Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Fetal pain and its relevance to abortion policy

Nature Neuroscience volume 25, pages 1396–1398 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

In the case that led the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade, the State of Mississippi made the strong claim that fetuses can feel pain. We argue that critical biological evidence used to support this claim was misinterpreted and that the State’s argument conflated pain and nociception. Abortion policy has profound moral and ethical consequences and therefore needs to be grounded in the most accurate scientific arguments, as well as a clear understanding of what we mean when we use the term pain.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. de Waal, F. B. M. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59, 279–300 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Davis, K. D. et al. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 13, 624–638 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jackson Women’s Health Organization vs Currier. Declaration of Maureen L. Condic, Ph.D., District Court, Sother District of Mississippi. (2018).

  4. Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Brief of Maureen L. Condic, Ph.D. and the Charlotte Lozier Institute as Amici Curiae supporting petitioners. (2021).

  5. Raja, S. N. et al. Pain 161, 1976–1982 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. International Association for the Study of Pain. Terminology https://www.iasp-pain.org/resources/terminology/ (2011).

  7. Im, S. H. & Galko, M. J. Dev. Dyn. 241, 16–26 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Silbereis, J. C., Pochareddy, S., Zhu, Y., Li, M. & Sestan, N. Neuron 89, 248–268 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Derbyshire, S. W. & Bockmann, J. C. J. Med. Ethics 46, 3–6 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Reardon, S. Nature 518, 474–476 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mouraux, A. & Iannetti, G. D. Brain 141, 3290–3307 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Mouraux, A., Diukova, A., Lee, M. C., Wise, R. G. & Iannetti, G. D. Neuroimage 54, 2237–2249 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Salomons, T. V., Iannetti, G. D., Liang, M. & Wood, J. N. JAMA Neurol. 73, 755–756 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Feinstein, J. S. et al. Brain Struct. Funct. 221, 1499–1511 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Brief of Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, U.S. Association for the Study of Pain and 27 scientific and medical experts as Amici Curiae in support of respondents. (2021).

  16. Lloyd-Thomas, A. R. & Fitzgerald, M. BMJ 313, 797–798 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

    T. V. Salomons

  2. Neuroscience and Behaviour Laboratory, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Rome, Italy

    G. D. Iannetti

  3. Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London, UK

    G. D. Iannetti

Authors
  1. T. V. Salomons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. D. Iannetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to T. V. Salomons or G. D. Iannetti.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Neuroscience thanks Rohini Kuner, Udo Schüklenk and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salomons, T.V., Iannetti, G.D. Fetal pain and its relevance to abortion policy. Nat Neurosci 25, 1396–1398 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01188-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01188-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing