Supreme Court Clear Cuts State Health and Safety Protections for Women

You were in the workshop, using your router on wood that you intended to incorporate in a lovely accent table in your formal living room. As so many of us have done, you failed to wear safety glasses or goggles. You bent low to follow the line that your router bit cut into the wood. Then, suddenly, you are clawing at the painful wooden bits that spewed onto your face. Unfortunately, some of the wood chaff got in your eyes.

Rinsing with water did not resolve your problem. You and your spouse hope into the car and head to the local freestanding urgent care center. After registering and waiting, you wait for about 30 minutes. When a staffer at the clinic calls you back, you confront an ugly scene in your treatment room.

Filth: Gosnell's way of practice

Ceiling tiles and insulation have fallen.

A leaking ceiling drips into a plastic bin.

In the corner near that counter a bucket of water sits, with an electric water heater suspended in the bucket. You look inside the bucket and notice a small collection of medical surgical instruments.

The tiny, tawdry, filthy treatment room seems spacious by comparison with the hallway leading from the waiting room to it. In that hallway, you could

Water heating in a bucket to "sterilize"
Gosnell's Surgical Instruments

not walk side by side with your spouse.

When the doctor finally enters the treatment room, he looks a great deal like a cross between Mel, the short order cook from the old TV series “Alice,” and a Bugs Bunny caricature of a witch doctor. You find it odd that he is smoking while he examines you. Because he has not donned gloves, you observe the dark crust under his fingernails. He coughs spasmodically, and you remember hoping that the cough evidences a longtime habit of smoking, rather than some communicable illness.

Who in their right mind would allow the doctor to take a pair of tweezers from the counter, after digging them out from under the ceiling tiles and insulation, and begin removing wood flecks from their eye?

Cramped Procedure Room at Gosnell House of Horrors

Maybe cautious living, up until the woodworking accident, contributed to your longevity? Perhaps you are the sort to research a doctor on the internet, and to look for evidences of medical licensing, and health and safety inspections, before even considering allowing something important, like your self, to undergo such an intimate kind of touch by a complete stranger?

Got Germs? Gosnell apparently set a low bar
for environmental concern in the office

The fact is that, in Texas, if you sought a surgical procedure of the kind that can be done on an outpatient basis at a freestanding clinic, you would not have confronted the conditions I described above. Instead, because of a regime of health and safety laws and regulations, the center described above would be closed. 

Texas requires a clean environment for the provision of such care. Here's the basic regulatory framework for ambulatory surgical centers in Texas:

(a) The ambulatory surgical center (ASC) shall have the necessary personnel, equipment, and procedures to handle medical emergencies that may arise in connection with services sought or provided. At a minimum, the ASC shall provide:

  (1) periodic instruction of all personnel in the proper use of safety, emergency, and fire-extinguishing equipment;

  (2) procedures, including adequate surveillance techniques, that minimize sources and transmission of infections;

  (3) a comprehensive emergency plan to address internal and external emergencies, including:

    (A) a provision for the safe evacuation of patients during an internal emergency, especially patients who have difficulty walking;

    (B) a provision for the most efficient use of available facilities and services during an external emergency; and

    (C) a requirement for at least four drills a year of the internal emergency plan.

(b) Hazards that might lead to slipping, falling, electrical shock, burns, poisoning, or other trauma shall be eliminated.

(c) Facilities shall be clean and properly maintained.

(d) An emergency call system shall be provided and readily accessible to staff and patients in all areas of the facility.

(e) All equipment, including emergency equipment, shall be properly maintained and periodically tested.

(f) There shall be a system for the proper identification, management, handling, transport, treatment, and disposition of hazardous materials and wastes whether solid, liquid, or gas.

  (1) This system shall include, but is not limited to, infectious, radioactive, chemical, and physical hazards.

  (2) The system shall provide for the protection of patients, staff, and the environment.

(g) An ambulatory surgical center shall meet the requirements set forth by the department in §§1.131 et seq. of this title (relating to Definition, Treatment, and Disposition of Special Waste from Health Care-Related Facilities).

(h) Sufficient space, equipment, and supplies shall be provided to perform the volume of work with optimal accuracy, precision, efficiency, and safety in the laboratory and x-ray. The ASC shall furnish equipment for basic diagnostic purposes, depending on the extent of services provided. Dressing area(s) shall be required, depending on services provided, with convenient access to toilets, and may be shared with patient changing/preoperative rooms

Yes, it is stunning, isn't it? 

All these outpatient clinic categories are subject to
health and safety regulations ... but not abortion businesses

As you read these requirements, knowing that a plastic surgeon enhancing your nose must meet these requirements but an abortionist terminating a pregnancy need not do so, you realize just how far afield the justices of the Supreme Court have wandered.

Just as with basic health and safety, Texas requires basic, frankly commonsense, minimum standards for construction. For example, the architectural review conducted by the State’s Health and Human Services Commission would insure that internal hallways leading to treatment rooms would be wide enough to accommodate a stretcher so that, if an emergency arose, a patient could be retrieved by emergency personnel and quickly transported to a hospital for possibly life-saving care.

In case you were not aware of the facts, most of the nightmare of filth and danger described in the opening paragraphs above are not the fruit of a vivid imagination.

Instead, those “hypotheticals” are drawn from the very real conditions of a Pennsylvania abortion business run by Doctor Kermit Gosnell. Dr. Gosnell, you may recall, is spending the last of his days in prison. His role in murdering children born alive and causing women to die and/or suffer permanent scarring is the story of the filth, disorder, and dangers in the paragraphs above. In fact, the pictures accompanying the paragraphs above were taken from the evidence in his trial.

Today, five black-robed magicians testified in unison that the States have no legitimate interest – not in the lives, safety, and health of women that may seek or obtain abortions – in preventing other Kermit Gosnells from maintaining medical houses of horrors across Texas. Ass. Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined Ass. Justice Breyer in a decision striking down two provisions of Texas law enacted by the Texas Legislature in 2013. The case was Whole Women's Health vs. Hellerstadt.

In 2013, Texas passed new statutory requirements for abortion services in Texas. Two requirements became the subject of a lawsuit that led to today’s Supreme Court decision. Texas amended its health laws to require that physicians performing surgical abortions have “admitting privileges” at hospital within the vicinity of their practice. Texas also extended public health and safety regulations that already applied to all other outpatient surgical businesses.

No! The temerity of Texas!

Ambulatory surgical centers that participate in Medicare, for example, are required by federal law and regulations to meet a similar admissions standard. “To further protect patient safety, ASCs are also required to have an effective means of transferring patients to a hospital for additional care in the event an emergency occurs.Written guidelines outlining arrangements for ambulance services and transfer of medical information are mandatory. An ASC must have a written transfer agreement with a local hospital, or all physicians performing surgery in the ASC must have admitting privileges at the designated hospital.”

The answer is obvious:

None. 

Each of the justices is the product of remarkably similar LEGAL training. None of the current justices holds joint degrees in law and medicine. None of them possesses any relevant training or specialized experience that suggests that their collective judgment about patient health and safety and standards of medical care is trustworthy at all, let alone more trustworthy than a legislative body to which the determination of such questions is reserved by the federalism embodied in our Constitution.

In the same way that requiring admitting privileges is eminently reasonable and well within the public health and safety regulatory power of States, requiring abortion businesses that provide abortion services in the office to meet basic requirements of sanitation, environment, safety, and health is also eminently reasonable. In fact, virtually every State (outside the context of abortion businesses) requires ambulatory surgical centers to meet such basic requirements.

So what about the idea of requiring that doctors that perform so-called “ambulatory surgery” to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital? Was that some outsized and burdensome hurdle invented by rabidly “anti-choice” representatives in the Texas Legislature?

In fact, the American College of Surgeons adopted a set of ten “core principles” for office based surgery. The fourth of the core principles states: “Core Principle #4 – Physicians performing office-based surgery must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, a transfer agreement with another physician who has admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, or maintain an emergency transfer agreement with a nearby hospital.” You can find that Core Principle on the American College of Surgeons in its “Statement on Patient Safety Principles for Office-Based Surgery Utilizing Moderate Sedation/Analgesia, Deep Sedation/Analgesia, or General Anesthesia.”

California was one of the first State’s to liberalize abortion restrictions before the decision in Roe v. Wade. The State government and bureaucracy are hardly bastions of pro-life sentiment. California thinks that surgeons that perform outpatient surgery should have hospital admitting privileges. In fact, accreditation depends on ambulatory surgical centers “a written transfer agreement with a local accredited or licensed acute care hospital” and on only permitting “surgery only by a licensee who has admitting privileges at a local accredited or licensed acute care hospital, with the exception that licensees who may be precluded from having admitting privileges by their professional classification”

Even Consumer Reports considers hospital admitting privileges an important consideration in selecting a doctor. In their online report, “How to Find a Good Doctor,” Consumer Reports offers a collection of nine factors to consider in selecting a doctor. The second criteria (only after insurance coverage), Consumer Reports advises, “Your choice of doctor can determine which hospital you go to, if needed, so find out where the doctor has admitting privileges.”

