Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5 • Thursday, June 3, 2004
Fetal pain
Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act would educate women on abortion’s inhumanity
CODY
SAIN
T hroughout the trial proceedings of the v
Partial-Birth Abortion Act ban that have
been in the news recently, the issue of
fetal pain has been a recurring question.
Many of the doctors who have testified dur
ing the trials have stated their literal indiffer
ence as to whether any pain exists for a fetus
when being aborted. This includes the April 8
testimony of Dr. Stephen Chasen, a plaintiff in
the New York lawsuit.
In a dialogue with Judge Richard Casey, as
reported by the U. S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops, Chasen stated that he does not know whether the abor
tion procedure hurts the baby, yet this does not stop him from per-
fonning an abortion. Also, when the judge asked if he has any
“caring or concern for the fetus whose head you were crush
ing,” Chasen responded, “No.”
If Chasen and others are truly ignorant to or unconcerned
with any pain that might be felt by the unborn child (and
this is questionable), it is time for them to become
informed and to start caring.
In May a new bill was introduced to the U. S. House
of Representatives and Senate called the “Unborn Child
Pain Awareness Act of 2004.” Its goal is to educate and
inform women and others about the reality of pain felt
by children in the womb.
The bill, if passed, will require women who seek
abortions after 20 weeks of gestation to be notified of
the pain that the child will feel during the process.
It will likely draw criticism similar to that received
by the Women's Right to Know Act recently passed in
Texas. Abortion advocacy groups claimed that the act,
especially a part of it which describes a possible link
between abortion and breast cancer, is not about informed
consent but intimidating women into not having abortions.
Again, though, it must be stated that for a woman to make
the best possible choice, she must be fully informed.
Ever since the Women’s Right to Know Act became law,
Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas has stated
on its Web site that it has always fully informed women of their
options and all that happens during the abortion process. While
this may be true to an extent, when the abortionists themselves
are testifying to their indifference of whether an unborn child
feels pain, it is unlikely that women are being informed about
fetal pain.
Please note that neither the Fannin nor the Bryan Planned
Parenthood abortion clinics perform abortions during the last 16
weeks and should not be affected by this act.
The findings of the act itself remove doubt in some people’s
minds about the possibility of the unborn child being able to
feel pain.
It states that expert testimony confirms that 20 weeks after fer
tilization, the baby can feel substantial pain.
On April 15, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a professor of pediatrics in
Arkansas, was quoted on usccb.org as saying that “based on multi
ple lines of evidence, I believe that fetuses beyond 20 weeks of
gestation have the ability to feel pain.” These “multiple lines of
evidence” include the “anatomical development of the pain system
during fetal life,” the “physiological responses that may occur fol
lowing a painful stimulus” and “the behavior that results from a
painful experience.”
The act also requires that mothers have the option of having
anesthesia administered to the unborn child to reduce pain. This is
similar to the Humane Slaughter and Animal Welfare Acts which
require pain to be reduced for animals about to be slaughtered
or euthanized.
Few people would honestly say that a fetus is not a
human. However, some might argue that it is not a human
Hk “being” or a “person,” — words that to some have the
connotation of including basic rights.
Therefore, if a fetus is indeed human, and there are
accepted regulations to reduce the pain of slaughtered
or euthanized animals, then any human, born or
unborn, that will die has the right to have that pain
reduced.
This is a tactic that has been used by opponents to
capital punishment.
Their reasoning is that if something as horrible as
executions will be done, they should at least cause as
f little pain as possible. Otherwise, why not return to
publicly burning people at the stake, hanging them or
sending them to the guillotine?
The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is not designed
to restrict abortions, as some might decry. Instead it will
let people, most importantly the women having the late-
term abortions, know more about the procedure. If abortions
are not as gruesome as those fighting against it claim, then
there is nothing to fear from this type of legislation. One way or
the other, the facts will speak for themselves.
Cody Sain is a junior
philosophy major.
Graphic by Grade Arenas
Credible intelligence?
Constant changing of Terror Alert Level leaves people indifferent to warnings
T he Attorney General
and FBI director just
announced that the
government has “credible”
intelligence that soon, very
soon, something awful is
going to happen. But they
don’t know where or when
exactly.
Save yourselves! Take
cover!
Hold on. The Head of
Homeland Security just stated that no new intel
ligence exists regarding threats to our country.
Please disregard the previous warnings. Nobody
panic, go about your lives.
Does any of this sound familiar? It should,
because it happened last week when Attorney
General John Ashcroft and FBI Director
Robert Mueller issued statements that new and
“credible” intelligence indicated terrorists
planned to “hit the United States hard” in the
next few months.
At the same time, however, Tom Ridge
made a television appearance and stated just
the opposite.
Ridge claimed the government had not
received any intelligence that differed substan
tially from the intelligence gathered in the past.
Ridge further stated, “We could go back over
the past two years and pick out threat reports of
pretty much the same thing.”
Does anyone else feel a bit uneasy about
this confusion?
In a way, it appears the U.S. government is
completely out of sync and that there is really
no way to prevent, or even forecast, future ter
rorist attacks. This is unacceptable. In a time
when terrorism represents the greatest threat to
America and the world, there is no excuse for
the heads of U.S. security agencies to release
conflicting statements prac
tically simultaneously.
Clearly, government offi
cials don’t have the luxury
of consulting an oracle prior
to issuing statements; like
wise, it’s impractical to
expect the government to
prevent all future attacks.
But the American people
can and must demand that
their government act in uni
son and issue statements in
harmony with each other.
It is mistakes like these
that will inevitably empower the terrorists more
by making the U.S. government appear incom
petent, thus causing the public to lose faith in it.
As a result, future warnings that really are credi
ble may be neglected.
To some extent this has already happened.
Consider the color-coordinated Terror Alert
Level. The system has become a joke. For
example, how many vigilant Aggies checked the
Terror Alert Level this morning? This is pre
cisely the point; people have ceased to pay
attention to it. Moreover, whatever paltry
amount of respect the public had left for it was
crushed when the color was not raised from yel
low to orange following the alarming statements
of Ashcroft and Mueller.
Of course this dilemma has fallen along
partisan lines.
Some Democrats have
claimed that the warnings
were politically motivated for
two reasons: 1) To scare voters
into reelecting President
George W. Bush because he
appears tough on terrorists and
2) If an attack did transpire the
Bush administration could
escape culpability by saying,
“See, we told you so.”
It’s tempting to subscribe
to such conspiracy theory
assertions, but something
doesn’t hold water. If this really was an
attempt to increase support for Bush, why did
n’t Tom Ridge, a Republican appointed by
Bush, go along with it? The most probable
explanation is that he didn’t know the state
ments were to be made.
As for the second assertion, it’s anyone’s
guess.
Republicans and some Bush administration
officials have issued a statement claiming that
“the Wednesday announcement by Ashcroft and
Mueller was overblown and caused unnecessary
public worry,” according to Fox News.
Though such a statement may constitute
backpedaling, it nevertheless is partially correct.
It just lacks one crucial element: It’s now obvi
ous that a communication breakdown exists
within the executive branch.
This point cannot be stressed enough; after
all, this same problem, arguably, enabled the 9-
11 attacks to transpire so smoothly.
Damage control occurred days after the con
tradictions, as Ridge and Ashcroft tried to pres
ent a united front by echoing the same words,
“We communicate every day. We talk every day.
We collaborate our efforts every day.”
Oh, they do? It must be quite common, then,
for officials who communicate and collaborate
daily to appear on television and present com
pletely contradictory statements.
The Bush administration must rectify this
problem quickly. Once Americans believe their
government is unable to protect them, fright
ening times will replace the peace and pros
perity we enjoy in our own country. Then the
terrorists win.
Nicholas Davis is a senior
political science major.
NICHOLAS
DAVIS
Consider the
color-coordinated Terror
Alert Level. The system
has become a joke....
people have ceased
to pay attention ...
Not all experts agree on
global warming issue
!n response to Mike Walters' June 2 column:
It's very frustrating to see somebody
criticize an entire category of people (i.e.,
"Hollywood," "environmentalists," "the
media," etc.) based on an incomplete
understanding of the facts.
I agree that the film "The Day After
Tomorrow" certainly does paint an over
simplified, sudden catastrophic picture of
how global warming might affect the world
some day. But nobody should assume that
this portrayal of global warming is how
most "environmentalists" or climate
change experts understand the problem.
In fact, some climate experts and envi
ronmental organizations have already
issued statements regarding the inaccura
cies of the film. Nevertheless, any serious
inquiry into the complex modeling of cli
mate change being undertaken at aca
demic and research institutions around
the world will demonstrate the over
whelming scientific evidence in support of
global warming (I suggest visiting the
global warming Web sites of the ERA,
NOAA or the United Nations for starters).
Walters attempts to prove how little evi
dence there is by stating that "17,000 sci
entists have signed the Oregon Institute
Petition which states that there is no con
vincing scientific evidence" that humans
have caused global warming or that any
problem will exist in the foreseeable
future. A closer examination of this peti
tion should diminish the power of such a
misleading statement.
The signers of the petition were not
experts in the field of climate change (in
MAIL CALL
fact, the only qualification for signing the
petition was a Bachelor's degree in sci
ence). Accompanying the petition in the
mass mailing by the Institute were a reprint
of a Wall Street Journal article and an
unpublished scientific article that both sug
gested global warming was a myth, while
the whole package was deliberately assem
bled to appear as a position statement by
the National Academy of Sciences. In
response, the Academy promptly stated
that "the petition does not reflect the con
clusions of expert reports of the Academy."
Please listen to the experts who have devot
ed much or most of their careers to the
study of climate change. Don't leave it to
non-experts, misleading petitions or movie
Web sites to formulate your opinions.
Robert Powell
Graduate student