The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
The Supreme Court: Evading Fetal Pain Print E-mail
By Hadley Arkes   
Tuesday, 28 January 2014

Two weeks ago, those of us in the pro-life movement received some deeply disappointing news. The Supreme Court refused to review the decision of an appellate court that struck down the statute passed in Arizona to bar abortions after twenty weeks. 

That does not mean that the Court will not yet sustain a statute of that kind, passed in another state.  It requires the vote of four justices to grant certiorari, or review a case, and there are four solid pro-life votes on that Court. That meant that even one or two or more of the pro-life judges thought that this was not the moment to test this statute with their colleagues. 

Just why they should hold back is a sober jolt that may induce us to look again at that statute and perhaps notice the problems that came into sight for the pro-life judges.

For several years, there has been the prospect of a federal bill to bar abortions at twenty weeks, and that model has been picked up in the states as well. What has brought forth these bills has been the plan to bar abortions at a point when even the most adamant defenders of abortion cannot plausibly deny that the fetus can feel pain. 

The benchmark of twenty weeks is itself quite conservative, for there are good reasons to think that the offspring in the womb can feel pain long before that.  Back in 1985 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the subject of fetal pain. Two professors from the Yale medical school argued that the fetus was not likely to feel pain until well into the pregnancy when there was more development of the cerebral cortex. But that view was decisively refuted by Daniel Robinson, then teaching psychology and the neural sciences at Georgetown. 

As Robinson pointed out:

[N]one of the regions now known to be implicated in the initiation and propagation of pain signals includes the cerebral cortex.  All are subcortical, the chief one being the thalamus and the periquaductal gray.
It did not diminish the point to recognize that the reaction to pain is reflexive:  “When our hand falls on a red-hot object we do not engage in syllogistic modes of deliberation in search of an appropriate response.”  But as Robinson also pointed out at the time, the moral objection to the taking of an innocent human life would remain “even if painless methods were developed.”


Nineteen weeks

That point has always been clear to the pro-lifers. And so it has been clear, too, that the main reason for pressing these bills is that the pain inflicted on the child has been a matter of serene indifference to the supporters of abortion. 

When the federal bill on partial-birth abortion was being litigated in New York, Judge Richard Casey Conway put the question to Kanwaljeet S. Anand, a professor of anesthesiology, testifying in opposition to the bill: Had he ever thought of administering an anesthetic to the child killed in this way?  The child, after all, was dangling out of the birth canal, feet swinging, until its head was punctured and the brains sucked out. 

No one, surely, could doubt that the child, in this condition, was feeling excruciating pain. But the professor was taken aback by the question. The question never had arisen because the child simply did not count in the decision, and neither then did its pain. And so no small part of the purpose of these bills on fetal pain has been to jolt the other side into the recognition that they are dealing here with real victims, feeling real pain. 

That has been enough in other instances to inspire sympathy for animals and to  protect them from gratuitous, painful killing. Remarkably, the same sympathy has never been triggered, has never come into play for those small animals who are human.     

But then why wouldn’t four pro-life justices on the Supreme Court vote to review this statute?  My own surmise was that judges might have plausibly feared that Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing judge, could have taken this line: Legislation restricting a “constitutional right” should be “narrowly tailored,”  and abortion is now a deep constitutional “right.” 

If the concern, he might say, was really with the pain, then the legislature could have sought to deal with the pain without barring the abortion. The legislature could simply have required an anesthetic to be administered. 

After the Supreme Court, with John Roberts and Samuel Alito, upheld the law on partial-birth abortion, it seemed entirely plausible that it could sustain a statute of this kind, marked by the concern for fetal pain. And it still might. But in the meantime some other lessons may be drawn. The pro-lifers will seek to bar certain kinds of abortions in order to plant premises and set the ground for other restrictions coming later. 

But we are always concerned that if we barred abortions, say, after “viability” or later in pregnancy, we would foster the glib assumption that the baby, at that point, is somehow more “human.” The point of caution for us is that the pro-lifers focus on the kinds of restrictions that cannot be detached from the recognition of the child we are seeking to protect. 

We opposed here the pain, but Professor Robinson had it right: we would be every bit as much opposed to the abortion, even if the anesthetic were administered.  

