What abortion activists don’t want you to see

Your baby. I heard this story this morning and planned to look into it right away. Before I could, my friend Tracy sent me a note saying she was talking to her TV and thought of me. If you click on the ‘abortion’ category on the right, there’s plenty of information about ‘informed consent’ legislation and crisis pregnancy centers helping women by giving them resources, information and the respect to make their own decisions free of pressure.

That’s why Tracy was talking back to her TV. Because ABC was reporting on some new legislation that strengthens the informed consent process in South Carolina, and abortion advocates were calling that an ‘intimidation tactic.’

Women seeking abortions in South Carolina would be required to view an ultrasound image of their fetus before the procedure under a proposal gaining support from lawmakers. If enacted, it would be the first law of its kind in the nation.

Some states make ultrasound images available to women before an abortion, but South Carolina would be alone in mandating that women see the pictures.

That would protect women from abortion profiteers, and anyone else who stands to gain from women terminating their pregnancies, keeping the ultrasound images from them as part of their process of choosing what to do. This is about choice….isn’t it?

Proponents say women would change their minds after seeing an ultrasound and choose instead to keep the child or offer it for adoption.

To reduce abortions, women need “as much background as possible when they’re making decisions,” said Oran Smith, president of the Palmetto Family Council, the state affiliate of Focus on the Family.

Critics consider the proposal a tool to intimidate women who already have made an agonizing decision.

Now look at this. The Palmetto Family Council president is saying that, yes, women are making decisions. That involves choice. So what exactly do abortion activists have against this? 

“The women of South Carolina would rather talk to their doctor about information they need to make private, personal medical decisions. This is not a place for interference by politicians,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Yes, the women need “to talk to their doctor about information they need to make private, personal medical decisions” without the interference of Planned Parenthood or NARAL, who is not as supportive of choice when it has to be informed. Members of state government have the duty to protect the citizens of their states in providing for health care norms.

The bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Greg Delleney, considers the bill a natural addition to the state’s informed-consent law, which requires that women be told about fetal development and offered alternatives to abortion. The law requires a woman to have at least an hour to think about the information before ending her pregnancy.

Marie Connelly of Columbia, who had an abortion more than four years ago, said she now wishes she could have seen an ultrasound of her fetus before undergoing the procedure. She said she recently went back to the clinic to get “the only picture I will have of my child.”

“This legislation will serve as one last chance for those women who, like myself, unknowingly choose against their better judgment,” said Connelly, a director at the family council. “More women will not have to bear the relentless heartache knowing they will never be able to hug their lost child.”

Similar legislation has arisen across the nation over the last few years as states try to strengthen abortion-counseling requirements, said Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research center on sexual and reproductive health.

…and an arm of Planned Parenthood.

At least seven states have laws concerning abortions and ultrasounds. For example, women in Oklahoma, Utah and Wisconsin must be told an ultrasound is available. In Arkansas and Michigan, if an ultrasound is performed, women must be given the opportunity to view it.

Ten other states are considering similar legislation. Mississippi is reviewing a proposal that would allow women to listen to a fetal heartbeat in addition to seeing the ultrasound image.

Delleney’s proposal would require patients to certify in writing that they viewed the ultrasound.

And that, folks, is informed consent. Why do abortion activists so strongly agitate against it? Women deserve no less.

In the middle of that ABC news story is a link to their poll on this issue. They want to know what you think. Tell them.