It's always fascinating to take a close look at what is the newest terrain on which pro-and anti-life forces are locked in combat and then to try to decide what that tells us. Right now clearly that battlefield is the use of ultrasounds.
In my naivete I used to think that it was really odd that the Abortion Industry, which has more money than many countries, would go to Defcon 1 whenever a state would propose the creation of a "Choose Life" specialty license plate. If enacted, it meant a small amount of money would go to crisis pregnancy centers. Then it became clear, and it had nothing to do with allegations that CPCs gave out "false" information.
Like all bullies, Planned Parenthood can't stand it when someone stands up to them. If CPCs, which operate hand-to-mouth, are given just a few bucks, some women who otherwise would abort won't.
And there is nothing that makes pro-abortionists angrier than a woman, any woman, evading their clutches.
Consider the use of ultrasounds. To protect women's health, most abortion facilities already use ultrasounds. Why? So they can zero in on the child's precise location and then, after killing her, make sure that all the parts of the baby's body have been removed. (If any remain, it could lead to an infection.)
But I was never so naïve as to think that the Planned Parenthood types would sit idly by as a piece of equipment that is used to polish the killing technique is transformed into something that would give women a genuine opportunity to make a truly informed decision whether or not to abort her child.
I thought of this as I read an hysterical editorial that appeared in the Orlando Sentinel Tuesday. The usual measured words were on display--"ugly," "bunk," insulting," etc., etc., etc.--as the paper vented its displeasure over a bill that had passed out of committee giving women contemplating an abortion the chance to see live ultrasound images of their kid.
Check this out this reasoning. A colonoscopy on men after the age of 50 is "proven to save lives," the Sentinel tells us. Is the state going to make that mandatory? No, "it's not law because it's none of government's business how citizens choose to get informed when making medical decisions. Abortion should be no different."
At the risk of offending anyone who has attained the age of reason, getting a colonoscopy and having an abortion is not remotely equivalent. For one thing, a colonoscopy is intended to increase the likelihood you won't die from a disease. An abortion is desired as a 100% guarantee that someone will die.
For another thing, a colonoscopy is conducted voluntarily on a patient at his or her request. An abortion involuntarily takes the life of someone else--a baby--who has no voice in the decision.
Anything that gives pro-life forces a lift up (no matter how tiny), or which increases the chances that a woman will see whom it is they are dispatching to oblivion, will always drive "pro-choice" forces crazy.
Good Orwellians that they are, in their lexicon, "choice" does not mean actually having different options and choosing among them. "Choice" means doing everything possible to eliminate all choices except one: the choice for death.
Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: April 2, 2009
