The Truth About Ultrasounds and the Truth Ultrasounds Reveal Part One

Editor's. Join the conversation by sending your thoughts to daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

I had intended to write about what the results of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life's "U.S. Religious Landscape Survey" say about how a person's religious commitment affects the way they vote on issues of concern to us. But the study is so complex I want to more thoroughly digest its findings before I comment.

Instead, I'll be discussing several facts and "facts" that are true but misleading in a story headlined, "Ultrasound at center of state abortion wars" that appears in the online service, www.stateline.org. Ironically, this is still another outreach effort of the Pew Charitable Trusts which also produces the very influential Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

The story gets it right that there is plenty of opposition, but the "war" imagery is intriguing. How does the option (as is the case in the latest ultrasound measure passed in Oklahoma)for a woman to view an ultrasound of her unborn child one hour before the abortion constitute some sort of egregiously "aggressive" move? After all, as, Oklahoma state Sen. Todd Lamb, the bill's author, told Stateline.org, the law was merely intended to "ensure 100 percent informed consent. We're short-changing these moms if they're not receiving an ultrasound so they can see how their child is being formed."

As best I can tell the pro-abortion rationale for opposing the use of ultrasounds is (a) it's "paternalistic" and (b) "We think a woman should really be able to trust the advice she receives from her doctor and not hear what a doctor is being forced to say," as Trevor Lippman of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project argued. "Our concern is about the political interference and not about the medical information."

The Abortion Set continually assures the public they are all for "informed consent" even as they dig their heels in to oppose every law that would help women understand what they are doing and to whom. And who is the "doctor" in this case? An abortionist, a man who traffics in the blood of unborn babies and the misery of desperate women. In almost all cases the first and only time a woman sees him is the day of the abortion--and sometimes less than an hour before her baby's scheduled execution.

In talking about the "mandatory" component of the Oklahoma law, the story leads the casual reader to believe that a woman must view the ultrasound. In fact the law specifically says that she can avert her eyes.

What is required is that all abortionists use ultrasound and give her the option of watching. But the truth is that almost all abortionists already do employ ultrasounds, either to try to avoid perforating the woman's uterus, to remove all the body parts, or (in the case of larger babies whose bodies will be torn apart) to find an arm and a leg to grab onto.

The statelineleg.org story, written by Christine Vestal, informs us that no ultrasound law to date has been challenged in court but that the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights "is considering a suit against Oklahoma's law, according to the group's legislative counsel Celine Mizrahi." NRLC State Legislative Director Mary Spaulding Balch welcomes the challenge.

"I want a debate on the use of ultrasounds," Balch said. "I'd like to know exactly what it is that the mother might see that is such a problem for pro-abortionists."

The National Abortion Federation says that women who view ultrasound images "typically do not change their minds about ending their pregnancies," according to NAF President Vicki Saporta. Why? Since most abortions are performed in the first trimester, "there is very little to see in an ultrasound."

Really? What a woman would see is a vibrant little human being whose development belies the description she likely has been given--a blop of tissue, or an "ill-formed" this or that. For instance, she might see her little one's heart beating as early as 18 days. If the NAFs and the PPFAs of this world actually believe the laws have a miniscule effect, they would not move mountains to try to block them from passing.

To her credit, Vestal gives the other side--us--a chance to disagree. "Still, anti-abortion forces say increased use of sonograms appears to have steered many women away from ending their pregnancy. Abortion rates have fallen precipitously since 1990 and public opinion polls over the last two decades indicate a slight increase in the number of people who say they oppose abortion."

Both trends, she writes "may be related to a deeper understanding of what happens in an abortion, Randall K. O'Bannon, director of education for the National Right to Life Committee told Stateline.org. 'Over the years, women would have an ultrasound and pass the photo around the office so everyone could see it was not just a group of cells -- it was a unique special human being in there. Ultrasound eliminated the myth of a clump of cells,' O'Bannon said."

Please send your comments to Daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

NRLC 2008 Starts Next Week -- Register Now!!