On Bills Limiting Abortions, Pro-Choice Isn’t Pro-Choice

Opinion   |   Amelia Hamilton   |   Mar 29, 2011   |   4:24PM   |   Washington, DC

Pro-choice has such a nice ring to it. It sounds like freedom and respect, and as though those on the other side are forcing women into something unspeakable.

 The problem with the pro-choice movement is that they only support women choosing one particular option. With new legislation regarding abortion coming up in several states, pro-choicers seem to be very concerned that, given time and information, women might choose not to abort their babies. By the way they’re behaving, one might assume that they are not pro-choice so much as pro-uninformed choice.

In Florida, there is a measure being considered that would require a woman to have an ultrasound prior to an abortion being performed at any point in her pregnancy. The woman would also have the option to view the image and hear a description of what the doctor is seeing. Women would be allowed to decline this information, but they have to be given the opportunity. Apparently, this is not a choice that the pro-choicers support.

Rep. Ron Renuart, R-Ponte Vedra Beach, who is a physician, said it doesn’t make sense for doctors not to do an available test and share the results with the mother. House sponsor Rep. Liz Porter (R) said “It provides women with the knowledge, the truth, the facts, of the procedure that they are facing. Too much knowledge is never a bad thing.”

Of course, the pro-choice movement disagrees. Stephanie Kunkel, a lobbyist with Planned Parenthood, stated that “The bill would force physicians to perform ultrasounds even when it is not medically appropriate.” Think about it, have you ever had a procedure done where you were not given full information, including any available images. Probably not. However, Planned Parenthood seems awfully concerned about what my happen should women be given the full picture (pun intended).

There’s a similar bill on the table in Texas that would require a woman to have an ultrasound 24-72 hours before having an abortion. In this case, a woman would have the chance to view a sonogram, hear an explanation of the image and hear the baby’s heartbeat. “We want to make sure that they’re fully informed, that they understand the medical consequences, the psychological consequences and everything involved in the procedure.” said the bill’s author, Republican state Rep. Sid Miller. That sounds appropriate and responsible.

Opponents argued that the ultrasound would be too intrusive, and that it would be a case of the government becoming too involved in the medical care of the citizens. This hypocrisy is laughable for oh so many reasons but, for now, let’s just consider the amendments that Democrats tried to add to the bill. One of these was the ability for a woman to get a court order which required the father of the child to have a vasectomy should she decide against the abortion. Apparently the left, in their unending hypocrisy, considers that far less intrusive than an ultrasound.

Another piece of legislation was just signed into law in South Dakota. This controversial measure requires women to wait 72 hours and to consult with a pregnancy counselor before having an abortion. In addition, a doctor would have to meet with a woman personally and determine that she is voluntarily seeking an abortion before scheduling the procedure. These all sound like good things: time to consider her options, information on what those options might be, and the doctor’s reassurance that a woman isn’t being forced into doing something she doesn’t want to do (one might even go so far as to say it’s protecting the woman’s right to choose). Again, consider any other medical procedure. Doesn’t a patient always have to meet with the doctor ahead of time?

Republican Governor Daugaard said “I hope that women who are considering an abortion will use this three-day period to make good choices.” Yes, “choices.” He isn’t trying to outlaw abortion, but help women make an informed decision. As is their wont, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood plan on filing suit to challenge the constitutionality of the law. What about hearing the options and having the time to consider them is bad?

The question I have for the pro-choice groups is this: If you are so in favor of letting women make the choice, why are you so afraid to let them have the time and information to make it?

LifeNews.com Note: A native of Michigan, Amelia lives in Colorado. She is a patriot, former expat, dog lover and hockey enthusiast. Amelia owns Fountainhead Communication and has a children’s book due out in the summer of 2011. This column was originaly printed at Liberty Ink Journal and is used with permission.