Media Promotes Junk Science on Fetal Pain

X
APA
Agresti, J. D. (2015, May 29). Media Promotes Junk Science on Fetal Pain. Retrieved from https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-promotes-junk-science-on-fetal-pain/
MLA
Agresti, James D. “Media Promotes Junk Science on Fetal Pain.” Just Facts. 29 May 2015. Web. 19 June 2019.<https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-promotes-junk-science-on-fetal-pain/>.
Chicago (for footnotes)
James D. Agresti, “Media Promotes Junk Science on Fetal Pain.” Just Facts. May 29, 2015. https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-promotes-junk-science-on-fetal-pain/.
Chicago (for bibliographies)
Agresti, James D. “Media Promotes Junk Science on Fetal Pain.” Just Facts. May 29, 2015. https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-promotes-junk-science-on-fetal-pain/.

By James D. Agresti
May 29, 2015

20weeksThe U.S. House Of Representatives recently passed an act that would prohibit abortions from 20 weeks after fertilization, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of a mother is endangered. A photograph in the womb at this stage of development is shown on the right.

The legislation states that its purpose is to protect “the lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain.” According to the bill’s authors, this occurs “by 20 weeks after fertilization, if not earlier.” Media outlets, however, are reporting otherwise. For example:

  • “The question of whether fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks is controversial. Abortion foes cite studies that show fetuses have stress responses and recoil from negative stimuli early in the womb, though most medical experts say the fetuses’ brains have not developed enough to register pain as it is typically understood.”
    Sandhya Somashekhar, social change reporter for the Washington Post
  • “The bill … claims that ‘an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization,’ though medical evidence does not support this.”
    New York Times editorial board
  • “We reviewed the literature and spoke with several experts, and we conclude … that definitive claims regarding pain perception at 20 weeks are unfounded.”
    Dave Levitan of FactCheck.org

Just Facts has previously detailed facts from numerous medical journals and textbooks indicating that preborn humans can feel pain from 20 weeks after fertilization or before. While this conclusion does not rise to the level of 100% certainty, it rests upon factually solid ground. To summarize the evidence:

  • By 7 weeks, pain “sensory receptors appear in the perioral [mouth] area.”
    New England Journal of Medicine
  • By 10 weeks, “All components of the brain and spinal cord are formed, and nerves link the stem of the brain and the spinal cord to all tissues and organs of the body.”
    Encyclopedia of Human Biology
  • By 14 weeks, preborn humans exhibit conscious “motor planning” and “social behavior.”
    PLoS ONE
  • By 14 weeks, “pain transmission from a peripheral [pain] receptor to the cortex is possible and completely developed” by 24 weeks.
    Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy
  • Development of the brain cortex is not necessary for “consciousness,” awareness,” or the “perception” of noxious stimuli (i.e., pain).
    Pain: Clinical Updates and Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • By 14 to 22 weeks, “a physiological fetal reaction to painful stimuli” occurs.
    Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy
  • By 18 weeks, pain sensory receptors spread to “all cutaneous [skin] and mucous surfaces.”
    New England Journal of Medicine
  • By 18 to 20 weeks, the human fetus “elaborates pituitary-adrenal, sympatho-adrenal, and circulatory stress responses to physical insults.”
    Anesthesiology
  • By 20 weeks, the fetus “now sleeps and wakes and hears sounds.”
    American Medical Association Complete Medical Encyclopedia

In sum, by about 20 weeks, preborn humans are conscious, and all the organs needed to feel pain are functional. Also, excepting the ability to talk or cry, they exhibit the physical signs of pain common to humans after birth and throughout their lives.

Given these facts, how could media outlets report as they did? The answers to this question are instructive.

In her article, Somashekhar failed to provide any evidence or hyperlinks to support her claim that “most medical experts say” fetuses at 20 weeks can’t “register pain as it is typically understood.” On May 13th, Just Facts emailed Somashekhar to ask for proof of this assertion, and she replied, “Sure, but can you tell me how you plan to use my response?” Just Facts answered that it would be used for “a fact check article on this issue,” and Somashekhar failed to reply.

Somashekhar’s article and her non-response violate the Post‘s standards and ethics, which require reporters to “disclose the source of all information when at all possible.” Even if she had provided some source to allegedly prove what “most experts” say, the Post‘s ethical standards state that “reporters and editors of The Post are committed to fairness,” and “no story is fair if it omits facts of major importance or significance. Fairness includes completeness.” By failing to adhere to this principle, Somashekhar and her editors are flouting the Post‘s self-declared standards.

Likewise, the New York Times editorial board neglected to provide any evidence to support its claim. Just Facts has written to the Times on multiple occasions about factually misleading statements in its reporting, editorials, and columns, but the Times has never supplied a substantive response. Thus, Just Facts skipped the exercise of writing to them again.

