A bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy failed to overcome a U.S. Senate filibuster on September 22. Iowa Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst were among the 54 senators (51 Republicans and three Democrats) who supported cloture on the motion to proceed to debating the bill. But under Senate rules, 60 votes are needed for cloture. Republicans Mark Kirk of Illinois and Susan Collins of Maine joined 40 members of the Democratic caucus in opposing the motion. Collins cited problems with the legislation’s wording on exceptions for rape and incest and the “glaring deficiency” of providing “no exceptions for when the physical health of the mother is at risk of serious harm.”

In a Senate floor statement, Grassley claimed the bill was “aimed at protecting women and children.” He repeatedly cited the testimony of one gynecologist who used to perform abortions but became an anti-abortion activist after a family tragedy. While speaking in favor of the bill, Ernst recounted one Newton, Iowa family’s story of having a son who survived an early premature birth, asserting, “As Micah proves, babies at five months can survive outside of the womb.”

Grassley and Ernst appear ignorant about the circumstances that typically lead to abortions later in pregnancy.

Only about 1 percent of pregnancy terminations happen after 20 weeks gestation. Most abortion providers (including Planned Parenthood of the Heartland’s Iowa clinics and the Emma Goldman clinic in Iowa City) do not terminate pregnancies after 20 weeks. Many women seeking abortions after that point have discovered fetal abnormalities incompatible with life outside the womb, as described here and here, or they have a serious health condition making it dangerous to continue the pregnancy. The happy experience of Micah’s family does not “prove” that other women could have the same outcome if they continued a life-threatening pregnancy or carried to full term a fetus missing vital organs.

Other reasons for women to seek abortions after 20 weeks include domestic violence and logistical delays in accessing abortion earlier in pregnancy. The federal government and states should address those problems in other ways that do not limit women’s right to make their own medical decisions.

After the jump I’ve enclosed the full texts of Senate speeches by Grassley and Ernst about the so-called “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.” I also included comments from Ernst after the Senate vote as well as the Guttmacher Institute’s case against the legislation.

P.S.- Ernst quoted Micah’s mother, Danielle Pickering: “I bet that if Micah could have gone up to everyone who opposes the bill and give them a big hug, he could change all of their minds.” I would suggest that Ms. Pickering open her mind by talking to women like Christy Zink or Danielle Deaver.  

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

on H.R. 36, Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Monday, September 21, 2015

Mr. President, the Pope’s visit this week to the nation’s capital reminds us all of how important it is to show compassion and concern for the most innocent and vulnerable among us.   Unborn children, who fall into this category, are entitled to the same dignity which all human beings share.  This is true even when their presence might be uncomfortable or create difficulties, the Pope reminds us.  

We are now considering moving to a bill known as the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.  This legislation would make no change to our abortion policy in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.  At 20 weeks fetal age, when the unborn child can detect and respond to painful stimuli, the bill would impose some restrictions on elective, late term abortions.  Such a change to existing law would put us in line with the vast majority of other countries across the globe.

I want to emphasize that the United States is in the small minority of countries around the world that allow abortion on demand after the fifth month of pregnancy.  As Senator Cornyn mentioned earlier, we are just one of seven countries that take this unusual position.  China, North Korea, and Vietnam are among the other seven.  Are these countries really the ones we want to align ourselves with on this particular human rights issue?

Many of us in this chamber actively supported the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Could anyone here support an abortion after five months because the unborn baby has a cleft lip?  What about a late term abortion of a baby with hemophilia?  Under current law, it is quite possible to destroy unborn babies with these, or other, more serious abnormalities in utero.  I believe that these babies’ lives have the same value as those of other unborn babies without disabilities.

There are some who say they cannot support this legislation.  If you do not support restrictions on abortion after the fifth month of pregnancy, when some babies born prematurely at this stage now are surviving long-term, then what exactly is your limit?

Scientists say the unborn child can feel pain, perhaps even as early as eight weeks and most certainly by 20 weeks fetal age.  The American people overwhelmingly support restrictions on late term abortions.  And doctors tell us that about a quarter of the babies born prematurely around five months will survive long term, if given active medical assistance.  

For example, Dr. Colleen Malloy, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Northwestern’s School of Medicine, testified before a congressional panel in 2012 that infants born at 20 weeks fetal age now are “kicking, moving, reacting and developing right before our eyes in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.”  She explained that treatment of neonatal pain is standard in such cases, and added that there’s no reason to believe that an infant born prematurely would feel pain any differently than the same infant if still in the womb.  

We also have the statements of Dr. Anthony Levatino, a practicing gynecologist with decades of experience.  Dr. Levatino estimates that he performed over a thousand abortions in private practice, until his adopted daughter died in a car crash. The death of his child was a life-changing event that ultimately led him to stop performing abortions.  

Dr. Levatino testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 2012 that performing an abortion on a 24-week old child is painful for that unborn baby.  In the words of Dr. Levatino, and I quote:   “If you refuse to believe that this procedure inflicts severe pain on that unborn child, please think again.”

Scientific studies confirm what Dr. Levatino has noted, that the unborn can experience pain after the fifth month.  In fact, at least one medical school professor says it’s indisputable that unborn babies can react to painful stimuli as early as eight weeks after conception.  

Dr. Maureen Condic, a neurobiology professor who earned her Ph.D. at Berkeley, explains that the unborn child at this stage of development reacts to painful stimuli just as other human beings do at later stages.  In both the case of the unborn child and human beings at later stages of development, the response is the same:  to actively withdraw from the painful stimulus.  

As stated in a paper written by Dr. Condic:   “The scientific evidence that the human fetus can detect and react to painful stimuli as early as eight weeks…is indisputable.  The neural circuitry responsible for the most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex, is in place by eight weeks…. Connections between the spinal cord and the thalamus, the region of the brain that is largely responsible for pain perception in both the fetus and the adult, begin to form around 12 weeks, and are completed by 18 weeks.”

Babies delivered prematurely also show pain-related behaviors, according to Dr. Condic.  Also, the earlier infants are delivered, the stronger their response to pain, she reports.

It is perhaps for this reason that many doctors use anesthesia when operating on late term babies in utero.  Research suggests that these babies do better and recover faster when anesthesia is used during in utero surgery.

Many expectant mothers today are encouraged to talk to their babies in utero or play soft music for the babies’ benefit.  Unborn babies can hear as early as the fifth month and find their mom’s voice soothing, new research suggests.  Babies even learn while in the womb, absorbing language earlier than previously suspected, according to another report.  Regardless of whether you characterize yourself as pro-choice or pro-life, common sense tells us that if such techniques work to soothe the unborn baby, then the reverse likely is true as well.  Late in pregnancy, unborn babies aren’t impervious to dismemberment with steel tools in utero.  

Some say that abortion saves lives and helps women.  Remember that five years ago, a woman walked into a Pennsylvania abortion clinic expecting that she’d have her pregnancy terminated and would walk out of that clinic without major side effects. She was 41 years old and 19 weeks pregnant. She had three children and was a grandmother. She and her daughter entered the clinic, but she never made it out alive. Her name was Karnamaya Mongar.  She was one of the many victims of Kermit Gosnell.

Kermit Gosnell operated a clinic in West Philadelphia for four decades. He made a living by performing abortions that no other doctor should ever do. The Grand Jury report that framed the case around Kermit Gosnell stated, “Gosnell’s approach was simple: keep volume high, expenses low – and break the law. That was his competitive edge.”

Also, according to the Grand Jury report: “The bigger the baby, the bigger the charge. Ultrasounds were forged so that the government would never know how old aborted babies truly were. Babies were born alive, killed after breathing on their own, by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord. These were live, breathing, squirming babies.”

He didn’t care about the wellbeing of these aborted babies. He didn’t care about the health of the women.  

Extremely experienced doctors, like Dr. Levatino, who I mentioned earlier, also tell us that abortion is “seldom if ever a useful intervention” when life threatening conditions require immediate care late in pregnancy.  In most of these late second and third trimester cases, any attempt to perform an abortion “would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving care.”  The number of babies whose lives Dr. Levatino had to terminate in such cases was zero, he testified.

