Last week, we saw how testimonies from nearly 2,000 post-abortive women revealed just how deep and far-reaching the effects of abortion truly are.  These testimonies before legislative committees in South Dakota led to the creation of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion.

Once again, the scope of the study is as follows:

1. the practice of abortion since its legalization
2. the body of knowledge concerning the development and behavior of the unborn child which has developed because of technological advances and medical experience since the legalization of abortion
3. the societal, economic, and ethical impact and effects of legalized abortion
4. the degree to which decisions to undergo abortions are voluntary and informed
5. the effect and health risks that undergoing abortions has on the women, including the effects on the women’s physical and mental health, including the delayed onset of cancer, and her subsequent life and socioeconomic experiences
6. the nature of the relationship between a pregnant woman and her unborn child
7. whether abortion is a workable method for the pregnant woman to waive her rights to a relationship with the child
8. whether the unborn child is capable of experiencing physical pain
9. whether the need exists for additional protections of the rights of pregnant women contemplating abortion, and
10. whether there is any interest of the state or the mother or the child which would justify changing the laws relative to abortion.

In part 1, we looked at excerpts from sections 1-4.  In part 2, we will look at some excerpts from the remaining six sections.

Excerpts from “The Effect And Health Risks That Undergoing Abortions Has On The Women, Including The Effects On The Women’s Physical And Mental Health, Including The Delayed Onset Of Cancer, And Her Subsequent Life And Socioeconomic Experiences”

“Perhaps worse, the pregnant mother is not told prior to her abortion that the procedure will terminate the life of a human being. The psychological consequences can be devastating when that woman learns, subsequent to the abortion, that this information was withheld – information that would have resulted in her declining to submit to an abortion. Her anger at being deceived and being prevented from making an informed decision for herself is exacerbated by her realization that she was implicated in the killing of her own child in utero. Aside from the injustice of her being deprived of making her own informed decision (see Section II-D), the psychological harm of knowing she killed her child is often devastating.” (pg 47)

“The record reflects that abortion places women at increased risk of physical injury including the risk of: infection, fever, abdominal pain and cramping, bleeding, hemorrhage, blood transfusion with its subsequent risks, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary or amniotic fluid embolism, injury to the cervix, vagina, uterus, Fallopian tubes and ovaries, bowel, bladder, and other internal organs, anesthesia complications (which are higher with general anesthesia), failure to remove all the contents of the uterus (leaving behind parts of the fetus/baby or placenta), need to repeat the surgery, possible hospitalization, risk of more surgery such as laparoscopy or exploratory laparotomy, possible hysterectomy (loss of the uterus and subsequent infertility), allergic reactions to medicines, mis-diagnosis of an intrauterine pregnancy with a tubal or abdominal pregnancy being present (which necessitates different treatment with medicines or more extensive surgery), possible molar pregnancy with the need for further treatment), emotional reactions (including but not limited to depression, guilt, relief, anxiety, etc.) death of the woman, and risk of a living, injured baby.” (pg 48)

“One memorable moment in the hearings before the Task Force occurred on September 21, 2005, the first day of public hearings. Dr. Henshaw displayed a chart entitled “Healthier Children.” It stated that because of abortion there are “fewer abandoned infants.” This was advanced as a reason to support legal abortion. The Task Force concludes that this logic is emblematic of some of the reasoning advanced by the pro-abortion advocates that testified before the Task Force, even some of those who testified as experts.
Likewise, Dr. Henshaw’s chart listed as an improvement to the health of children that it is suspected that there are “fewer infant homicide victims.” Thus, Dr. Henshaw argues that it is better for the health of children that the lives of 1.3 million children be terminated each year because he suspects that a very small number of them may have died from other means. Rather than belabor the illogical nature of this abortion advocacy reasoning, we include Dr. Henshaw’s “Healthier Children” chart as Exhibit C to this report.
Dr. Henshaw’s charts merit one last comment from the Task Force. He argues that because of abortion, there are “fewer children with the handicaps of being unwanted by their parents.” The Task Force record is replete with evidence that in the overwhelming majority of cases when women are given an informed and voluntary choice, they raise the children themselves. The mere fact that a pregnancy was unplanned does not mean that the child will be unwanted after birth.
Although we received compelling evidence that large percentages of women wished they did not have their abortion, we found no evidence that women who decided to keep the children ever regretted it. There is simply no evidence that the parenting of children who are “unwanted” is any way affected by the availability of legal abortion.” (pg 51, 52)

