On May 23, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice held a hearing on the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 1797).
“Fetuses delivered prematurely, as early as 23 weeks, show clear pain-related behaviors,” said Maureen Condic, MD, Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, University of Utah, School of Medicine. She continued, “We know less about infants delivered prior to 23 weeks only because so few are available for study. Strikingly, the earlier infants are delivered, the stronger their response to pain. These and many other direct observations of fetal behavior and physiology have resulted in a clear consensus among professional anesthesiologists (highly specialized physicians who are experts in pain management) that the use of medications to relieve pain is warranted in cases of fetal surgery.”
Christy Zink, Washington, D.C., testified that, “I am here today to speak out against the so-called Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Its very premise – that it prevents pain – is a lie. If this bill had been passed before my pregnancy, I would have had to carry to term and give birth to a baby whom the doctors concurred had no chance of a life and would have experienced near-constant pain. If he had survived the pregnancy – which was not certain – he might never have left the hospital. My daughter’s life, too, would have been irrevocably hurt by an almost always-absent parent. The decision I made to have an abortion at almost 22 weeks was made out of love and to spare my son’s pain and suffering.”
The following witnesses also testified before the committee:
