May 4, 2010

By Dave Andrusko

Isn't it clear that there is an inverse relationship between how readily the public will accept a pro-life initiative and how batty is the pro-abortion response? For instance, because Joe Average Citizen nods his head in agreement when he hears of a requirement that women have the option of looking at an ultrasound before aborting, you can be sure that pro-abortionists will denounce such legislation in fierce and unyielding terms seemingly all out of proportion.

Why? Both because they hate anything that humanizes the unborn and because they don't want legislatures getting into the habit of passing informed consent legislation.

There were a spate of recent op-eds denouncing (among other legislation) Oklahoma's HB 2780. As one New York Times contributor put it in the Times' typically understated way, the bill is part of "a striking series of laws, enacted mostly by men, that seek legal control over women's bodies."

All the law does is require that, an ultrasound must be performed and displayed before an abortion can be performed so that the woman, if she chooses, may view it prior to undergoing an abortion. Oklahoma joins 19 other states have enacted similar legislation.

(Another writer said of another piece of Oklahoma pro-life legislation that it made her "blood run cold.")

Kathleen Parker

The exception was a piece written by syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker who describes her own views as "both pro-life and pro-choice." But it is no less true that Parker can offer useful insights.

And she did so in a column that ran in Sunday's Washington Post under the headline, "Women should be informed before they abort."

Parker's basic point is made early and often--and it's a good one. Politicians (like Slick Willie Clinton) are adroit at talking about making abortion "safe, legal and rare." But, she asks, "how does one get to 'rare' in a sexualized world where choice is a sacrament?" Her answer is education.

Parker zigs and zags but comes to the right conclusion in this column. Her "pro-life/pro-choice" view "has been that abortion truthfully presented would eliminate itself or vastly reduce its numbers." Thus, in the end, she says, she "can't muster outrage over what can be viewed as both medically pragmatic and morally defensible"--providing women with the opportunity to view and ultrasound.

She writes about how "A well-informed patient should always be our route to safe and legal," adding, "Is it unacceptable that a life-preserving decision might result from greater knowledge?"

Obviously I don't know her heart, but one of the primary reason Parker reaches this conclusion may be one that applies to many people.

"In testimony before the Louisiana Senate Health and Welfare Committee, women who had had abortions recounted being told they were ridding themselves of 'tissue,' only to learn later, often during ultrasounds with subsequent pregnancies, that they had destroyed fully formed fetuses," Parker writes. "From what

I can tell based on my own conversations with post-abortive women, this is a common event and is often the point at which formerly pro-choice women switch sides."

Naturally, pro-abortionists went bonkers when the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial-birth abortions. But I think the most awful part, from their perspective, was that the majority opinion allowed the real-world to enter into the discussion. And that included a glimpse at the horrific nature of abortion and the reality that some (we would say most) women regret their abortions.

Parker is way too flippant, but embedded in her cuteness ("Shouldn't pregnant women also know what their healthy fetuses look like before they hit delete") is an understanding that "This is a question lacking in sinister intent. What is sinister is the proposition that ignorance is better -- and the implied hope that women won't choose to reconsider."

Be sure to read "National Right to Life News Today" (www.nationalrighttolifenewstoday.org) and please send me your thoughts on any or all parts at daveandrusko@gmail.com.

Part One
Part Two