The Times espouses standards and ethics proclaiming that staff members “who knowingly or recklessly provide false information for publication betray our fundamental pact with our readers. We do not tolerate such behavior.” The newspaper also claims:

Whatever the medium, we tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. We correct our errors explicitly as soon as we become aware of them. We do not wait for someone to request a correction.

Moving on to the next article, Dave Levitan of FactCheck.org is a staff writer whose job is to focus “on false and misleading scientific claims that are made by partisans to influence public policy.” His article on this topic is more detailed and nuanced than the others, but it is still misleading.

Levitan began his analysis with the unproven claim that “published research generally supports an experience of pain being possible only later in gestation than 20 weeks.” As evidence of such, he cited a single paper in a medical journal, an analysis from a medical association, and a statement from a medical association. This is far from the type of comprehensive literature review that would be needed to support such a claim.

More importantly, the central argument of these three sources is at odds with the documented facts of this issue. The argument, in the words of one of the sources cited by Levitan, is that the brain cortex is essential to “perception or awareness,” and a connection from the body’s pain receptors to the “cortex is necessary for pain perception.” Since these connections “are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation,” the “fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation.”

Those claims clash with facts from the medical journals quoted above. To repeat:

  • By 14 weeks, “pain transmission from a peripheral [pain] receptor to the cortex is possible and completely developed” by 24 weeks.
    Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy
  • Development of the brain cortex is not necessary for “consciousness,” awareness,” or the “perception” of noxious stimuli (i.e., pain).
    Pain: Clinical Updates and Behavioral and Brain Sciences

More details about these sources and their findings are available in Just Facts’ research on this issue, but in short, they are far more grounded in verifiable evidence than the sources cited by Levitan.

Eight paragraphs after Levitan began appealing to his three favored sources, he mentioned the above-cited paper from Behavioral and Brain Sciences and then quickly pivoted to a quote from the author, who said that the paper “did not deal with pain specifically.” This is true only in a narrow sense, because the paper states that its core conclusion “has ramifying implications for issues in medical ethics,” including “pain management in children” without a cerebral cortex.

Furthermore, even if this paper said nothing about pain, the above-cited article in Pain: Clinical Updates covered much of the same ground, and it dealt specifically with pain. Likewise, the paper in Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy dealt with pain. By ignoring these sources, Levitan left his readers with a classic half-truth.

Levitan also tried to dismiss the relevance of these findings by writing, “Some experts have indeed argued that some degree of pain perception may not require a cortex, but again, there is no way to confirm this in a fetus.” If the argument that we can’t “confirm this in a fetus” had substance, Levitan could have written just that and nothing else. This is because it applies to every aspect of fetal pain, and for that matter, pain in anyone or anything unable to verbalize it. As explained by fetal-medicine specialist Nicholas Fisk, in order to be certain that preborn humans feel pain, “I would need one of them to come up to me at the age of 6 or 7 and say, ‘Excuse me, Doctor, that bloody hurt, what you did to me!’ ”

In other words, Levitan raised an impossible standard that distracts the fact that the sources he appealed to are likely wrong. As Fisk noted in a 1999 article in the British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology:

To address the question of pain in the fetus, one must use indirect evidence from a variety of sources, and then make an informed guess. This approach is similar to that which we use with animals. We cannot ask animals how they feel, but infer from a variety of indirect approaches including study of their behaviour, anatomy, and physiology.

Also, throughout his piece, Levitan used a common form of propaganda that portrays facts as opinions. He did this by placing facts into the mouths of pro-lifers instead of plainly reporting them as facts. For one example of many, he wrote that a pro-life member of Congress “claimed a 2007 paper in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences ‘demonstrated evidence that children born missing virtually all of the cerebral cortex nonetheless experience pain.’ ” This is not a claim—but a fact. Levitan repeatedly employed this subtle form of propaganda in his article.

The facts that Levitan downplayed, ignored, and dismissed were published in medical venues for clinical purposes. In contrast, all three of Levitan’s preferred sources explicitly state that they were written in the context of abortion politics. Moreover:

  • Susan J. Lee, the lead author of the paper cited by Levitan, worked as a lawyer for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America.
  • Eleanor A. Drey, another author of this paper, is the medical director of an abortion clinic.
  • Mark Rosen, another author of this paper, previously worked in an abortion clinic.
  • Stuart Derbyshire, an author of the analysis cited by Levitan, “served as an unpaid consultant for Planned Parenthood of Virginia, USA and Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, USA, and for the Pro-Choice Forum, United Kingdom.”
  • James Trussell, a peer reviewer of this analysis, is “a member of the National Medical Committee of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and a member of the board of directors of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Society of Family Planning.”
  • The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the source of statement cited by Levitan, has a track record of consistently opposing pro-life legislation and was caught modifying its clinical findings on partial-birth abortion at the behest of a Clinton White House lawyer.

Levitan failed to reveal any of this, while he simultaneously placed objective facts from medical textbooks and journals into the mouths of pro-lifers.

The falsehoods exposed above, whether basic or sophisticated, illustrate ways in which reporters and commentators mislead their audiences. Putting this media bias aside, the vast weight of scientific evidence points to the conclusion that preborn humans feel pain by around 20 weeks after fertilization or earlier.

12 thoughts on “Media Promotes Junk Science on Fetal Pain

  1. For a website claiming to be unbiased and “Just Facts” you guys sure seem to favor the conservative view of things 100% of the time leading me to question the objectivity of your organization.

    • First of all, we do debunk falsehoods from the right, though not nearly as often as we debunk falsehoods from the left. This is because:

      • the focus of our Just Facts Daily initiative is to debunk “falsehoods propagated by media outlets, politicians, and others.”
      • there is no need for us to duplicate accurate and well-publicized work that others have already done.
      • major media outlets tend to quickly debunk falsehoods from conservatives but spread falsehoods from liberals.

      In sum, we debunk more falsehoods from the left, because that is what the media is spreading. Thus, it makes far more sense to question the objectivity of the media instead of us for holding them accountable.

      Incidentally, if you are looking for raw facts, you will find a wealth of them on our main website at http://www.justfacts.com.

  2. Is it not possible that the “conservative view of things” is actually closer to the true, accurate account of things? I fail to see how medical science can be placed in either a conservative or liberal camp. Science itself is not refutable. Facts are facts. It’s only in the bias of the reporting that science takes on a slant to serve the agenda of those reporting it.

  3. It just seems strange to me that the “facts” ALWAYS support the conservative view and never anything else. If this website is just about facts it shouldn’t bash people opposing this bill it should present the facts and then state how the facts relate to the bill.

  4. Well, if the people against the bill use junk science to substantiate their claims then why shouldn’t “just facts” call them on it? Also, is it possible that the facts just might line up more often with the conservative viewpoint than the liberal?

    • It is part of the ideology of the left that objective, factual reporting is not possible–that all reporting is about achieving naked power. It uses facts without respecting facts. Therefore it is not surprising to me that the left is more off called out on the facts.

      The left over all is no respecter of facts.

  5. Pingback: Analysis: Abortions bans centered on fetal pain based on "factually solid ground" | Live Action News

  6. Pingback: Fetal Pain Facts and Falsehoods | The Resurgent

  7. Pingback: Oklahoma Lawmakers Shouldn’t Force Abortionists To Post Pro-Life Signs

  8. It seems strange to me that it is men writing and commenting on this topic. I was thrilled to come across this site to finally find a resource that is truly unbiased and just data with actual citations that are real. I’m a scientist, a god and people lover, an independent, have struggled to get a Ph.D , from lower mid-class family, and now live very well working most hours as a researcher or doing triathlons. Not a political scholar. However, I’m utterly dismayed by the crass election and skewing, pivoting, bullying and lies that have become commonplace. Expected. Revered. I crave true evidence. This site is one of the worst violators- claiming to be unbiased and saying “justfacts” is criminal to me. If you named it something else and were true to your mission, I’d have much more respect. But don’t call it just facts. It’s a blog of selected references, sprinkled with forced mentions of across the aisle notions, but I can almost feel your clinched teeth. Maybe in a few years you will look back and it will be as clear to you as it is to me (and other truly independent readers). There is much commentary-some call that editorial which by definition- not just facts. Why would you supply two versions? Why not just provide the raw version? That would be much closer to just facts. Your style reeks of right. I don’t want commentary – in post 2016 election era, commentary dimishes credibility. You are propagating fake news, people being misinformed, and forcing a divide which if facts only (data) were presented, perhaps people would actually think about developing own opinion. Or better yet, links to databases or unbiased articles, You clearly have passion, and that is remarkable. Please be fully transparent so no one is blinded!!!

    • Instead of praising yourself and psychoanalyzing the author, how about addressing the facts? This article contains dozens of them. Can you prove that even one of them is inaccurate or misleading?

      Also, have you considered the possibility that your view of this article could be the result of others misleading you? To those who consume propaganda, the truth seems like propaganda.

      • Sorry, Jim, but according to Julia’s post, you being a ‘male’ discredits your opinion . . . whether it is valid or not! Bummer!!! Just another indication of how divided we as citizens have become due to the divisive nature of our politicians in Washington. Curious as to why males are not allowed to weigh in on the rights of the unborn . . . just another ‘inconvenient’ problem for those of the progressive mindset. But let me just say, I give you 5 stars on your response!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *