NRL News

Amended Virginia Ultrasound bill Clarifies that there is no requirement to do what was never required

by | Feb 23, 2012

By Dave Andrusko

Sarah Kliff

Under the prodding of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell there has been a “change” in the state’s ultrasound bill which has passed the  House of Delegates and is on its way to the state Senate. The “difference” is that the bill specifically says there will be no mandated trans-vaginal ultrasounds. In other words there is no requirement to do what was never required.

Stay with me on this. That NEVER WAS a requirement of the bill—ever!  But by pretending that it was, pro-abortionists were able to scare the public, manipulate the media, and ignore that almost all abortionists already do routinely use trans-vaginal ultrasound!

For pro-lifers, the bottom line is this: the bill as amended still requires an ultrasound—an abdominal ultrasound. The mother will still have the opportunity to look at her unborn child prior to an abortion.

Sarah Kliff, who writes for the Washington Post, has her finger on the pulse of the Abortion Establishment. She wrote a piece this afternoon which captured the pro-abortionists’ patently insincere but clever ploy. (I wrote, “Will Truth Be Framed out of the Picture?” before the ultrasound bill was amended. In a sense this afternoon’s outcome is an addendum but also a particularly instructive one.)

Kliff wrote

The phrase ‘transvaginal ultrasound’ does not show up anywhere in the bill; you won’t find it combing the legislative text. But after Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick and others speculated that it could be necessary, the intrusive nature of the procedure became a lynchpin issue in the debate.”

On what grounds did Lithwick and others “speculate” that a trans-vaginal ultrasound “could be necessary”? By looking not at what the bill said but at what the National Abortion Federation and other trade associations of pro-abortionists recommended!

Trans-vaginal ultrasound, as opposed to abdominal ultrasounds, are used because they allow the abortionist to more accurately determine the baby’s age. When you are an abortionist performing chemical abortions—especially if you going way beyond the point at which the FDA says chemical abortions are safe—you do need to know the baby’s age.

The thrust of Kliff’s column is that pro-abortionists have learned a lesson, a lesson some pro-abortion strategists have passionately counseled for years: they should be “focusing on more emotionally charged issues of privacy and intrusion rather than the choice arguments that can often define this debate.”

Translated: lie through your teeth.

The Virginia ultrasound was anything but intrusive. The pro-abortionists knew this—just as they know the Obama mandate is not about insurance policies covering contraception but cramming morally objectionable policies down the throats of religious organizations and religiously-affiliated organizations.

As Kliff points out, it’s not as though Virginia was plowing new ground.

“The Virginia law is not new. Twenty states have ultrasound-related abortion restrictions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, six of which closely resemble the one Virginia is debating. Virginia’s proposal is by no means the most restrictive, either.”

You get the point. Pro-abortionists like to tell themselves they have paid a price for being the model of reason. That would be funny if it were not so laughably inaccurate and at the expense of the lives of unborn children.

What we can expect, then, is a campaign that pays not even a passing glance at the truth. But the further they run from the truth, the closer we must embrace it to our bosom.

In the meantime National Right to Life supports the amended Virginia ultrasound bill.

Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at

Categories: Legislation