Numbs the word

The Fact Is is reporting that the infamous Francis Kissling who is the president of Catholics for A Free Choice is endorsing Sen. Brownback's "The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act” (S.51)" .

The purpose of the bill is to alleviate the pain of the unborn child, which is severe, and very obviously to focus the mother's and the public's attention on fetal pain. We truly hope that Kissling's seeming endorsement is a positive step and not just a cynical ploy.

I have prayed each day for years for God's blessings upon Frances and her colleagues. I have said for years that Frances Kissling would make a wonderful spokesman for the Church if only she came to accept all Church teachings. We should all pray that she comes to accept the Church and all of her teachings. Maybe this is a step.

I join with them in his hope but my inner cynic is deeply suspicious. Kissling writes:

It is hard to understand why the senator, who is opposed to legal abortion except in the most extreme circumstances, is introducing legislation that will result in anti abortion terms in tacit cooperation with an “evil” act (abortion). We thus have some concern that the bill is not a genuine attempt to alleviate fetal suffering.

The bill's sponsors Sen. Brownback and Rep. Chris Smith are not hiding the fact that they want to move towards protecting all the unborn from abortion but in the meantime efforts like this serve the dual purpose of informing mothers of the pain that will be incurred on their child and to alleviate the pain of the child if she goes through with the abortion.

Smith called the measure a "very modest effort." He said he looks forward to a day when the unborn are protected by the law, but in the meantime, "Shame on us if we do not take immediate measures to relieve the pain" of babies who are aborted.

Abortion clinics are "not only killing mills, but they are torture chambers," Smith said. [Source]

In her statement the word "unborn child" only appears in the name of the bill and out of necessity the word fetus is used throughout. Kissling continues:

Nonetheless, Catholics for a Free Choice’s principles in regard to abortion include both respect for a woman’s right to choose abortion and a commitment to treating fetuses with respect. We support existing regulations regarding scientific experiments that codify that respect for human tissue, embryos, fetuses and human persons. And so we will take the senator at his word that his intention in this bill is not to ban abortion or frighten women, but to show compassion for the fetus.

"that codify that respect for human tissue, embryos, fetuses and human persons" This is the same old semantic game where in each category they are actually talking about a human person and try to treat them as something different. She then goes on with her objections to the bill.

We are not absolutely opposed to some form of legislation on this matter and we urge Senator Brownback to amend his legislation so that it might truly show respect for fetuses, women and health professionals. Among our suggestions are:

1. A provision for payment of the costs associated with administering fetal anesthesia. The senator must understand that if such funds are not made available, the chances that a woman can afford this service are slim. Fetuses will not receive anesthesia if the senator does not fund the service.
2. The elimination of a mandated speech to be read by doctors. Every woman is a unique person, different from every other. She should be approached by doctors and other health professionals in a compassionate manner, at a time that is conducive to her receiving information and in words attuned to her level of insight, interest and knowledge. Additionally, the senator’s requirement for intrusive forms of written acknowledgment needs modification. Written informed consent is important but also requires careful crafting.

So in effect she wants the government (meaning us) to pay the costs of a unborn child a anesthesiologist in which she knows will not happen. She is also against a mandated speech given to all women. Again she knows without a prepared statement that doctors will fudge the details. Can we really expect a doctor who is willing to be an abortionist tell the customer the details of child development and their feeling of pain? So looking at her opposition it shows that her support for the bill that will be passed is not real. Her support for a bill of this type would have to be as toothless as an octagerian with severe gum disease.

There are currently a small number of Fetal Anesthesiologists but those who are trained in this field are working toward diagnoses and treatment of children in the womb and not as executioner assistants. Though historically there have always been those who provided some form of anesthesia to those being executed. Jesus was offered myrrh for anesthesia, though he refused it. In this case though it would most likely be the abortion doctor and not a trained anesthesiologist who would administer it. It is bad enough that we have the corruption of the medical field with abortion doctors and we don't want any more trained professional in this horrible field.

By the way, "The Thing Is" is a very good blog and online magazine covering news and opinion on social policy.