By Anne Fox, President of Massachusetts Citizens for Life
The following was sent as a Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe.
One wonders why the Globe printed an Associated Press article this past Wednesday about an obscure Utah law that applies to very few people. Could it be because there are inaccurate statements in the article that seem to make pro-life efforts look bad?
Utah has passed a law which requires that a baby of 20 weeks or more who is going to be aborted must receive anesthesia. Laws banning abortion after 20 weeks based on the baby feeling pain have passed in 12 states and in the US House of Representatives. They are in effect in 11 states. The vast majority of these laws have not even been challenged, which is most unusual since abortion supporters tend to challenge pro-life laws as soon as they are passed.
The attorney general of Utah was wrong, then, in saying a ban would be unconstitutional. The state could have passed the ban as originally proposed.
Now that the anesthesia law is in place, the abortion doctors don't want to abide by it, claiming that these babies do not feel pain. Yet the scientific testimony before Congress and the state legislatures showed irrefutably that they do. When surgery is done on an unborn baby, the baby is always anesthetized because she feels pain.
Since a legal challenge seems fruitless, the doctor quoted in the article has gone to the legislature to try to make legislators tell her how to anesthetize an unborn baby and claiming that anesthesia for the mother will also anesthetize the baby. Many mothers have had general anesthesia for delivery and their babies were born wide awake, so the little anesthesia given for a late-tern abortion obviously does not protect the baby.
As for a doctor asking the legislature how to carry out a regular medical procedure – how ludicrous is that?
Yes, it would have been simpler for Utah to have passed the ban on abortions after 20 weeks, but the behavior of these few doctors is a disgrace and not worthy of coverage.