Ultrasounds Major Pro-Life
Priority
By Dave Andrusko
Sometimes it takes a while before the full
import of a Supreme Court decision is fully
understood. Take Roe v. Wade ... please. It was
not for a number of years after the 1973
decision that it became crystal clear the Court
said what it meant, and meant what it said:
essentially abortion on demand, for any reason,
or no reason, throughout all 50 states.
In its 1992 Planned Parenthood v.
Casey decision, at the same time it reaffirmed
the "core" holdings of Roe, the justices opened
the door a crack to commonsense legislation. In
the 16 years since, states have passed a variety
of informed consent/Woman's Right to Know laws
intended to ensure that a woman's decision
whether to abort is a measured, not emotional,
one.
The results when women are
told the truth about their unborn child, about
alternatives, and about the anguish they may
experience in the aftermath of a decision taken
for death is that they often choose life. Not
surprisingly, pro-abortionists fight such laws
with a fiery passion, as hot as it is illogical.
Aren't they for "choice"?
The latest front in the
ongoing struggle to give women a real "choice"
is the use of ultrasound. "Sixteen states have
laws requiring an abortion provider to give a
mother an opportunity to view an ultrasound
prior to undergoing an abortion," said Mary
Spaulding Balch, who directs NRLC's State
Legislation Department. "Proving a 'window on
the womb,' this type of legislation is
instrumental in ensuring that mothers in crisis
pregnancies make truly informed decisions."
Ultrasound legislation is a
high priority for NRL's state affiliates, Balch
says. And as NRL News goes to press, there is a
tremendous battle going on in Nebraska over just
such a proposal.
If passed, Legislative Bill
675 "will be one of the strongest ultrasound
laws in the country," said Julie Schmit-Albin,
executive director of Nebraska Right to Life.
"LB 675 provides that an abortionist doing an
ultrasound an hour prior to an abortion must
display the ultrasound screen to the mother, so
that she is fully informed."
Key to LB 675, according to
Schmit-Albin, is that it shifts the burden. No
longer would the mother in crisis need to ask to
see the ultrasound. The abortionist would be
required to display the ultrasound screen to
her. "However, nothing would prevent the mother
from averting her eyes from the screen if she
decides not to view it," Schmit-Albin explained.
The benchmark ultrasound law
after which the Nebraska law is modeled was
passed last year in Oklahoma. It required 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.
Last fall a prominent
pro-abortion legal advocacy group, the Center
for Reproductive Rights (CRR), filed a lawsuit
against the Oklahoma law. Noteworthy is that the
CRR acknowledged in its October 10, 2008, press
release that "Nationally, this case has
implications because the law at issue is among
the first signs that ... legislatures are
beginning to take cues from [the 2007] U.S.
Supreme Court ruling [Gonzales v. Carhart]
upholding the 'Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of
2003.' Should this law be upheld, it could
encourage copycat legislation around the
country."
Balch pointed out the irony
that so many pro-abortionists are up in arms
about the requirement that an ultrasound be
used. "Almost all abortion clinics already use
ultrasounds in almost all cases," she noted.
In very early abortions, an
ultrasound accurately dates the pregnancy since
it depicts a clearer image of the baby. When the
baby is older and more developed, ultrasounds
are used to "guide the tools" and be sure that
all the body parts are removed. In either case,
abortion clinics already use ultrasounds, so it
is no burden to display them in order that women
can see the child in their womb before
undergoing an abortion.
Please send
your comments to
daveandrusko@gmail.com. |