[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 135 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2177]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                UNBORN CHILD PAIN AWARENESS ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 6, 2006

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Unborn Child Pain 
Awareness Act. This legislation is based on the scientifically 
unsubstantiated assertion that a fetus feels pain at 20 weeks of 
pregnancy.
  This is not the first time this Congress that Members have been asked 
to substitute our judgment for that of scientists or physicians. It is 
bad policy for Congress to substitute its opinion for the considered 
medical judgment of doctors and I have consistently opposed legislation 
that does this.
  By passing this legislation, Congress will force doctors to provide 
information to patients that is not scientifically proven to be true. 
These doctors will be subject to fines if they do not provide women 
with a brochure published by the Department of Health and Human 
Services explaining that a fetus feels pain at 20-weeks and that 
administrating anesthesia for the fetus will reduce pain. The bill goes 
so far as to outline for the Department of Health and Human Services 
what must be included in the brochure. The language that this bill 
requires HHS to include in the brochure asserts that there is 
conclusive scientific evidence that a fetus feels pain. According to 
the legislation, the brochure must read: ``There is a significant body 
of evidence that unborn children at 20 weeks after fertilization have 
the physical structures necessary to experience pain. There is 
substantial evidence that at least by this point, unborn children draw 
away from surgical instruments in a manner which in an infant or an 
adult would be interpreted as a response to pain. There is substantial 
evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the 
unborn child pain, even though you receive a pain-reducing drug or 
drugs.'' This is, at best, misleading. We should not use legislative 
language to interpret scientific data that we do not understand and to 
direct physicians in their considered professional practice.
  In August 2005 a literature review in the Journal of the American 
Medical Association concluded that ``evidence regarding the capacity 
for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain 
is unlikely before the third trimester.'' The review also concludes 
that administering ``fetal anesthesia or analgesia should not be 
recommended or routinely offered for abortion because current 
experimental techniques provide unknown fetal benefit and may increase 
risks for the woman.''
  As policymakers, we should consider very seriously our actions that 
may overstep what is scientifically proven. In formulating public 
policy on scientific issues like global warming, stem cell research, 
alternative energy, and others, it is essential that we use science as 
a basis for legislation and not use legislation to attempt to make 
science.
  I oppose this legislation because I believe that the decision of 
whether to have a baby should be left to individuals, their doctors, 
and their families without interference from the Government. I also 
oppose this legislation because of its circumvention of scientific 
evidence.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 6099.

                          ____________________