House adopts HB222, requiring prenatal pain‑information be offered in later abortions

Utah House of Representatives · February 3, 2009

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The House approved HB222, the Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act, requiring physicians to inform women at least 24 hours before an abortion at or after 20 weeks about available anesthetic or analgesic options and associated risks; an amendment to note maternal risks was adopted.

The Utah House on Feb. 3 passed House Bill 222, the Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act, which requires that physicians inform a woman at least 24 hours before an abortion at 20 weeks’ gestation or later about any anesthetic or analgesic that could eliminate or alleviate fetal pain and any associated medical risks. The requirement is permissive — it does not mandate administration of analgesia.

Representative Carl Wimmer, the bill sponsor, cited peer‑reviewed research by physicians including Dr. Anand and Dr. Fisk to support the proposition that a fetus may experience pain at about 20 weeks and that analgesia can reduce stress markers. “In peer review studies… Dr. Anand concluded the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation,” Wimmer said, and he described studies where administration of analgesics reduced stress hormone responses.

Opponents raised concerns about the scientific consensus on fetal pain, the medical feasibility of administering fetal analgesia, and potential risks to the mother if higher levels of narcotics or anesthesia were used. Representative Johnson noted that anesthetizing a fetus typically requires specialized fetal surgery procedures and carries risks for the woman.

Representative Beck offered an amendment requiring the physician to inform the woman of increased medical risks associated with attempts to anesthetize a fetus; the sponsor described the amendment as friendly and the House adopted it. The House then voted to pass HB222, with the Clerk recording 56 yes and 15 no.

Supporters framed the measure as an information and choice expansion for patients; critics said it could impose medically impractical steps or add cost and delay for women seeking abortions. The bill will be transmitted to the Senate for consideration.