“…the attachment between mother and child begins almost immediately after conception and the basis of maternal attachment is both psychological and physical, and this process, and the natural protective urges of maternal attachment, often form irrespective of whether the pregnancy was intended or wanted.” (pg 54)

“Most noteworthy are the conclusions of many researchers, as discussed in Section II-E of this Report, that the traumatic disruption of this attachment bond is capable of causing enduring psychological damage. Specifically, breaking this bond by abortion is detrimental to the health of the mother…even when the termination of pregnancy is the presumptive desired result.” (pg 54)

Excerpts from “Whether Abortion Is A Workable Method For The Pregnant Woman To Waive Her Rights To A Relationship With The Child”

“The Task Force finds, based upon all of the evidence presented, that an abortion is a completely unworkable method for a pregnant mother to waive her fundamental right to her relationship with her child.” (pg 55)

“Third, it is unworkable that a matter of such importance is entirely entrusted to abortion providers whose interests and philosophies are in direct conflict with the interests of the mother in her relationship with her child. As Dr. Willke testified, the abortion providers are in the business of terminating the mother’s relationship. Even when the pregnant mother has the entire nine months of pregnancy to investigate her options and reach a reasoned decision about whether to parent her child, the law does not entrust the termination of the mother’s rights to an adoption agency. Only a court of law, after a hearing, can terminate the mother’s rights.” (pg 56)

Excerpts from “Whether The Unborn Child Is Capable Of Experiencing Physical Pain”

“Since the time of Roe v. Wade, a number of generally accepted assumptions about human neurological development and our ability to feel pain have been refuted. The first assumption was that neonates were incapable of feeling pain.17 The second assumption was that myelinated nerve fibers were necessary for pain perception, and since they did not form completely until after birth, pain perception was a late developmental event. The third assumption was that pain experience required pain-detecting nerves connected to the thalamus and then to the brain cortex; furthermore, there was presumed to be a period of cortical maturation necessary before pain could be experienced. All of these assumptions were based upon gross histological observations.
It was only in the last 20 years that the traditional concept accepted at the time of Roe, that even normal neonates cannot feel pain, was first challenged.18 It had been assumed by the medical community that a fully developed and mature cortical brain region was necessary for pain perception. This assumption, it became clear, was inconsistent with the observations of caregivers for premature infants.” (pg 57)

“In order to provide guidance to the Legislature, we examined the evidence and literature and we find that:

a. It is almost universally accepted that the unborn child can experience pain by 24 weeks after conception.

b. The evidence supports the conclusion that the unborn child experiences pain by 20 weeks post-conception, at the latest.

c. That there is a considerable body of evidence, increasing in recent years, that the unborn child may experience pain as early as 11 weeks post-conception.

d. It is possible that the unborn child experiences pain as early as 7 weeks post-conception.” (pg 58)

“Thus, it is clear that the neurological structure necessary for pain detection is in place very early (between 6 to 11 weeks post-conception) and neuropeptides, which both transmit and suppress pain, are present as early as five or six weeks post-conception. The question is essentially reduced to whether it is necessary to have a functioning cerebral cortex in order to “experience” or be aware of the pain transmission.” (pg 62)

“We are struck by the fact that doctors and scientists draw a distinction between “feeling” painful stimuli and “conscious” awareness of it. It is the “consciousness” of pain that some experts, like Dr. Rosen, hypothesize requires upper brain and cortex functioning. For policy considerations, the Legislature may not be willing to draw such a distinction…” (pg 63)

“We find it more persuasive that the unequivocal reactions to painful stimuli and the learning capabilities of the hydranencephalic and anencephalic babies indicate that lower brain centers – in the absence of a functioning cortex – have a capacity to function in a more complex fashion, and that these children possess the capacity for awareness and experiencing pain.” (pg 64)

“Based upon the comprehensive analysis contained in the report by the Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience, our review of the literature, the testimony before the Task Force, and other evidence received, we conclude:

1. Concerning physical neurological development:

a. Beginning at 5 weeks post-conception the unborn child responds to touch and the development of the brain is well under way;

b. Brain activity can be detected at 7 weeks post-conception;

c. The lower brain begins activity around 10 weeks post-conception; and

d. The higher areas of the brain are active at 23 weeks post-conception, and at 24 weeks the neurological signals can be processed from the thalamus to the cortex.

2. Concerning the child’s ability to experience pain:

a. It is virtually universally accepted by science and medicine that the unborn child can experience pain by 24 weeks post-conception;

b. It is probable that the unborn child can experience pain at least by 20 weeks post-conception;

c. It is more likely than not that the unborn child can experience pain without a functioning cortex, as long as the lower brain is developed to the same extent as that of hydranencephalic babies, which is around eleven weeks post-conception. There is a significant and growing body of evidence that the unborn child experiences pain as early as 11 weeks post-conception;

d. Some scientists contend, although it has not been proven, that the unborn
child may be able to experience pain as early as 7 weeks post-conception;
and

e. The fact the unborn child can “feel” painful stimuli before the ability to be conscious of that pain is relevant to matters of public policy.” (pg 64, 65)

Excerpts from “Whether The Need Exists For Additional Protections Of The Rights Of Pregnant Women Contemplating Abortion”

“Any policies implemented by this, or any other state, must begin with the recognition that human life has intrinsic value. We find it to be self-evident (and supported by the record) that a mother’s relationship with her child, at every moment of life, has intrinsic worth and beauty for the mother and child alike. It must be with these truths in mind, that our state, or any state, must act to guarantee that the pregnant mother’s fundamental right to her relationship with her child enjoys strong legal protections.” (pg 65)

“The current legal policy found in our country today, that protects the destruction of her relationship with her child (i.e., abortion) instead of her relationship with her child is a denigration of women. We find that we should, as state policy, promote motherhood and counter the claim that the exclusive “right” to abortion liberates women.” (pg 66)

Excerpts from “Whether There Is Any Interest Of The State Or The Mother Or The Child Which Would Justify Changing The Laws Relative To Abortion”

“We conclude that the most fundamental assertions made by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), upon which its decision was based, are now known to be false or inaccurate. Of these, none are more damning than the position that it could not be determined when life begins. This statement of Roe has caused confusion in the lives of women and has destroyed the lives of their children. Because of this statement, Planned Parenthood tells women that there is only “tissue” inside a pregnant mother and refuses to inform women of the biological fact that an abortion will terminate the life of a human being. (66, 67)

“The fact that the unborn child is a whole separate unique living human being is not without significance for our culture and our state. The right to live does not derive from government. If it is truly, as we know it to be, an intrinsic natural right, it is enjoyed by every single human being, no matter how poor or wealthy, strong or weak, age of maturity, or state of dependence. We find that the unborn child possesses intrinsic rights that are in perfect harmony with and equal to the intrinsic rights of that child’s mother.” (pg 67)

“If there are any self-evident and universal truths that can act for the human race as a guide or light in which social and human justice can be grounded, they are these: that life has intrinsic value; that each individual human being is unique and irreplaceable; that the cherished role of a mother and her relationship with her child, at every moment of life, has intrinsic worth and beauty; that the intrinsic beauty of womanhood is inseparable from the beauty of motherhood; and that this relationship, in its unselfish nature, and, in its role in the survival of the human race, is the touchstone and core of all civilized society. This relationship, its beauty, its survival, its benefits to the mother and child, and its benefits to the State of South Dakota, and society as a whole, all rest in the self-evident truth that a mother is not the owner of her child’s life, she is the trustee of it.” (pg 67)

Conclusion

The Task Report goes on to conclude “that to fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the mother and the life of her unborn child, a ban on abortions is required.”  Based on all the facts and reports presented, I don’t know how one could come up with any other conclusion.

In the end, abortion is wrong because it is murder.  It takes the life of an innocent baby.  Even if all the other effects and consequences didn’t exist it would still be wrong and worth fighting to end.  Even if it was proven to be beneficial for the pregnant woman (which some contend) abortion would still be wrong because it’s homicide!  But they do exist, which means the stakes are higher and the urgency greater (if that’s possible).  Let’s be the generation that ends abortion!