By Dave Andrusko
It’s always interesting to see how gingerly many pro-abortion outlets treat The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
As NRL News Today reported last week, Ohio became the latest state to introduce a bill to provide protection for unborn children who are capable of feeling pain.
Ohio’s introduction of H.B. 117 and S.B. 127 came just five days after West Virginia’s legislature brushed aside Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin’s veto of that state’s Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act March 6. The law will go into effect 90 days after the override.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, based on a model provided by National Right to Life, has now passed in eleven states. It is being challenged in court in only two states.
Yesterday the usually hysterical pro-abortion rhrealitycheck.org website almost matter-of-factly acknowledged that Ohio lawmakers had introduced the law on March 11. There was only the perfunctory mention that the AMA does not agree with the abundance of medical evidence that an unborn child by 20 weeks (if not earlier) is capable of experiencing pain. Why the absence of histrionics?
Simply because the usual suspects understand that the more the public learns about the capacities of the unborn child, the greater the likelihood it will no longer be desensitized to what happens to the little ones.
Moreover, the numbers are not good for pro-abortionists. As Ohio RTL noted, “In November 2014, The Quinnipiac University Poll found that 60% of Americans would support prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks, while only 33% opposed such legislation. Women voters strongly support such a law by 59-35%, while independent voters supported it by 56-36%.”
In addition as we have noted, not only do 46% of Democrats support such a law, 57% of those ages 18-29 do as well, with only 38% opposed.
As of March 11, Ohio’s law had 33 co-sponsors.
“Human growth in the womb is truly amazing,” said Dr. Dennis Sullivan, director of the Center for Bioethics at Cedarville University. “Most fetal organs are fully formed by the end of the first three months of development. We also know that unborn babies react to external stimuli very early on, and pull away from probes and operating instruments when procedures are done late in pregnancy.”
“The outpouring of support that we have received for this legislation goes to show that Ohio is ready and eager to catch up with the rest of the developed world by affirming the humanity of the unborn,” said Stephanie Ranade Krider, executive director of Ohio Right to Life. “We are hopeful that with this legislation we will be able to welcome more and more voices into our movement, showing that the right to life really is a bipartisan issue that everyone has a stake in.”
Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee, has testified on the bill in many states. As she told a three-member panel in South Carolina
“the critical question is whether five U.S. Supreme Court Justices will agree that states may successfully assert a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of unborn children from the state at which there is substantial medical evidence that they are capable of feeling pain.”
Balch told NRL News Today that based on prior decisions, she believes that given the opportunity to review the legal principle, the court would agree there is a compelling state interest in protecting pain-capable unborn children.