Now, with respect to admitting privileges, the question must be asked: With what specialized training and experience in medical care, and in patient health and safety, are the justices of the Supreme Court invested? How is that judicial body better situated than a State’s legislature to make the necessary kinds of judgments that are, necessarily, legislative in character, as with crafting statutes setting standards for medical care?

Yet the same dusky solons that know better than the medical community on the topic of hospital admitting privileges concluded that it knows better than Texas about the need for health and safety regulations of abortion businesses.

We live in a time when laws being made at the Supreme Court is so commonplace that few outside the pro-life community are likely to be perturbed at today’s decision. 

Still, when you go to get the wood scraps scraped from your eye, you will expect a reasonable standard of care, a modicum of cleanliness above men’s gas station restrooms, and available specialized care if your treatment results in an emerging medical crisis. And because all you are doing is having wood scraps removed, you’ll find your legitimate expectation is usually satisfied. If, on the other hand, you were going to have your offspring scraped from within you and disposed of as medical waste, you will be at the hazard of the next Kermit Gosnell, and for that, be sure to thank the Ass. Justices of the Supreme Court.

"Personhood," That is, Status as a Person in the Sense that "Person" is Used in the Constitution, Should be Resolved by the Constitution

If, at this point, I turn a critical eye to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, if I even suggest that it should not be the basket in which we place any of our eggs, let alone all of them, I do it solely because I find that the Act is a poor substitute for the proper response to the growing body of evidence that fetal children are capable of, and do experience, pain.

As an aside, so that you can measure my bona fides as a voice for life and against abortion, let me tell you about me.

• I first articulated a pro-life opinion in public as a Senior in high school at Lejeune High School, (Class of 1976) in an Advanced Biology class taught by Debra Hansen. The position I held then flowed principally from a moral conclusion regarding the act of abortion. As I moved into my adult years, I read extensively about abortion, its causes, its methods, its impact. My moral judgment became seasoned with other, equally valid, grounds of justification for the conclusion that abortion is always wrong.

• Soon, my opinion on abortion translated into action. I began speaking out against legalized abortion, including picketing and demonstrating at a local abortion facility here in Jacksonville, North Carolina. Eventually, in 1982, the rhetoric I and my brother, David Henderson, employed, resulted in a lawsuit against us for defamation by the owner of the abortion business. We prevailed. The defense of our constitutional rights of freedom of speech was accomplished by the North Carolina ACLU and by a newly founded organization, the Rutherford Institute. 

• After we prevailed, my wife and I relocated to St. Louis University so that I could attend the Law School at St. Louis University. In hindsight, no better training ground exists for a pro-life advocate that offered by an urban Catholic University well down the road in its own process of surrendering its soul in pursuit of economic survival. The law school played welcoming host to a vocal pro-abortion element, embodied by the Women's Law Caucus. How hostile could Catholic law school be to pro-life expression? I once was called to an assistant dean’s office for posting a message on the student bulletin board comparing the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights to Nazi apologists for the Holocaust. Ass. Dean Smith told me that my posting was "the most unprofessional thing he'd ever seen in the law school." Oddly, that was just days after two of my classmates were caught, in the act of copulation, on a classroom floor, by an adjunct professor arriving to teach an evening class!

• Upon graduation, for the next twenty-five years, I practiced law with nonprofit organizations that regularly and consistently included as a segment of cases a variety of opportunities for me to represent pro-life activists and anti-abortion demonstrators. In the process, I represented:

• teens seeking protection from parents trying to force them to have abortions, 
• protesters threatened with arrest for the messages on their signs, 
• pregnancy resource centers threatened with the imposition of a duty to spread the pro-abortion messages of the government. 

• If you have heard of Operation Rescue, Christian Defense Coalition, Randall Terry, Joseph Foreman, Jayne Bray, Michael Bray, Patrick Mahoney, Keith Tucci, Jeff White, Rob Schenck, Paul Schenck, Jeannie Hill, then you’ve heard of my clients or some of them.

Because the PCUCPA is so unlikely to become law, I feel at liberty to observe that the Act is little more than window dressing on a macabre set piece: the more than two score years of legalized child killing in the United States. In the face of the horror, the grinding inhumanity, of our abortion culture, can it possibly be that the best that the House of Representatives can muster is a bill doomed to die aborning -- much like the offspring of an abortion-bound woman -- before it can ever be born.

