NRL News

Pro-abortionists can’t handle the truth about the use of ultrasounds and RU-486 abortions

by | Mar 11, 2013

By Dave Andrusko

MifepristoneWhen it comes to the use of ultrasounds and chemical [RU-486] abortions, the hypocrisy/duplicity/two-faced position of the Abortion Industrial Complex (the abortion industry and its many media supporters) is breathtaking, even by their standards.

We’ve written about this for a couple of years: the jump to warp speed hysteria when laws are proposed that require a woman to have an ultrasound prior to an abortion. It’s invasive, unnecessary, akin to “rape by instrument,” and Big Brother on steroids, etc. etc.. We revisit is periodically because pro-abortion editorials recycle the same grotesque lies over and over and over again.

Take the Indianapolis Star and its March 11 “Abortion Bill Goes too Far” editorial, a reference to Senate Bill 371, which passed the Senate last month and is now in the House. We’re told

“The legislation would require any woman seeking an abortion-inducing drug such as RU-486 to first undergo an ultrasound test, whether her doctor decided it was necessary or not. Many physicians argue that an ultrasound often isn’t needed in the early stages of pregnancy.

“Worse, the legislation likely would force many women to undergo a more invasive, uncomfortable test known as a transvaginal ultrasound rather than the more common abdominal ultrasound (the ‘jelly on the belly’ kind usually administered in later stages of pregnancy). Unnecessary and invasive do not make for good medicine, nor good public policy.”

“Many physicians” could be, say, three or more. This is not nit-picking. The simple truth, which abortionists twist as if it were a pretzel, is that virtually  all abortionists already use ultrasounds and almost all [92%, according to one survey] use transvaginal ultrasounds so as to accurately gauge the age of the baby and be sure it is not an ectopic pregnancy.

We’ve talked about an article that ran in Commentary magazine a few years ago which documented that ultrasounds were “just the medical standard,” according to a PPFA of Washington, DC regional office official.

Adrienne Schreiber told Alana Goodman, “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.” If the woman won’t consent to the ultrasound, Goodman wrote, “the abortion cannot take place, according to the group’s national standards.” That’s how important they consider an ultrasound.

Schreiber then made the single most revealing pro-abortion statement ever on this topic. Schreiber told Goodman, “But if she’s uncomfortable with a transvaginal ultrasound, then she’s not going to be comfortable with an equally invasive abortion procedure.”

There are other additional reasons, as NRLC’s Director of Education Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon told NRL News Today.

“RU-486 does not work in situations of ectopic pregnancy. In such circumstances, ultrasounds not only keep a woman from being sold pills that won’t work, but also keep her from taking a drug whose ordinary side effects (severe abdominal pain, bleeding, nausea) so closely mimic those of a rupturing ectopic pregnancy that she may not realize what’s really happening to her until it is too late,” Dr. O’Bannon said. “Because a ruptured ectopic pregnancy can prove fatal, and because the condition is not that uncommon, the use of ultrasound would seem essential if safety, rather than politics, is the aim.”

The Indiana bill originally would have required a second ultrasound after the abortion. That garnered even more off-the-wall criticism.

That provision was dropped, although—guess what?–a follow-up ultrasound or blood test is exactly what PPFA recommends on its own website!

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at Please send your comments to

Categories: RU486