A nationally-recognized scientist who has testified in support of unborn babies is President Donald Trump’s new choice for the National Science Board.
Dr. Maureen Condic, an associate professor at the University of Utah who specializes in neurobiology, is widely known for her work on spinal cord repair, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. Earlier this month, Trump chose her to fill one of the 25 seats on the National Science Board.
“I’m just thrilled that it’s an opportunity to serve my country and the greater scientific community,” Condic said in response to the news.
She obtained her Ph.D. from University of California, Berkeley, and is a widely published scientist whose works have appeared in a variety of peer-reviewed journals.
Her work has been instrumental to the pro-life movement in its pursuit to protect unborn babies from painful abortions. In 2003, Condic testified before Congress that unborn babies have the capacity to feel pain as early as eight weeks.
“The neural circuitry responsible for the most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex, is in place by 8 weeks of development,” she explained. “This is the earliest point at which the fetus experiences pain in any capacity.”
She asked lawmakers to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn babies from the “cruel” and unnecessary pain of abortion.
“Imposing pain on any pain-capable living creature is cruelty,” Condic said. “And ignoring the pain experienced by another human individual for any reason is barbaric. We don’t need to know if a human fetus is self- reflective or even self- aware to afford it the same consideration we currently afford other pain-capable species. We simply have to decide whether we will choose to ignore the pain of the fetus or not.”
Abortion activists are attacking her nomination, as they have in the past with other pro-life individuals who Trump chose to help lead his administration.
Among the critics is Utah abortionist Leah Torres, who accused Condic of being “willfully ignorant or not up-to-date.”
Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. Follow @LifeNewsHQ
“An adviser is not supposed to be using opinions,” Torres told the newspaper. “She does not heed the stance of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or that of maternal-fetal medicine and does not respect current scientific evidence.”
The Salt Lake Tribune quoted Torres heavily in its article about Condic, but failed to mention that Torres performs abortions and advocates for them politically, and therefore has an obvious bias in the matter. Torres also is a radical abortion activist who once said she cuts unborn baby’s cords so they can’t scream.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has strong pro-abortion biases, too. It works closely with the abortion industry, giving awards to its leaders and collaborating with abortionists.
Condic defended herself against these accusations, telling the newspaper:
Condic responded Thursday, defending her position as being based on “undisputed, uncontested data” and a number of peer-reviewed scientific publications cited in her testimony. She said the consciousness argument isn’t the final conclusion because there are animals without the same brain structures as humans that can still detect pain. And a fetus at eight weeks, she added, shows “the most rudimentary form” of pain response.
“I’m not reporting bad science,” she said. “I’m reporting an interpretation of science that’s open to discussion.”
She also said the process for her appointment is confidential, but she doubts “seriously that any one position is driving this nomination.” Condic believes any researcher who says she supports “junk science” hasn’t read all of the literature on the topic.
“Pain is a really nuanced kind of thing,” she said. “The debate over fetal pain has very little to do with the evidence.”