December 6, 2006 -- The Center for Reproductive Rights is committed to using the law to advance reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right that the federal and state governments should respect, protect and fulfill. We support efforts to improve access to full and accurate information about reproductive health care, and recognize that, in some circumstances, whether or not a fetus can experience pain may be an appropriate topic of discussion between a physician and patient.

However, we oppose legislation such as the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (UCPAA) for four reasons:

• UCPAA intrudes upon the doctor-patient relationship by imposing mandatory information.
• UCPAA presents only one side in an ongoing scientific debate.
• UCPAA forces women to receive government mandated information even when her physician thinks it is contrary to the patient’s best interest.
• The true purpose of UCPAA is to further burden women obtaining abortions.

Mandatory disclosure requirements such as those contained in UCPAA are neither necessary nor conducive to good health care and should not be a prerequisite for obtaining an abortion.

UCPAA Intrudes upon the Doctor-Patient Relationship by Requiring Mandatory Information

UCPAA (H.R. 6099) would require that women read and sign a form drafted by Congress prior to any abortion performed at "20 weeks after fertilization" or later. The form, which cannot be modified in order to tailor the information to a particular patient’s needs, states that "there is substantial evidence" that the abortion will cause pain to the fetus. The form also states that the patient may request medications intended to reduce pain administered directly to the fetus. Women signing the form would have "to explicitly either request or refuse the administration of pain-reducing drugs." The only exception to the Act’s requirements is for narrowly defined medical emergencies.

UCPAA Presents Only One Side in an Ongoing Scientific Debate

The Center for Reproductive Rights opposes UCPAA, in part, because the form created by Congress presents a biased viewpoint and does not give complete information. The statement that there is "substantial evidence" that a fetus will experience pain as early as 20 weeks is a subjective characterization of a complicated scientific debate that fails to acknowledge what could also be fairly characterized as "substantial evidence" reaching the opposite conclusion. Many credible scientists disagree that a fetus can experience pain as early as 20 weeks after fertilization, and feel that too little is known about the effectiveness of medications administered directly to a fetus to draw firm conclusions. Congress should not force women to read government-mandated information presenting one opinion when experts in the relevant fields have not reached a consensus on the issue. Nor does the fact that the woman’s physician may present additional information overcome the fact that the initial biased viewpoint is presented with the imprimatur of Congress.

UCPAA Forces Women to Receive Government Information that Her Physician May Believe is Contrary to the Patient’s Best Interests

The Center further opposes UCPAA because it does not give physicians the discretion to change or omit the information in the form, even when a woman’s circumstances make it cruel and medically irresponsible to require that she read the information. For example, while procedures undertaken for the sole purpose of alleviating potential fetal pain will create additional risks for all women, this type of procedure can be particularly risky for a woman with a serious maternal health condition who is seeking an abortion to preserve her own life or health. In these circumstances, the procedures may not even be an option, because the additional risks are too high for the woman. Physicians should be given the discretion to determine whether it would be harmful to the patient to receive this information when her medical circumstances prevent her from acting on it.

Similarly, it would be inaccurate, as well as cruel and insensitive, to require a woman to read and sign the form when she seeks an abortion because her fetus suffers from a fatal anomaly, such as anencephaly in which no brain has developed. For these women, this additional reminder of their tragedy is unnecessary and lacks compassion.

The True Purpose of UCPAA is to Further Burden Women Obtaining Abortions; Congress Should Work to Improve, Rather than Undermine, Reproductive Health Care

The Center believes that the underlying premise of UCPAA—that discussions between physicians and women seeking abortions should be subject to government-mandated information—is itself fundamentally flawed. But UCPAA also suffers from the additional shortcoming of providing biased, and in some cases, cruelly inappropriate information. Given the lack of compassion and concern for women’s health demonstrated by the Act, we believe that its true purpose is to further burden women obtaining abortions. For these reasons, the Center opposes UCPAA.

If Congress is truly interested in improving the reproductive health of American women, it should address the current shortcomings in access to other reproductive health services such as contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies; prenatal care to promote healthy pregnancies and healthy babies; and screening and treatment for cancer as well as other serious health conditions to preserve women’s reproductive health and their overall health and lives.