Mr. President, the bill before us is a common sense measure aimed at protecting women and children across the country.  I urge my colleagues to embrace the sanctity of human life and vote to move to this bill, so it can at least be considered.

Radio Iowa reported other comments from Ernst on the issue:

“The United States is currently only one of seven countries in the world that allows abortions after five months,” Ernst told Iowa reporters in a conference call after the Senate vote. “We are in the same company as China and North Korea.”

Senator Joni Ernst press release, September 21 (emphasis in original):

Monday, September 21, 2015

“And, as Micah proves, they can survive outside the womb. As a mother and a grandmother, I urge my colleagues not to deny these babies the right to life. Micah’s mom has said it best: “I bet that if Micah could have gone up to everyone who opposes the bill and give them a big hug, he could change all of their minds.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This evening, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) took to the floor of the United States Senate to call for support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act – which would ban abortions after five months of pregnancy – and share the story of the Pickering family from Newton, Iowa.

Micah Pickering was born prematurely at approximately five months and has grown to be an energetic three-year old boy. This legislation stands to save up to 10,000 lives like Micah’s per year by banning abortions after about five months of pregnancy – a stage of development at which evidence shows unborn babies can feel pain and may survive outside the womb with appropriate medical care.

Click here or on the image below to watch.

TRANSCRIPT:

Mr. President, just a short while ago, I had the opportunity to meet with a very special family from Newton, Iowa.

Micah Pickering, an adorable, energetic three-year old boy, was born prematurely, at just 22 weeks gestational age – the equivalent of 20-weeks after fertilization, the method of measurement in the bill before us.

You will notice my picture. This is Micah, that energetic three-year old boy. He was just in the office and the picture was there. And Micah ran up, and he said, “That’s me!” And he said, “That’s a baby!” This is Micah when he was born.

We are talking about 5 months, Mr. President. Think about that for a minute.

Micah’s parents and the doctors and nurses at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics were dedicated to his survival.

Micah’s mother, Danielle, has recounted the first time she got to meet her son in the hospital:

And I quote, “The second I was able to meet Micah changed my life. He was so small. I didn’t know what to expect. Would he look ‘normal’? Could I bond with this baby? Those questions were a mess in my head as I was wheeled into his room two hours after his birth. The sight I saw was a perfectly formed baby.”

“We didn’t understand at the time that Micah was right on time, but now we do. . . . You can be knowledgeable on every part of prematurity, but that does not change the fact that Micah was just as much full of life at 22.4 weeks as he is now at almost 3 years old.”

I can attest that this little boy, pictured behind me, is indeed full of life.

The bill before us today – the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act – would protect up to 10,000 lives like Micah’s every year by preventing abortions after 20 weeks, or about 5 months, of development.

As Micah proves, at 5 months, babies can live.

The United States is currently only one of 7 countries in the world that allows abortions after 5 months. We are currently in the same company of China and North Korea.

Mr. President, we must do better.

Substantial medical evidence indicates that at about 5 months of development, unborn babies can feel pain. This means that thousands of unborn lives end painfully through abortion in our country every year.

Is this really who we want to be as a nation? We are a country that stands for life. Just earlier I heard a colleague across the aisle talking about how God intends that we should protect bumblebees and tetrapods.

But what about human life? In order to rise and meet that commitment, we must protect the most vulnerable in our society – particularly those who cannot protect themselves.

The majority of men and women across this great nation agree. According to a Quinnipiac poll from last November, 60 percent of those surveyed support a law prohibiting abortion after 5 months of pregnancy.

Although passionate advocates on both sides of this issue of life often disagree, there should be no disagreement when it comes to protecting the life of an unborn child that has reached the point of development at which he or she can feel pain.

As you can see from the photo behind me, an unborn baby in its 5th month of development is not just a clump of cells-he or she can suck his or her thumb, yawn, stretch, and make faces. They have ten fingers and ten toes. They can also feel pain.