As a matter of our national history, the Civil War, a national bloodletting of nearly a half million lost lives and untold lost prosperity, was the method by which the Supreme Court's disregarding of the personhood of Africans was, ultimately, corrected.

The right answer to the ongoing holocaust of legalized abortion in America can be found in the historic response of the Congress, the States and the People to the previous erroneous decision of the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford. That historic response consisted of three proposed amendments to the Constitution, which became the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.

In Dred Scott, the Supreme Court held that blacks were not, and could never be, citizens of the United States. For that reason, courts could not entertain lawsuits by blacks seeking a declaration that, due to their sojourn in the Free States, they had acquired status as freedmen and could not, thereafter, again be subject to bondage. Civil war and nearly a half million lost lives later, the Nation repudiated the Supreme Court by ratifying the three amendments, ending slavery, guaranteeing an equal right to vote, and, under the Fourteenth Amendment, granting status as US citizens and State citizens to blacks.

Just over a century later, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court likewise concluded that children before birth were not persons in the constitutional sense. For that reason, their own interest in securing their right to life and liberty, and the interests of the States in securing their rights to life and to liberty were completely discounted by the Supreme Court as against the woman's liberty interest in choosing to have an abortion.

In the intervening period, there have been very few shots fired, but so many more lives taken than were lost in the Civil War. Then, in his second inaugural address, Lincoln suggested that the Civil War was a judgment of God on this Nation, in which "every drop of blood drawn by the lash" would have to be answered by "one drawn by the sword." Ultimately, the Confederacy surrendered to the Union, and the three Civil War Amendments were propounded to the States by Congress and ratified by a sufficient number of States. With those amendments, the Constitution expressly read directly contrary to the view of it previously asserted by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott.

Our history -- regarding the constitutional status of blacks -- suggests that there are two sound answers to the illicit Roe v. Wade decision and its progeny.

One answer could come from the Court. The Supreme Court could revisit and overturn Roe, thereby restoring to the States the power to regulate abortion or to prohibit it entirely. That has not happened, not in the more than forty years since the aberrant Roe decision.

There was a time when I, young and idealistic, thought the possibility of an internal correction by the Court could resolve the wrong of Roe. Nearly three decades have passed since I took up the practice of law in a public interest setting, with the hope that, by doing so, I would help to bring about that internal correction by the Court. In that time, I have made many trips to the Supreme Court. I have served as counsel in hundreds of cases representing those that oppose abortion through peaceful demonstrations. In a handful of instances, I represented younger women seeking protection from abortions being forced on them by parents. I also litigated against State and local criminal laws restricting free speech near abortion facilities, adopted by legislative bodies that treated abortion as though it were a holy sacrament. If the Court ever reverses course in this matter on its own, it will come as a great surprise to this no man who is no longer misguided by dreams.

Or, of course, the other answer could come from Congress, the States and the People. We could amend the Constitution in a manner that effectively overturns Roe. That effect was exactly the one gotten for African slaves by the Fourteenth Amendment: reversal of a holding of the Supreme Court that had installed that Court's wrong-headed interpretation of the language in the Constitution as the language of the Constitution. In Dred Scott, the Supreme Court said, "no," blacks are not citizens, and could never be citizens. A half million lost lives and nearly 80 billion dollars (present day value) of treasure later, the Nation bent the Supreme Court over its collective lap and gave it Fourteen spankings. The lesson lasted about as long as it took for the questions of "separate but equal" accommodations for blacks, WWII internment of Japanese Americans, and abortion to come before the Court.

So the certain way, the sure way, to end legalized abortion would be to amend the Constitution to expressly extend legal personhood status to fetal children. Article V of the Constitution sets out two methods of amending the Constitution. Congress may initiate an amendment and send it to the States for ratification. In the alternative, the States may call on Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution. Congress could propose an amendment to the Constitution in terms of the proposed Act.

Availability of the amendment process has not produced any change in the Constitution, however, since the decision in Roe v. Wade. How many millions more fetal Americans must be sacrificed on the altar of Supreme arrogance and ignorance before the Court's error is repudiated in a constitutional amendment ending the horror of abortion?

Missteps or Next Steps: Is this Federal Statute the Answer

I won't defer to others on the following point:

I am unapologetically anti-abortion and unashamedly pro-life. Given the ability to do so, if, like Obama, I could play emperor, I would make abortion always a prohibited criminal act. By the way, just as in history, I could do so without the prospect of women being tried for participating in the abortions of their own children.

