After all, it might help her make a choice

The wording of these articles on laws that make any changes to abortion clinic procedures is telling.

It tells you that anything other than unregulated abortion on demand, with no disclosure of accurate medical information to the woman, is tolerable.

Let’s parse this New York Times article, for example.

An advocacy group is suing over an Oklahoma law that prohibits a woman from having an abortion unless she first has an ultrasound and the doctor describes to her what the fetus looks like.

That’s basic information that the woman needs to know before she exercises her right to choose. Otherwise, it’s often desperate, emotional, and definitely uninformed. Also, why is it a fetus when we’re talking about abortion, but a baby when wanted? And…why is it an “advocacy group” when they back abortion but “anti-choice activists” when they are pro-life?

Continuing…

In the lawsuit filed Thursday in Oklahoma County District Court, the Center for Reproductive Rights says that the requirement intrudes on privacy, endangers health and assaults dignity.

Thre’s just so much wrong with that sentence….

Abortion is not about “reproductive rights”. It ends reproduction. And constitutionally, the doctor doing any procedure on a pregnant woman has two patients in front of him, and he has the requirement to disclose information about the risks of the procedure and what it will do….to both of them. Abortion clinic practices as they have long existed deny the rights of the second patient. Period. And they deny the woman’s rights by withholding information about the risks of the procedure, and just what the procedure will “evacuate” – that the human being is already in existence and it’s not “just a blob of tissue”. (See the Acuna story here.)

And then there are the facts (abundantly verified in the 35 years since Roe) that abortion itself endangers a woman’s health and assaults her dignity. Not to mention what it does to that second patient…

The Times piece continues….

The law, set to go into effect on Nov. 1, would make Oklahoma the fourth state to require that ultrasounds be performed before a woman can have an abortion and that the ultrasounds be made available to the patient for viewing, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a health research organization based in Washington.

To complete the information given here, the Guttmacher Institute is a research arm of Planned Parenthood.

Now the fuller story…

State Senator Todd Lamb, a Republican, said supporters of the law hoped that it would curtail abortions in the state.

“I introduced the bill because I wanted to encourage life in society,” Mr. Lamb said. “In Oklahoma, society is on the side of life.”

Mr. Lamb said he believed the lawsuit would stand a constitutional test. He disagreed with arguments that it forces a woman to view the ultrasound. The law says women may avert their eyes during the ultrasound.

“This bill provides more information to a mother,” he said.

So she can make an informed choice.