And, as Micah proves, they can survive outside the womb. As a mother and a grandmother, I urge my colleagues not to deny these babies the right to life.

Micah’s mom has said it best: “I bet that if Micah could have gone up to everyone who opposes the bill and give them a big hug, he could change all of their minds.”  

Thank you Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Senator Joni Ernst press release, September 22 (emphasis in original):

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) released the following statement after the Senate failed to garner enough votes to proceed on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act which would ban abortions after about 5 months of pregnancy – a stage of development at which evidence shows unborn babies can feel pain and may survive outside the womb with appropriate medical care:

“I am deeply disappointed by today’s outcome as this legislation would protect as many as 10,000 vulnerable lives every year. There should be no disagreement when it comes to protecting the life of an unborn child that reaches the point of development at which he or she can feel pain.  

“As a mother and grandmother, I remain steadfast in my commitment to defend life and will continue working tirelessly to ensure that our nation does not deny these innocent babies a future they rightly deserve. It is our responsibility as a society to protect the most vulnerable – particularly those who cannot protect themselves.”

Last night, Senator Ernst spoke on the Senate floor to urge support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and shared the story of the Pickering family from Newton, Iowa. Micah Pickering was born prematurely at just 5 months and has grown to be an energetic three-year old boy.

From the Guttmacher Institute:

Proposed Ban on Abortion After 20 Weeks Is Misguided and Harms Women’s Health

September 21, 2015

The proposed federal ban on abortion at or after 20 weeks post-fertilization (equivalent to 22 weeks’ gestation) is harmful to women’s health and fundamentally misguided. The bill is premised on faulty science, would fall hardest on the most vulnerable women, and contains provisions that could lead to the targeting of abortion providers. Instead of pursuing such a ban, those concerned about later abortions should work to help women access abortion care earlier in pregnancy and should also promote policies to prevent unintended pregnancy.

The 20-week abortion ban, misleadingly labeled as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, is based at least in part on the assertion that fetuses can experience pain starting at 20 weeks post-fertilization-a claim that is not supported by the preponderance of scientific evidence. The bill is also patently unconstitutional, since it would prohibit abortion before viability without any exception to preserve a woman’s health. The bill also includes particularly callous and cruel rape and incest exceptions that force rape victims to wait 48 hours and make two visits to see two different providers before having an abortion.

Moreover, the 20-week abortion ban would fall hardest on low-income women, the very group bearing a disproportionate burden of unintended pregnancies. According to a study by researchers at UCSF, women obtaining an abortion at or after 20 weeks’ gestation were much more likely than women obtaining an abortion in the first trimester to report delays because they had difficulty raising funds for the procedure and travel costs, or because they had difficulty securing insurance coverage.

In addition to the harmful ban on safe abortion care, the bill would impose a little-noticed provision that could be used to target abortion providers. The bill would require abortion providers to submit annual summaries of abortions provided at or after 20 weeks post-fertilization to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Requiring physicians to report certain abortions directly to NCHS serves no discernible public health purpose, but rather appears to be part of an ongoing trend to politicize U.S. abortion surveillance.

The bill also requires NCHS to issue annual reports of all reported abortions, with patients’ identifying information protected. However, given ongoing threats against and harassment of providers, it is alarming that the bill says nothing about protecting physician and provider information and confidentiality. This is in clear contrast to many state policies, as 34 of the 46 states with abortion reporting requirements specifically protect the confidentiality of providers.

Ultimately, the 20-week abortion ban, if enacted, would constitute a significant failure of public health policy. Rather than coercing women’s abortion decisions, policymakers should focus on making abortion care more accessible earlier in pregnancy. Indeed, it is the cumulative effect of the tidal wave of abortion restrictions in large swaths of the country that may in fact push many women into having abortions later than they would have otherwise wanted.

If Congress were serious about reducing the need for later abortion, it would remove the numerous legal obstacles that delay women’s ability to access abortion care, such as waiting periods and bans on public and private insurance coverage for abortion. And, rather than cutting or otherwise obstructing access to contraceptive services, it would augment funding and support for these services to help women avoid unintended pregnancy in the first place.