Pro-choice testimony on pro-life bills raises troubling questions

Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash

This pro-life writer just returned home from a week in Cheyenne. While the visit was planned weeks in advance, it happened to coincide with several important debates concerning the sanctity of life in Wyoming law. Readers who have never personally witnessed such debates should have a score-card to know the main players.

The first pro-life hearing of the week was held by the House Judiciary Committee on HB 197 “Abortion 48-hour waiting period.” It requires two days from the time an abortion patient has been given the legally required data until the procedure can be performed.

The second such hearing was not about abortion, but a measure to ensure that infanticide cannot take place in Wyoming. SF 97 “Born-alive infant means of care,” clarifies existing law to close a loophole. While current statute (W.S. 35-6-101-104), clearly intends to save the life of infants, it allows an abortionist to satisfy the letter of the law by wrapping a baby in a blanket and calling it “comfort care.” A baby that might be saved in an oxygen-rich incubator can legally be denied this life-saving care.

The Wyoming Medical Society typically sends its full-time lobbyist to speak at pro-life hearings. The speech always begins by formally declaring that the WMS does not take a stand on abortion one way or the other. Then it goes on to oppose the pro-life legislation—whatever it may be—on the grounds that it burdens doctors with unnecessary state oversight. This position is so extreme that the WMS even opposed a 2018 bill (SF 85) that would have allowed parents of a miscarried baby to ask for a certificate of non-viable birth.

After the WMS lobbyist made the usual speech at the hearing on the 48-hour waiting period, Rep. Jennings inquired if the WMS was also opposed to all the existing laws that place requirements on doctors. The lobbyist did not deny it. A ripple of snickers led to Rep. Burlingame coming to the lobbyist’s defense by observing that those laws were written before she was born. That may be true. But the WMS itself goes back to 1903.

Dr. Rene Hinkle, representing the Cheyenne Women’s Clinic, also spoke at against HB 197. There she made the stunning claim that viability, after which no child in Wyoming may be aborted, “is, right now, late 23 weeks.” Yet America only recently saw Ellie Schneider at the State of the Union Address. She survived birth at 21 weeks, 6 days. How could Hinkle, who also serves on Wyoming’s Board of Medicine, not consider Ellie “viable” at birth?

The lobbyist representing NARAL Pro-Choice also spoke at both hearings. At the hearing on SF 97, he interpreted Wyoming’s law prohibiting abortion after “viability.” He testified, “Doctors in Wyoming do not abort infants. They abort non-viable fetuses. And they only are allowed to perform abortions up to twelve weeks of pregnancy.” How can the age of viability vary from late 23 weeks to 12 weeks overnight?

Dr. Rene Hinkle

Dr. Rene Hinkle, who runs the Cheyenne Women’s Clinic, also makes regular appearances in opposition to pro-life legislation. This week was no exception. Her speeches typically begin by declaring that she is a life-long Republican and that she has been a practicing Ob/Gyn in Wyoming for 21 years. Like the WMS, she stands opposed to laws that make requirements of medical doctors.

In fact, during these hearings, it is often intoned that doctors are highly trained people with impeccable ethics. Thus, it is insulting to the medical profession to subject doctors to laws and state oversight. This theme is heard both from lobbyists and from pro-choice legislators. On this occasion, nobody seemed to notice that the other two doctors in the room testified in favor of state oversight, as did a long-time nurse.

Perhaps the most interesting testimony of the week came from Dr. Hinkle. During the born-alive infant hearing, she went into detail about what she and other doctors have experienced in actual practice. “What I’m concerned about as a physician in this state,” she said, “is that we do, sometimes, induce labor on a patient whose baby is not…ah… whose baby would be non-viable outside the uterus.”

This change of verb-tense immediately caught my attention. It indicates that a baby that is perfectly viable where it currently resides would be non-viable outside the uterus. That is analogous to saying: Joe is perfectly viable on the beach. But would be non-viable if I pulled him into the water.
That’s a curious way to define viability. But Dr. Hinkle’s next words were more revealing still. She said, “However, they [babies] do sometimes come out with breathing motions, and they do sometimes live for a few moments.” Mind you, this is testimony from a Wyoming Ob/Gyn about what happens in Wyoming hospitals.

This is breath-taking testimony. Whether the “breathing motions” are actual breaths or not, she expresses no doubt that “they do live.” This raises several questions. How old, exactly, was this child? Who was there to verify? Who was present to advocate for its life? Can the Wyoming Board of Medicine be sure that all applicable laws were being followed? Did the state issue this baby a birth certificate and a death certificate?

We are not talking about a miscarriage where a child who has died in the womb is delivered. We are talking about a child who not only lived in the womb but was both intact and alive after the induced labor. Clearly the induction of labor was not to preserve the life of the child—as Wyoming law allows. It was, rather, for another reason.

One would hope that the doctor induced labor to save the life of the mother. But that would be strange. Labor is one of the most dangerous times for both mother and child alike. It is also a process that takes hours or days. When there is immediate threat to the life of mother or child, the more usual practice would be to take the child by C-section. This allows the doctors to treat either the mother or child within minutes, rather than hours.

Of course, I am not a physician. C. Everett Koop, however, is. The former Surgeon General has written, “In my 36 years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted.” Of course, no doctor likes to be second-guessed. Still, shouldn’t Wyoming’s Board of Medicine be aware of Dr. Hinkle’s testimony and investigate whether or not such things are in keeping with state laws and the will of Wyoming citizens?

C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General

Current Wyoming law forbids elective abortion after viability. Further, it forbids the direct termination of the child whether before, during, or after an abortion. Finally, it requires that an infant born alive should receive the commonly accepted means of care (W.S. 35-6-102, 103 & 104).

Testimony from pro-choice organizations at the capitol is eye-opening, to say the least. If the practices they describe are not covered by these laws, that is reason enough to tighten their language. Perhaps, in addition, the state’s Board of Medicine should be required to ask some tough questions and get real answers.