By Dave Andrusko

"This forces doctors into making a tough decision about whether they follow through on women's health care needs or they protect themselves from the long arm of the law," said Tim Stanley, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood.
     From Wednesday's St. Paul Pioneer Press. Stanley is referring to a bill introduced Tuesday in Minnesota that would ban sex-selection abortions.

"Ultrasound bill is an outrageous intrusion by the Texas Legislature: Sen. Patrick's bill to shame women seeking abortions is wrongheaded"
     From an editorial that appeared in Monday's Austin American-Statesman.

Ultrasounds can have an amazingly powerful pro-life impact.

Although it holds true 99% of the time, I'm sure our benighted opposition would fervently disagree that the louder they scream, or the more inflammatory their language, the more likely it is they know they are swimming against the tide of public opinion. But I offer the following two examples to illustrate just how true this is.

It is a stretch, even by the elastic logic that clothes pro-abortion feminist thinking, to argue (as does Mr. Stanley) that refusing to allow female babies to be aborted just because they are female "forces doctors into making a tough decision about whether they follow through on women's health care needs." Unless there's been a new medical breakthrough--"Flash: Carrying Females Harmful to Mother's Health"–obviously it has nothing whatsoever to do with health.

And, please, the "long arm of the law"? Give me a break. They employ these logic-chopping, throw-everything-but-the-kitchen sink tactics because they know the American public is staunchly against them.

To take just one poll (from 2007), Ayres, McHenry Associates asked if respondents thought "abortions should be legal or illegal in your state" and then listed various situations, including "Woman does not like the gender of the fetus." A whopping 79% said abortions should be illegal in this circumstance.

The Austin American-Statesman editorial on the proposed ultrasound bill can only be described (even being charitable) as hysterical. The writers dipped into their pro-abortion thesaurus for every buzz word they could think of while simultaneously personally disparaging the authors of the bill in a display of what amounts to the equivalent of holding their breath.

Women are "force-fed information designed to humiliate them" (information which "misinform[s] women"], courtesy of two "leading culture warriors" who are in league with "anti-abortion activists" who are "shaking their collective fingers" at pregnant women! And that's just the nice part of the editorial.

But, to be fair, it'd hard to imagine two proposals more likely to receive a positive response from legislatures (those not thoroughly in hock to the Abortion Establishment, that is) and the public at large. Killing female babies in the name of women's equality? What's wrong with that picture? Speaking of pictures, I honestly don't think we can exaggerate how important is the impact of ultrasound technology.

Now, it is quite true that it is the ultimate two-edged sword. It can be employed on search-and-destroy missions, which is what the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life bill is designed to thwart.

But in a kinder and gentler context, ultrasounds--especially 3-D, full-color scans–are the best salesmen the unborn child has ever had.

Doesn't matter what a person thinks they think about abortion. You see that little one frolicking around, doing everything but handstands (at least I don't think unborn babies perform handstands), and it is very difficult to persuade yourself this is anyone but one of us.

Good luck to all state legislatures this year as they find more and more creative ways to bring home the truth about the humanity of unborn children.

Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.