Latest Attack on Abortion Rights Based on Scare Tactics and Questionable Science

By Lisa Bennett, Communications Director

December 4, 2006

The House of Representatives is expected to vote on Wednesday on a cynical, opportunistic bill based on scare tactics and questionable science. This is nothing new for the 109th Congress—an alliance of legislators we can't say goodbye to soon enough.

Poking their noses into people's private lives and trying to control women's bodies has been a popular pastime of our government leaders, particularly since George W. Bush set foot in the White House. Now, the House will take up what's known as the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act" (HR 6099). As usual, the deceit starts with the title itself, which uses the word "unborn child" when it should say "fetus."

Introduced by arch abortion rights foe Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), the legislation would force physicians to provide misleading and manipulative information to women seeking abortions at 20 weeks or more after fertilization. The bill calls for doctors to give patients a brochure with language scripted by anti-abortion legislators, not physicians. Despite the inability to support such a claim medically, the text of this brochure tells each woman that her "unborn child" will experience pain while "being killed in an abortion." The doctor would then be required to offer the woman anesthesia or another "pain reducing drug" to be administered directly to the fetus.

"This legislation is designed to intimidate women, and add the cost of expensive anesthesia, so that abortion will be too high-priced for many women to afford," said NOW President Kim Gandy, who noted that each woman must sign a consent form affirming that she has read a statement which includes inflammatory phrases and calculating language, like "the process of being killed in an abortion" and "the pain-capable unborn child."

"The promoters of this bill oppose birth control, they oppose the morning-after pill to prevent pregnancy, and they oppose abortion for any reason. They don't care about the woman's life or her circumstances. They are willing to force doctors to parrot medically questionable statements in order to convince the woman to request expensive and unnecessary anesthesia that could even endanger her own health. It's just common sense: anesthesia can be dangerous and no one should be misled or induced to use anesthesia unnecessarily. And doctors can be fined up to $250,000 for refusing to be part of the charade," said Gandy.

Gandy added that the bill works in several ways to reduce women's access to abortion. How many doctors have the resources, training and insurance coverage to administer anesthesia to a fetus in their office or clinic? How much extra will the anesthesia cost? And how can patients say no when the pressure is so emotionally intense? Many women seeking an abortion are already in economic straits and will be unable to afford the additional cost of hard-sell fetal anesthesia.

There is also little information on how women might be affected by the application of fetal anesthesia, perhaps in addition to their own anesthesia. What will doctors tell women about the potential hazards posed to their own health of additional anesthesia? The language specified by the bill makes only one mention, in the final sentence, that "there might be some additional risk to you associated with administering such a drug."

Ultimately, the bill is a sideshow in the right wing's ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade and making all abortions illegal. It's helpful to keep in mind that this is the true agenda of Rep. Smith and his counterpart, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who has pushed similar legislation in the Senate.

The members and leaders of NOW have long known that the far right won't be happy until safe and legal abortion is no longer accessible to any woman under any circumstance. And moderates within both political parties have allowed this radical fringe to dictate the terms of the reproductive rights debate, giving up way too much ground to a vocal minority that often misleads women.

Abortion opponents do read the polls, and they understand that the majority of people in the United States support legalized abortion and do not want Roe v. Wade repealed. So, the radical right works around the edges of the law in an attempt to deny access to more and more women. These strategies have ranged from subtle, under-the-radar efforts to bold, even violent measures.

One tactic has been to focus on young women and poor women, creating as many barriers as the law will allow. Another approach is to target specific abortion methods. Sensational descriptions of a rarely-used procedure helped conservatives pass the so-called "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban," which Bush signed in 2003. In reality, the ban was cleverly written in a way that would deter physicians from performing a different procedure, the one used in most abortions after 13 weeks, and it failed to include an exception to protect the woman's health. The Supreme Court is currently considering two challenges to that ban, and if the court rules in Bush's favor it will only embolden ultra-conservatives to push more bans on more procedures.

The same will hold true if this fetal anesthesia act is passed, signed into law and upheld by the courts. Even more road blocks and restrictions will follow.

"Abortion and birth control opponents want to see how far they can go in limiting women's rights and they won't stop—ever," said Gandy. "We must be prepared to say 'no' again and again and again. It's the only way we won't wake up some day and find that our rights have been taken away."