Key Takeaways:
– Dr. Elizabeth H. Thilo criticizes Amendment 79’s provision of terminations up to birth, citing the ability of infants to survive outside the womb in late second and third trimester.
– Thilo emphasizes that preterm infants, even at 23 or 24 weeks gestation, can feel pain and recognize their surroundings.
– She refutes the widespread assumption that late abortions are primarily due to fetal diagnosis or threats to maternal health.
– The neonatologist calls for a reevaluation of terminations involving healthy babies after 23 weeks, deeming them akin to murder.
– She opposes taxpayer-funded abortions up to any point in pregnancy, arguing these babies deserve equal human rights.
Examining Amendment 79: A Medical Professional’s Perspective
Renowned neonatologist, Dr. Elizabeth H. Thilo has sparked a dialogue in Colorado over Amendment 79. She articulates strong concerns about the provision which allows abortions up to birth, insisting that premature infants show evidence of humanity from as early as 23 weeks.
Understanding Premature Survival and Sensitivity
In her attempt to sound the alarm on the implications of Amendment 79, Thilo draws from her professional experience with premature infants. According to Thilo, infants born prematurely have demonstrated qualities associated with being fully human. At 23 or 24 weeks gestation, these infants can perceive pain, respond to touch, voice, and smell, which shows their sensitivity to their immediate environment. Thilo has also noted that premature babies with parental support even exhibit improved health outcomes.
Dispelling Myths About Late Term Abortions
During her argument, Thilio targeted what she describes as a serious misapprehension about late term abortions. It’s commonly believed these procedures are opted for primarily because of a fetal diagnosis or if maternal health is endangered. Citing data from Arizona, a state known for keeping meticulous records on abortion reasons, Thilo berates this notion. She reveals that most abortions performed in Arizona after 21 weeks do not hinge upon a fetal diagnosis, nor a health threat to the woman carrying the child.
The Moral Dilemma For Healthy Babies After 23 Weeks
The doctor further challenges the inclusivity of Amendment 79 in condoning abortions involving healthy babies after 23 weeks gestation. Thilo ponders if these late term abortions should be equated to murder, by likening them to the termination of a new-born baby’s life.
The Financial Burden of Publicly Funded Abortions
Thilo wraps up her argument by objecting to the funding of abortions using public tax dollars. She counters the argument that a fetus in the womb is just a clump of cells or tissue mass by insisting they are just as human, though unable to voice their rights. Thilo urges a reconsideration of Amendment 79 to protect these early human lives from unjust termination.
Perspective of Amendment 79 Through Medical Lens
Dr. Thilo’s perspective on Amendment 79 provides a different angle on the debate about its provision for abortions up to birth. She highlights the medical indication of premature infants thriving outside the womb from as early as 23 weeks.
In her particular points, she tackles the misbelief about late abortions, challenges the moral grounds on abortions involving healthy babies at or after 23 weeks and voices disapproval on taxpayer-funded abortions. Her viewpoints open avenues for further discussions and revisions surrounding Amendment 79.
The latter part of this opinion piece invites stakeholders to re-examine the rights of early human lives in the womb and how public funds are engaged in abortions.
With her insights, Thilo hopes to shift society’s perspective on babies in the womb and the lateness of abortions, propelling a rethink of Amendment 79.