Now, of course, criminalizing abortion can be justified from a religious, particularly Christian, perspective. "Suffer the little ones to come unto me, and forbid them not," after all, is one of the more memorable and kindly counsels that event ardent atheists recognize as a teaching of the Savior. When Mary, recently having become pregnant, visited her cousin, Elizabeth, who was pregnant with John the Baptist, Elizabeth reported to Mary that when Mary spoke, the child leapt in her womb. In Aramaic, she used the word, "blephos." That word means "child" or "little one." Still, while it suffices for people of the Christian faith that Jesus took a most solicitous view of the value of children, that perspective would not suffice to justify such a restriction in an irreligious, or religiously pluralistic society. While it constitutes a valid reason to criminalize abortion, it is not, by itself a sufficient one.

Criminalizing abortion can be justified from concern for the life and health of women that resort to abortion. Abortion is a violent physical assault on a woman. There is, after all, an atmospheric about the decision by the Republican Leadership to have held this vote on the day it chose. Kermit Gosnell, a licensed medical doctor, is in prison because he killed a woman as part of providing her with a safe legal abortion; a jury also convicted Gosnell of three separate counts of first degree murder because, after three infants were born alive during abortions, he cut their spinal cords, killing them. Abortion disrupts a natural process. Often, particularly later abortions, involve even more dangerous assaults on the woman's body to accomplish the killing of her child. There is little doubt that abortion never helps women. But in a society where genuine concern for women is portrayed as shameless chauvinism, that concern would not suffice.

The better ground on which abortion should be criminalized pertains to the civil and human rights of the fetal child. That ground is, in its essence, indistinguishable from the ground on which this Nation ultimately rejected the legality of enslaving others. Remember, the American experience with the Peculiar Institution of Slavery depended in large part on a view that blacks were not persons in the same sense that whites were. That view is the one expressed by Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia. There he wrote, “I advance it as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind."

In the same fashion, though by different terminology, abortion advocates have denigrated the separate and equal status of fetal humans as persons. They denigrate the personhood of fetal children in both biological and constitutional senses. As to the former, arguments for abortion that dispute the biological evidence for the fetal child's separate existence and identity have hung on long after the medical and biological evidence resolved those questions in favor of the humanness and separate existence of the fetal child.

Frankly, the persistence of that view as a matter of biology is decided in conflict with science, as testimony going back to the Senate's Hearings on S. 158, "The Human Life Bill," established. What remains then, is an argument derived from Roe v. Wade's judicial usurpations, that fetal children are not persons, at least not persons in a constitutional sense. That the Court necessarily rejected the personhood of the fetal child as part of deciding Roe v. Wade is no more dispositive there than was the Supreme Court's determination in Roe that blacks are not persons, but chattel goods.

Ultimately, as our national history showed, the one sure way to end slavery, the sure means of tattooing equality regardless of race or national origin on the skin of our governmental framework was to amend the Constitution. I have no remaining doubt that amending the Constitution is the only adequate and complete remedy to the current injustice of legalized abortion.

Naked Political Ploy to Expose Abortion Extremism?

The House vote on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a welcome turn of events. The House held its vote on the anniversary of the murder convictions of abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell, MD. By holding its vote on that anniversary, the House powerfully reminds us that abortion is a nasty, often unregulated, and unseemly practice.

Gosnell's little shop of horrors was a terrible place to be killed. And what a dreadful way to go, dying in the act of having your own offspring killed. By using the anniversary date of Gosnell's conviction, the connection to poor outcomes for women and children in abortion has been deliberately drawn by the House.

Of course, at some point, the allegations will be thrown about that the House vote simply served political purposes. In other words, those accusing the House Leadership of engaging in political theater will be accusing the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of an unseemly and cynical act. In that view, Boehner & Co. held the vote simply as preparation for 2016 Congressional elections. For the cynics, the vote simply presented an the opportunity to spear those Representatives – predictably Democrats – that would vote against even such a late term abortion restriction offered on such a humanitarian ground as that of the capacity of the fetus to feel the pain of her own demise.

And perhaps there are such machinations afoot; perhaps Republicans in the House are flushing out those elected Representatives so firmly committed to legalized abortion that no restriction – not as to the method of abortion, not as to the lateness of term in pregnancy at which the restriction would take effect – none whatever can be permissibly imposed on the right.

The leadership of the Democratic Party does nothing to avoid the perception that, for Democrats, there's no such thing as a permissible restriction on abortion. Just recently, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had the opportunity to identify a point in pregnancy, late in pregnancy, or a size of fetus, such as one weighing 7 pounds, at which point Democrats would support legislative restrictions on abortion. Wasserman Schultz, a good storm trooper for the abortion industry, responded:

"I can't tell you a specific date and time past which we on all – in all cases are certain that that choice shouldn't be made because that decision is very unique and individual to the woman, and should be in consultation with her conscience and her god and her doctor, that is a decision left to her."

Given the role played by the President, as leader of his party, in selecting the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, either the President shares Wasserman Schultz's extremism on abortion, believing that no restrictions may be permissibly imposed on abortion, or the President should take Ms. Wasserman Schultz to the woodshed for failing, in such an evident and public way, to state a defensible and articulate point in time, acceptable to Americans, when abortions can permissibly be proscribed.

We all know, or should know, however, that Wasserman Schultz will not be taken to the woodshed by Obama. Obama is the best friend the abortion industry has in American government. Going back to his time in the Illinois Senate, when he voted "present" on a panoply of initiatives, proposals, and ideas in the form of bills and resolutions, one instance in which the future President would be reliably voting his heart was on consideration of abortion-related legislation. 

His forte, it turns out, was to resist Illinois bills that would impose on doctors a duty to provide care to children born alive after an abortion. Notice that these were not bills that would have prohibited abortion. Nor were these bills that would have required abortion businesses to be subject to the same health and safety standards as other medical clinics. No, these were just rules that would, if adopted, tell the Dr. Gosnells of Illinois that if, following an abortion, a child was born alive, the doctor would be obliged to provide medical care to preserve the child's life. Not once, not twice, but three times, Obama took the lonely vigil stand against the imposition of such a duty by law.

The Problem of Pain: Does Anyone Care Whether Fetal Humans Experience the Pain of Their Extermination?

From time to time, a matter of gravity requires fuller treatment than Twitter allows, requires more thought than brief and witty posts permit.

I've been thinking about the recent passage by the United States House of Representatives of House Bill 1719, The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act of 2015. The Act prohibits most abortions that occur after 20 weeks gestation, and does so because of the conclusion expressed in the bill that fetal children not only experience "sensation" but feel pain. I think the case for prohibiting abortion stands without reference to the experience of pain, based on the indisputable human condition of fetal children. Yet, who can doubt that most, if not all, will find a particular cruelty in the savagery of late term abortions inflicted without consideration of the experience of pain in dying?

So I have spent some time considering HB 1719, and written what my good friend Lou called a "mega-blog."

Because this particular posting is extensive, I've broken it down into digestible portions. While the blog made sense as an assembled whole, it did require a certain level of commitment to complete it. In parts, the segments each present a set of complete considerations relevant to the whole. I hope that you find it of value.

Here are links to the separate posts. I offer them in what seems to me to be the correct rhetorical order:

The House Acts to Save a Small Number of Fetal Humans. This post introduces the disputed bill and reports on its passage. It also notes the panic peddling of abortion hawkers amongst the Democratic Party and leadership.

Naked Political Ploy to Expose Abortion Extremism? In politics, the accusation is frequently made that some bill or another was only offered cynically, for some purpose unrelated to the topic of the bill. Was the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act a naked political ploy? Or are those who refuse even the most meager measures the naked ones?

The House Concludes: Unborn Children Experience Pain Here, we get to the heart of the matter. Fetal humans are biologically alive. Medical treatment of fetal humans, and physiological research on human development shows that at least by the end of the 20th week gestation, an unborn child not only experiences sensation, but that sensation can be experienced as pain. Not that the evidence is undisputed, but the evidence is there, and just how does humanity ignore inhumanity?

Missteps or Next Steps:  Is this Federal Statute the Answer Abortion has been a prohibited, criminal act for many times longer than its present status as a blessed legal sacrament of American progressivism. With the certainty that the late term fetal human is forced to endure the pain of her own death, is the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act the answer?

"Personhood," That is, Status as a Person in the Sense that "Person" is Used in the Constitution, Should be Resolved by the Constitution Our history as a people should teach us this: the surest bulwark against government denial of human personhood is to enshrine the status of fetal humans in the Constitution by Amendment. The history shows the way.

Lesser Solution: Well-meant Window Dressing? Finally, there are real problems with the proposal, particular for those that would hold fidelity to a written, fixed in meaning, Constitution. Just because we can get away with a naked grab of power in the Legislative Branch does not justify doing so. We don't fix things by breaking things more.