By Dave Andrusko
Now that U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, who originally enjoined the Texas sonogram law, has grudgingly conceded he can no longer keep the law from taking effect, you can expect a stream of stories talking about how horrible the impact is on women. (See www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2012/02/judge-reluctantly-concedes-he-cannot-prevent-texas-sonogram-law-from-taking-effect.)
Sure enough the Houston Chronicle produced just such a story yesterday (“Abortion sonograms draw strong reactions from Texas women”). There are two other similar laws in the courts right now—passed in Oklahoma and North Dakota—so what Zain Shauk and Todd Ackerman wrote is very worth examining. (www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Abortion-sonograms-draw-strong-reactions-from-3134070.php.)
In an abbreviated form their story captures the essence of why H.B. 15 requires the abortionist to perform and display a sonogram of the unborn child, make audible the baby’s heartbeat for the mother to hear, and explain to her the results of each procedure.
The story begins with women “cover[ing] their ears,” “nervously humming or talking over the sounds of fetuses in their wombs,” while others “turned their heads away from ultrasound images.” But to the reporters’ immense credit, before turning their story’s attention to all the negativity they supposedly found, they immediately quote from Elizabeth Graham, director of Texas Right to Life.
Graham was “not surprised to hear that many women are reacting strongly to the evidence of life they’re carrying,” they write.
“’I’m sure that it is opening eyes,’ Graham said. ‘It’s showing women that their child has arms and legs and a heartbeat, that it’s another human life, not just a blob of cells.’
“Graham acknowledged that trips to abortion clinics are emotional, traumatic times, but called the notion that providing information about the child’s development puts too much pressure on women ‘paternalistic nonsense.’
“She said women are very capable of making informed decisions and that clinics that have financial interests in ‘selling abortion’ should not be deciding what information to give out.”
Pro-lifers do not intend to gratuitously hurt women who are in a very difficult situation. But, as Graham points out, neither do they infantilize women by withholding the kind of information they must have if their decision is to be truly informed. The very same people who lecture pro-lifers about ‘autonomy’ will go to any length to ensure that the ‘autonomy’ of the mother is not compromised by the facts!
Also, Graham cuts right to the chase when she explains the inherent conflict of interest which is rarely—rarely—mentioned in stories about abortion. The very same abortion clinic that is making a lot of money off of disposing of unborn child wants the unchecked, unfettered, and unsupervised right to tell women what they are going to hear—or, more specifically, what they will NOT hear!
The law requires that the woman wait 24 hours after the sonogram before having the abortion. The PPFA official quoted in the story says that “Since Oct. 1, about 80 percent of women have returned for abortions after completing sonogram appointments.” Since the overall number of dead babies has not declined, she concluded the other 20% hadn’t undergone a change of heart.
Graham “wonder[ed] about the manner in which they’re presenting the information” and quite correctly told the reporters it was too early to judge the law’s impact.
Personally, I wouldn’t accept numbers from PPFA as gospel, nor would I conclude that this 20% hadn’t changed their minds, and I surely would agree that the law’s full impact can’t be measured for some time to come.
My guess is the percentage of those who Choose Life will only increase as all abortion clinics in Texas follow the sonogram law mandate.
Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha
