House Rejects Bill on Notice of Pain to Fetuses

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 01:08:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The House of Representatives today rejected the Republican-sponsored bill that would have required notice to women getting abortions that the fetus might feel pain.

In the House, Republican leaders gave its anti-abortion base one final shot at abortion legislation before Democrats take over control of the agenda.

The House rejected a proposal that would have required abortion providers to inform women at least 20 weeks pregnant that abortions cause pain to the fetus. The vote was 250-162, short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate.

The bill defined a 20-week-old fetus as a "pain-capable unborn child." That's a controversial threshold among scientists, who don't agree on whether a fetus at that stage of development feels pain or reflectively draws back from stimuli. Abortion has been legal in the United States since a 1973 Supreme Court ruling.

< Reaction to Iraq Study Group Report | Wrongful Death Suit Settled Against Chattanooga Police >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

House Rejects Bill on Notice of Pain to Fetuses | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Utter nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by HK on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:27:49 AM EST

Quite apart from the contentiousness of calling a foetus a "pain-sensitive unborn child" there is something fundamentally wrong with the concept of this bill. Can you imagine the implications of telling a pregnant woman all of the possible negative outcomes of her situation? "If you go ahead with this pregnancy there is a chance of..." Many, many women suffer from lasting health complications as a result of having borne children. I am one of them. But to tell a person who has decided to have a child what the negative impact of that decision could be would just cause distress. We choose to have or not have children with good reason and do not need that decision clouded by scientific possibilities.

A woman who gives birth might lose her life doing so. A woman who has an abortion might cause her foetus pain. But few women make the decision to either go ahead with or abort their pregnancies flippantly. They have already considered the consequences. Many women about to have an abortion or give birth are frightened and stressed. To give them this information at this stage would just be plain cruel.

I still believe that all these religious... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Bill Arnett on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 12:38:53 PM EST

...types and MEN in general don't have a dog in this fight.

The religious just because their efforts are to usurp a woman's right to do with her body what she will.

Besides, the original proscriptions against abortion were in order to increase the numbers of your tribe or religious group. Now that the world is rapidly becoming overpopulated, this would not seem to be the over-riding factor, which is why IMO it is now a control issue.

And I don't understand how people don't stop to think that this is a personal issue for WOMEN to decide and I, therefore, as a man, don't have a dog in this fight and I don't have any ambitions to be the boss of a little over half of our society.

There is much vehement disagreement on this issue, but for me, the mega-churches whose leaders live in lavish mansions, who are chauffeured in limousines, who wear $4,000.00 suits, own private jets, hob-nob with the political elite, and produce TV shows appealing to the poor to send them money are, well, just frauds into this for the vast sums of money gained and their tax-exempt status.

But, and here is where I get myself in real trouble, I feel the same way about the Catholic church, whose pope lives in lavish luxury, surrounded by a city custom built to store all the priceless works of art, gold, jewels, a place where people eat off gold plates and drink from silver chalices, from where the pope commands a worldwide empire of some of the finest and most valuable real estate in the world, and churches everywhere "tithing" their members, rich or poor, and "confession" wherein they learn all the dirt on everybody.

Seems to me a true follower of Jesus would eschew this wealth and instead see that it was distributed to the world's poor.

But it this class of people who want to pass these laws to try and force compliance with their demands.

Maybe now with a Democratic congress maybe we can get past all these efforts to control women, gays, and flag-burning and get down to the serious business of the nation.

trouble? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by squeaky on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 04:13:32 PM EST

But, and here is where I get myself in real trouble, I feel the same way about the Catholic church...

They are the criminals who set the historical standard for the "mega-churches"corruption and greed.


: Yeah, I find myself in trouble every... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Bill Arnett on Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 03:03:00 PM EST

...time I get into discussions about religions since, to me, NONE of them really practice what they preach.
And Wile, if you are so concerned about the use of your tax dollars, why are you not complaining of the millions being given to religious groups to go to Africa and preach abstinence while refusing to give out or instruct in the use of condoms? All that has done is exacerbate an already bad situation and resulted in worsening the AIDS epidemic considerably.
If the religious right can exert the same influence regarding abortion, you can imagine how badly they will screw this up, too.

I would disagree (none / 0) (#6)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 02:54:31 PM EST

For the record, I don't what women do to their bodies, but when my taxpayer money is used to do it, then I am allowed to talk about it.

Correct?

I would like people who have never been in the military to not talk about military items. Think that would ever happen?


Tax $$ (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by squeaky on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 03:03:15 PM EST

How about bombs, no-bid contracts, corporate welfare, free lunches....the list is very long.

I will assure you that the total government $$ that goes toward abortions is an mathematically insignificant number compared to the tax money used to kill those already born.

Got a problem with how your tax dollars are spent?

Write letters, vote, and if the issue is really burning you up, don't pay taxes and go to jail in protest.


Yup (none / 0) (#8)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 03:44:49 PM EST

When my taxpayer money is used, I expect to talk about it. We agree.


: Yup (none / 0) (#9)
by squeaky on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 03:48:18 PM EST

Oh, Wile, if you have ever very much... (none / 0) (#14)
by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 01:52:21 PM EST

...of what I write you should know I would be the LAST person to tell you that you were not entitled to your opinion, without regard to whether your tax dollars are involved.

You are absolutely and irrefutably entitled to your opinion, and I think you bring up good points now and then, and although I may disagree sometimes, I am nonetheless interested in your opinion and the opinions of all who proffer them.

This is a tough issue with no easy answers, so one opinion is equally as valid as the next. Perhaps not as well received, but a lot of the time people disagree with me as well.


The House (none / 0) (#2)
by Edger on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:57:07 AM EST

rejected a proposal that would have required abortion providers to inform women at least 20 weeks pregnant that abortions cause pain to the fetus.

Good. It's about time.

When was the last time the House or any part of the government rejected the use of fear tactics on citizens, and trusted them to be intelligent enough to ask questions if they want to, find information they need or want, and to make up their own minds?

I would (none / 0) (#5)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 02:51:24 PM EST

guess PETA does not like this. If human fetus (ea)? do not feel pain then animal fetus must not either.

Not all pro-lifers conservative (none / 0) (#11)
by Hector on Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 06:54:54 PM EST

I simply wish to point out that it is possible to take a pro-life stance and have nothing to do with Republicans and other selfish types.

It is possible to be pro-life because one is a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Sikh, or a Jain.

It is possible to be pro-life without any religion at all--because one feels that unborn Americans have civil rights.

There is nothing inherently "conservative" about being pro-life, or anti-abortion.

I'm not saying that there are any simple answers to this issue, but it seems that most "liberals" think it is simple: if you don't agree with them, you are "conservative".

I believe that killing animals for food when it is unnecessary--as it is in America today--is just as bad as taking the life of an unborn human. Does being vegetarian make me "conservative"? It does not.

I would ask all who would label me conservative to try a bit of lateral thinking.

: You forgot to mention something (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by aw on Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 07:19:09 PM EST

Women. You know, they do exist. They even have civil rights, too.

Killing animals for food when it is unnecessary...
Um hmmmm.
killing animals for food when it is unnecessary...is just as bad as taking the life of an unborn human.
okaaaaay

I would ask all who would label me conservative to try a bit of lateral thinking.
I would label you as deficient in certain areas.

: poor analogy (none / 0) (#13)
by squeaky on Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 07:45:22 PM EST

I believe that killing animals for food when it is unnecessary--as it is in America today--is just as bad as taking the life of an unborn human.
A more apt one would be the Bolivian practice of burying a llama foetus in the foundation before building. No self respecting building goes up without one.
Stem cell research??
BTW-Hector, you are entitled as a conservative, liberal or even voodo master, not to get an abortion or vasectomy. But, it is none of your business what women do to their bodies, so keep your f'ing hands off.