 
Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College. He is also Founder and Director of the Washington-based James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding. His most recent book is Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law. Volume II of his audio lectures from The Modern Scholar, First Principles and Natural Law is now available for download.
 

The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.   

 

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (8)Add Comment
0
...
written by Deacon Ed Peitler, January 28, 2014
All I can say is, "Thank you Professor Arkes for fighting this fight."
0
...
written by Michael Paterson-Seymour, January 28, 2014
“We opposed here the pain, but Professor Robinson had it right: we would be every bit as much opposed to the abortion, even if the aesthetic were administered.”

Of course, but that does not invalidate the independent moral principle that we should not allow pain to be gratuitously inflicted on any sentient being.
0
...
written by Jack,CT, January 28, 2014
Dr Arkes,
I echo Deacon Ed with a great big thanks!

Our society still graples with "Pain" and what it is and
what should be allowed even with "Adults".

The Prenatal screams have been well documented with Audio,
the Babes guarding as to push away from the instruments,
facial exspression changes,changes in heart rate ALL the
SAME things we all do when in pain and I listed a couple.
A society that is ok with killing babys is terrible,a society that advocates ignoring fetal pain this day and age is a sin.
We treat "Pain" like a disease and treat it as if we need to attack it and heal it with the exclusion of those in utero?

We are not going to see a reverse of "Roe" but surely we can agree No Pre-Aborted child should suffer for our sins.

All of us agree with this but the fact that "Lefty"
prochoice advocates are able to ignore it is as much a
sin as the "Procedure" itself!




0
...
written by Athanasius, January 28, 2014
We live in a society that is getting more debauched by the day. We need to fight with prayer and pennance as well as in the public square. Thank you, Dr. Arkes for your efforts in this fight.
0
...
written by Sue, January 28, 2014
This pain-capable fuzzling reminds me of the stalling on slavery that allowed the brutal institution to simmer for too long, erupting in the Civil War and still not ended because it was allowed to fester. It is akin to people of the 1800s putting all of their energy into passing laws forbidding the rape of slaves by their masters. Yes, a grave injustice that, but how about trying something like, uh, abolishing slavery itself? Wouldn't that do the trick for master-raping as well as a host of other slavery-sequelae?

As for the Hyde-amendment perennialists - news flash, the Hyde amendment protects rape-incest abortion. Stop hiding behind Hyde, its intellectual compromising is what has kept abortion viable all these decades.

How about abolishing abortion? The incrementalists have had their friggin' chance.
0
...
written by Seanachie, January 28, 2014
Seems to me that the the concepts of legality and morality have become confused. For me, legality is nothing more than amorality...compliance with some law. That law itself may be moral (seeking the highest good) or immoral (enabling evil...e.g., pro-abortion laws). In short, abortion is inherently evil (immoral)although some law may enable and permit it. I could care less what Justice Kennedy, any other justice, court, legislative body, or anybody else reasons (or fails to).
0
...
written by Rich in MN, January 28, 2014
I am not sure of the exact quote, but Cardinal Newman said: We do not strive to please God; rather we strive to please ourselves without displeasing God.

And, of course, this is an incredibly slippery slope -- Pete Seeger was 11 years old and probably already playing the banjo when the Anglican Church first accepted birth control ONLY for married couples ONLY in extreme circumstances. We've come a long way, baby. (Well, maybe 'baby' did not make it a long way....)

I am tempted to paraphrase Newman and say that we do not strive to please Reason, to please the evidence, but rather to please ourselves without displeasing Reason. However, I think we have slid way past that point already. We now ask without the least bit of embarrassment: What gives Reason priority of place over MY desires? What gives that person's life priority over MY desires? I think our only hope to stave off total collapse is to pull the western world back up that slippery slope by solid catechesis, by grassroots efforts such as "March for Life" and by the efforts of legal scholars such as Dr Arkes et al. And we must pray, pray, pray. God wants this to stop more than we can possibly imagine. We must keep petitioning God unceasingly with "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven...."
0
...
written by Jack,CT, January 28, 2014
Presently 6;48 pm,I watch the pundants Talk
the "State of The Union" tonight at
9pm and NOT ONE person has mentioned
the horrors of this Article.
Untill we make this more important than
Obama raising Federal Workers pay we will
never win-

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US