Petrified That Women Will Change Their Minds -- Part Two of Two

Yesterday we were delighted to talk about a major breakthrough in Oklahoma. With huge bi-partisan majorities, the House and Senate easily overrode Gov. Brad Henry’s veto.

The bill Henry had rejected was as encompassing as it was encouraging. It addressed everything from the ugly wrongful life and wrongful birth law suits (no more of these), to RU-486 (no more ignoring FDA guidelines on its use), through coerced abortion (a woman’s “choice” must be that—her decision), to the option to view an ultrasound.

Not surprisingly, pro-abortionists responded with fury, especially to the requirement that at least one hour prior to an abortion, an abortionist perform an ultrasound and display the image of the unborn child so that the mother can view it if she chooses.

Oklahoma law already provided that mothers be told where they could obtain a free ultrasound and fetal heart tone services before an abortion. The new law increased the chance that women could make a more informed decision.

But besides being “hideous,” this provision is (we’re told by pro-abortionists) “insulting,” and treats adult women like children. Obviously the use of ultrasounds hit a raw nerve.

Why? Let’s borrow from William Saletan, a columnist for Slate magazine, a soft-core “pro-choicer” who almost always comes down with the wrong conclusion even when his analysis is chock-full of evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

In a 2007 column Saletan cut through the usual malarkey: “Ultrasound has exposed the life in the womb to those of us who didn't want to see what abortion kills.” That’s bad enough, from the pro-abortion perspective.

But Saletan then added eight words that explain why pro-abortionists hate ultrasounds so. “The fetus is squirming, and so are we.” (Emphasis added.)

The Abortion Establishment counts on the unborn child’s invisibility. The Planned Parenthood types are unnerved by the omnipresent sonograms which are attached to refrigerators everywhere but not driven crazy by them. In most cases these children are safe from PPFA’s clutches.

But what if women on the brink of extinguishing the life inside them have the opportunity to see who it is—not what it is—they are about to destroy? What if an abstraction suddenly becomes a moving, vibrant, concrete child?

As Mary Spaulding Balch, NRLC’s State Legislative Director, explains, this kind of legislation is catching on in a big way. Including Oklahoma, a total of thirteen states have laws which make provisions for an abortionist to offer a woman the opportunity to view an ultrasound image of her unborn child.

This year, South Dakota and Ohio joined Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Utah and Wisconsin. Louisiana requires that, for abortions at twenty or more weeks gestation, an ultrasound be performed and that the woman be offered the opportunity to view the image. Two other states, Arizona and Florida, require an ultrasound for all abortions after 12 weeks, but it is up to the woman to request to see the image. (South Carolina has passed similar legislation and is awaiting action by the governor.

So why does this generate such hysteria? As Balch told Saletan last year, “They are petrified that women will change their minds after seeing their babies."

Part One