Problematic 20-week abortion ban proposed in Wisconsin legislature
Wisconsin pro-life state legislator have introduced a pro-life bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks based on the scientific research showing unborn babies feel substantial pain in abortions. Governor Scott Walker, who will be seeking the Republican nomination for president, has pledged to sign it into law.continue at LifeNews
“I believe we have a duty and a moral obligation to protect these children from the horrific procedures used to snuff out their lives. The barbaric and painful mutilation of little children is something that no humane and compassionate society should tolerate,” Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, said in a statement about his bill.
He added: “Simply put, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will preserve and protect Wisconsin’s innocent, unborn babies who can feel pain. The call to preserve precious, human life transcends party lines. Thus, I hope to see bi-partisan support for this vital measure to protect Wisconsin’s unborn from needless pain and suffering.”
MADISON - State Republican legislators on Thursday circulated legislation for co-sponsorship that prohibits abortion at or beyond 20 weeks based on the preborn child’s capacity to feel pain at that gestational age. The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (LRB 0401/1) includes an exception to the prohibition for a “medical emergency,” as broadly defined in Wisconsin Statutes.continue at Pro-Life Wisconsin
“Pro-Life Wisconsin supports banning abortion based on the preborn child’s ability to feel pain, but it is utter hypocrisy for proponents of the bill to decry the horror of dismembering a child through a dilation and evacuation abortion and then carve out an exception for babies whose mother’s lives may be endangered, as if those babies somehow don’t feel pain,” said Matt Sande, Pro-Life Wisconsin Legislative Director. “We urge legislators to refrain from co-sponsoring this bill until the medical emergency exception is fully removed.”
There are no situations where abortion, defined as the direct and intentional killing of an unborn child, is medically necessary to save the life of the mother. Over 900 pro-life doctors and medical researchers have signed the Dublin Declaration, a document stating that abortion is never medically necessary to save a mother's life. Even abortionists agree that abortion is not necessary to save a woman's life. Former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who himself performed over 30,000 abortions, said “if women with heart and liver transplants can be carried successfully through pregnancy, we can no longer conceive of any medical condition which would legitimize abortion. In short, we have slowly evolved to an unshakable posture of no exceptions…[W]orkable, morally acceptable legislation proscribing abortion can have no exceptions written into it – not even medical ones.” (Bernadell Technical Bulletin, April 1991)
Passing bills like this have essentially no legal binding, they are feel good legislation with no actual legal ramifications. Support or opposition is ideological, but is really a moot point at the end of the day. What abortionist wouldn't just say there's a medical necessity(even though none actually exists) if it ever really came to being charged with some crime?