Legal Drama Continues Over Texas Sonogram Law

I like Google. I use it a lot. Sometimes when I get bored I type in random word strings, such as “grapefruit courtney love mosquito” just to see if anything comes up. But I also use Google to find information about what’s going in with the abortion issue in the United States, and that’s the problem: I usually find what I need, and it’s giving me a bleeding ulcer.

Take, for instance, this Reuters article published on Wed., July 6, detailing the Center for Reproductive Rights’ lawsuit against my home state of Texas. They are trying as hard as they can to derail the Sonogram Law, which is supposed to go into effect Sept. 1. According to Reuters:

Under the Texas law, the abortion provider would be required to describe the fetus and its limbs and organs and have the woman listen to the heartbeat of the fetus. It also requires that a woman wait 24 hours after the sonogram before undergoing the abortion… The restrictions are waived in cases of sexual assault, and the waiting time is reduced to two hours for women who live 100 miles or more from the abortion provider.

I wouldn’t have included the sexual assault clause, but it sounds pretty reasonable, right? Not to the CRR. Here is their response:

“This law is asking [doctors] to do something unethical at the cost of threatening to prosecute doctors for a crime, and forcing them to lose their medical license,” said Susan Hays, a Dallas lawyer for the New York-based Center.

How far down the rabbit hole have we fallen when people who are okay with abortion — the legal killing of a human being — use the word “unethical” to describe a doctor showing an ultrasound to an expectant mother?

If we think carefully about what CRR is saying in their lawsuit, it’s not that the mother is being misled. No one is arguing that. They simply can’t argue that, because it isn’t so.

So the CRR’s argument is against a doctor telling the truth to a patient before a procedure. That’s all the sonogram and its description is. In essence: Here is your baby, here are its arms and legs and head, this is how big it is, here is the heartbeat. All true. All factual information. No opinion, no commentary is required by the law. Many women, I know from experience, think of their babies as a “clump of cells.” The ultrasound proves otherwise. Shouldn’t they know, don’t they deserve to know, what it is an abortion will dismember and vacuum out of their womb?

What organization or individual sincerely interested in choice would be against the simple provision of information to a patient about to undergo a serious medical procedure?

None would. But the CRR are not interested in “choice.” They are interested in women continuing to have abortions. They are, as the title of the article accurately describes, a pro-abortion group. If all women in America decided spontaneously tomorrow to stop having abortions forever, do you think the CRR or Planned Parenthood would smilingly accept this? Oh, no. There would be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Choice has nothing to do with it.

We pro-lifers are pro-choice as well. We believe you should have a choice to participate — or not — in sex, which, in case you weren’t aware, more and more scientists believe leads directly to babies in many cases.

Once fertilization occurs, a separate human being is present, and the time for choice is over. It’s no longer “my body, my choice.” It’s a child, and the law should protect it.

The Sonogram Law is an attempt to do just that: advocate for the child who, in an abortion clinic, has no one on its side.

Here’s hoping CRR is unsuccessful in their attempt to deal a serious blow to the rights of the unborn in Texas.

  • K. Hatten

    Planned “Parenthood” and the CRR are nothing more than money generators for people who don’t want to go back to real jobs. They exist, like so many other activist organizations, to siphon money out of the pocket books of New York intellectuals and suburban soccer moms who are so busy juggling cell phones at the wheels of their giant SUVs that they take no time to think about what they’re contributing to. Sarah Brady makes a king’s ransom off her Violence Policy Center/Brady Center for Gun Violence/whatever she calls it these days. These organizations aren’t in the lest interested in babies, rights, people or anything else that doesn’t generate a profit. The fact that people actually believe the hype put out by these groups is nothing less than amazing.

  • Anonymous

    I can see why the CPR would want to fight Rick Perry’s sonogram law. Once patients in abortion clinics hear a heartbeat coming from that “clump of cells” inside them, those clinics are going to lose major $$$.

  • Briana Shackley

    There was a study done in the 1990’s where 98 women who were abortion minded where shown sonograms and given genetic testing (to determine sex and any abnormalities, there were no abnoralities), 73 changed their mind (interesting note though of the 25 that did not change their mind and aborted, 23 were female). Those are not good odds for the abortion business. We should be informing patients about every procedure, when you are to have a tumor removed the doctor tells you where it is as, shows you the picture, x-rays, MRI images, etc. They tell you how big it, how long it has been there, etc. But in this case that “tumor” is not a tumor after all.

  • Pana

    Planned Parenthood also advocates for women who want babies.  In many places in TX, the sonogram is already in place.  While abortion is not the correct moral choice, there will always be unfortunately  doctors, legal or not, willing to do them. And in what is now our distant past, there have always been “women” who did abortions in their homes.   Adoption not Abortion….. a slogan that came out on bumper stickers in the early ’70’s is still a great decision today.

    • Hoffmanfive

      If Planned Parenthood advocated for women who wanted babies, they would be referring pregnant patients for adoption services, not just abortions. But the fact is that, generally speaking, they DON’T. In 2009, 97.6% of pregnant Planned Parenthood patients received abortions. Only two and a half percent of pregnant patients received any kind of prenatal care or adoption referrals or assistance. There were 977 adoption referrals and over 332,000 abortions that year. That’s about 340 abortions for every SINGLE adoption referral. Where’s the advocacy for motherhood there?
      http://www.lifenews.com/2011/07/18/politifact-planned-parenthood-serves-few-prenatal-clients/
      I will NEVER accept that “women will get abortions anyway” as an excuse for keeping abortion legal. People do a LOT of harmful things despite the fact that they are illegal. That doesn’t mean we should legalize them. Abortion almost invariably results in a dead human being. When it doesn’t, it’s considered “botched.” It’s also considered “botched” when it results in TWO dead human beings (as in, the mother AND the unborn child). And because of skewed privacy laws, we will just never know how frequently the latter occurs, but it DOES occur.

  • Whoa

    Did I read that right?  A mainstream source actually used the term “pro-abortion” to describe a pro-abortion group?

    I think we might be making some headway.