint, Jim [SC] Sen DeWine, Mike [OH]
Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] Sen Ensign, John [NV]
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC]
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE]
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ]
Sen Lott, Trent [MS] Sen Martinez, Mel [FL]
Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] Sen Roberts, Pat [KS]
Sen Santorum, Rick [PA] Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL]
Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] Sen Talent, Jim [MO]
Sen Thune, John [SD] Sen Vitter, David [LA]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If you are represented by any of these Senators, I urge you to contact them and express your disapproval.
To find the full text of the legislation, click here, select Bill Number and enter S51 in the search window. The bill status is currently read twice and referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, where it is still in committee.
The full title of the bill is: “A bill to ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.”
The following statement is to be read to the woman contempating abortion:
“You are considering having an abortion of an unborn child who will have developed, at the time of the abortion, approximately XX weeks after fertilization. The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain. There is substantial evidence that by this point, unborn children draw away from surgical instruments in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain. Congress finds that there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain, even though you receive a pain-reducing drug or drugs. Under the Federal Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005, you have the option of choosing to have anesthesia or other pain-reducing drug or drugs administered directly to the pain-capable unborn child if you so desire. The purpose of administering such drug or drugs would be to reduce or eliminate the capacity of the unborn child to experience pain during the abortion procedure. In some cases, there may be some additional risk to you associated with administering such a drug.”
You will note by my emphasis that Congress has determined that it will cause pain, not a medical or scientific body. Also note how “life begins at fertilization” has been slipped in there, too.
She is also to be given a brochure on the subject.
(1) DEVELOPMENT- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall develop an Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure. Such Brochure shall be written in English and Spanish and shall contain the same information as required under the statement under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i), including greater detail on her option of having a pain-reducing drug or drugs administered to the unborn child to reduce the experience of pain by the unborn child during the abortion. Such information shall be written in an objective and nonjudgmental manner and be printed in a typeface large enough to be clearly legible. The Brochure shall be made available by the Secretary at no cost to any abortion provider.
Written by doctors? No. Written by the government, developed and distributed with your tax dollars.
After receipt of this brochure, a woman must sign a release form consenting to anethesia for the fetus (at perhaps increased risk to her own health) or specifically decline the anesthesia.
Also of concern is this new regulation concerning clinics where abortions may be performed.
(iii) ADMINISTRATION OF ANESTHESIA- If the abortion provider is not qualified or willing to administer the anesthesia or other pain-reducing drug in response to the request of a pregnant woman after making the statement required under clause (i), the provider shall–
(I) arrange for a qualified specialist to administer such anesthesia or drug; or
(II) advise the pregnant woman–
(aa) where she may obtain such anesthesia or other pain-reducing drugs for the unborn child in the course of an abortion; or(bb) that the abortion provider is unable to perform the abortion if the woman elects to receive anesthesia or other pain-reducing drugs for her unborn child.
If the plan works, and women are guilted into requesting anesthesia for the fetus, chances are she won’t get the abortion at all, because of the requirement to have an anesthesiologist standing by in case someone opts for it.
In introducing the bill, Sen. Brownback gave the following speech: “I am introducing today, with over 30 cosponsors, a bill that speaks to this critical issue. It is S. 51, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. It has 31 cosponsors. This legislation, I believe, is strongly pro-woman, pro-child and pro-life, and it will help in the creation of a culture of life in America.”
Tell your senators NO, this is not a pro-woman, pro-child bill. It’s propaganda, pure and simple. I urge you to contact Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), Committee Chairman and a cosponsor of S51, and tell him to keep the government out of private medical decisions.
April 28th, 2005 at 3:01 am
I just wrote a letter to my Senator whose name I found on your list. It may not do much but at least it is expressing my opinion. Thank you for providing this information.
April 28th, 2005 at 6:13 am
One aspect of this bill that is patently strange is the idea that a fetus experiences pain, and should be given anesthesia, when a baby who need surgery, up until recently and not in all cases, may be denied anesthesia due to the possibility that the child might die.
All this measure ends up being (other than a tacit approval for the possible extermination of the potential mother and dehumanization of women overall) is a means in which to prey on the fragile emotions of a woman trying to make the right decision in a difficult circumstance.
April 28th, 2005 at 6:50 am
Yes — Tish G — it’s why I chose not to have my sons (twin) circumcised a quarter of a century ago. No anesthetic. But for years, I think the argument was that the baby boys didn’t feel the pain at that age. Some one correct me if I’m wrong.
As for S51, I am beyond articulate about this one. But I won’t be writing my senators: McConnell and Bunning (they ARE the great satan).
April 28th, 2005 at 9:51 am
Twenty-five years is a long time in research years.
You may want to read here and here. As for McConnell and Bunning, I’ve voted for both of them, although Bunning is a bit crazy these days. You must have them confused with Hillary.
As for “dehumanizing”, the feminists have nearly cornered the market for years, although they’ve been busy dehumanizing men. I also don’t see how the bill’s clearly pointing out that it is using a biological definition of “woman” is tantamount to attempting a sociological restructuring of the cultural concept of “woman”. Certainly it’s odd from a more liberal stance, considering how in the liberal lexicon the concept “child” surely morphs depending on whether you’re applying it to a 15 year old murderer or a 15-year-old wanting an abortion without parental consent. Are such cultural terms static, or dynamic? Do they refer to only a cultural construct, or do they have a valid biological meaning too?
As for keeping the government out of private medical decisions, I’ll agree to withdraw my support for S51 when you withdraw your support for government funding of abortions - including all funding for abortion counseling through Planned Parenthood - both here and abroad. Deal?
April 28th, 2005 at 10:45 am
Susanna,
I suspect you’re missing the tussles since having your own comments turned off.
You know your opinion is always welcome here, even when we disagree, as we are destined to do on this issue.
April 28th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Yes, Terry, I am! Thank you for being understanding. Seriously, I agree with you more than I disagree on a number of things, and you know how much I like you and Jeff. Not just as writers, although I admire you both very much in that way, but as friends. You’re correct, though, in that we are destined to disagree, and vehemently, on this issue. It’s nice that we can do so cordially.
July 14th, 2005 at 8:21 am
[...] verse genetic constitution Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), the crusader who brought us the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005, is back, this time with S. 1373, aka the Human Cimera Act, forbidding any a [...]
January 9th, 2006 at 8:50 am
[...] Score one for science: on Friday, Wisconsin governor Jim Doyle vetoed a state version of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, which would have required doctors to tell patients seeking abortions that a fetus over 5 months gestation feel pain. [...]
February 11th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I think it is an excellent bill. The fact that many people that leave comments on here are calling senators satan is absurd. I don’t see how protecting a child from pain is bad:( What’s wrong is when our tax dollars are given to people in our society who had irresponsible sex and can’t even pay for their mistake. Instead we pay doctors to harm fetuses.