Condoms? Check. Earplugs? Check.
Did you catch Wednesday’s New York Times article reporting the defeat in an Oklahoma courtroom of “one of the most sweeping anti-abortion laws in the country”?
I can imagine what you’re thinking…
Did the measure outlaw abortions in the Sooner State? … Ah, no. Did it ban “emergency contraceptives”? … Still no. Did it do away with all Medicaid funding for “reproductive health services.” … Um, nope.
So, what did this “sweeping anti-abortion” law actually do?
Well, as NewsBusters accurately notes, the law didn’t actually ban any form of abortion at all. Rather, it “issue[d] new regulations on abortion providers meant to increase the chances that more women seeking abortions may change their minds at the last minute.”
[GASP!] Call out the pro-choice crusaders! We can’t actually have women choosing not to have an abortion now, can we?
Specifically, as the Times reports, the law required that women seeking an abortion have an ultrasound and that “the doctor or technician … set up the ultrasound monitor where the woman could see it and then talk her through the procedure, describing the heart, limbs and internal organs.”
So just how bad is this “sweeping anti-abortion” measure? Well, according to Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma CEO Anita Fream, “It almost reaches the state of seeming cruel to me.”
Oh yes, how cruel to explain to a woman what an invasive medical procedure is actually going to do. Women were so much more empowered when left in ignorant bliss of reality, simply buying the line of the “fetus as tissue blob.” Heaven forbid they now be put in a position to make informed choices.
Of course, Oklahoma’s law allowed a woman to “avert her eyes,” so she wouldn’t actually have to see the ultrasound image.
Yet, even this, in Fream’s opinion, is not acceptable: “Even if you don’t look at the picture, you have to listen to the description.”
Oh, the horror.
Indeed, to Planned Parenthood – the largest abortion provider in America – this is a horror. For the reality is once a pregnant woman encounters an ultrasound image of the child forming inside her, chances are she will chose life. In fact, according to one two-year study done in Massachusetts, 75 percent of women considering abortion changed their minds after seeing a sonogram of their baby.
For now, Planned Parenthood is celebrating a temporary victory brought on by the court’s decision, but an appeal is in the works. And if the law stands, Planned Parenthood may find that, in addition to distributing misinformation, the only way it can continue to keep women in the dark is by issuing earplugs as well.
Gina:
Why is the Oklahoma law any different than Obama’s proposal to require (or merely incentivize) doctors to discuss preparation of a living will and health care directive to plan for end of life care?
We need to be consistent. The government has no business getting between us and our doctors for the purpose of dictating care, period. If anyone wants to inform patients about medical alternatives – whether about abortion or end of life decisions – it should not be enforced by having the government issue a decree to doctors requiring them to discuss those choices with their patients. Such persuasion can and should take place through voluntary efforts outside of the doctor’s office – not by government mandate inside the examination room.
We cannot have the government interfering with the doctor-patient relationship on issues that Conservatives prefer without allowing the government to interfere with that relationship as liberals want. I say that we should consistently advocate that the government stay out of the care decisions made in the doctor-patient relationship altogether.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:09 pmCouldn’t find a contact link: I’m with rightriot.com and we’re wondering if you’d like to exchange links and get traffic from us. Join the site and promote your blog posts there and we’ll send you traffic in return.
Also would you mind giving us a post to let your readership know about rightriot.com? We’re rebuilding our userbase from a hacking attack and we need all the help we can get from other conservative net people. Thanks!
August 22nd, 2009 at 5:55 amEd has a point.
That said, liberals are awfully hypocritical here. On one hand, they don’t want to give people any information regarding abortion. On the other hand they support a government-run healthcare system that informs people on end of life decisions.
Where liberals are consistent on these 2 issues is they always fall on the side of death.
August 22nd, 2009 at 11:43 amAll it would have done is show women the consequences of their actions. Show them they are not removing a “Clump of Cells.” They’re killing a baby.
But, facing the consequences of ones actions is just SOOOO 1950’s!
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:54 pm“We need to be consistent. The government has no business getting between us and our doctors for the purpose of dictating care, period.”
And the state government was NOT dictating ANYTHING to ANYONE. What it did require was that PP present the complete package of information to a pregnant woman to allow her to make an informed choice. In other words, the state required PP to reveal the TRUTH to a pregnant woman – the truth that her unborn child is a human being.
A state government has not only the moral right, but also the moral DUTY to ensure that women will make INFORMED CHOICES. And, folks, don’t try to claim it won’t make a difference – as Gina has demonstrated, it will.
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:55 pmZbigniew:
1. There is no difference between the government “dictating” and “requiring” something.
2. Obama and the Democrats argue that their requirement (or incentive, depending upon the version of the bill) that doctors counselo patients on hospice care, palliative care, living wills and other end of life options is similarly just the dissemination of truthful information that does nothing more than allow the patient to make an informed decision. There is no difference between that and the Oklahoma requirement. Moreover, the proponents of Obamacare would say that such physician counseling is just as “effective” in infleuncing patients to cut costs associated with end of life care as it is in reducing the number of abortions.
Conservatives cannot have it both ways. Either the government cannot interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, or it can. I submit that the better position is that the doctor-patient relationship is a deeply private one that should be held sacrosanct from government intrusion. Those who believe otherwise have no standing to object when Obama and his cronies insist on mandates that doctors counsel patients in ways that Liberals believe will lead to the outcomes that they prefer.
If we are to oppose government control of medicine, we must oppose government control of medicine. Period.
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:08 pmThis was not governmental control of medicine, this was a requirement that the heirs to Dr Mengele (i.e. PP doctors) reveal the truth.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 amyour site is very great!!!
September 11th, 2009 at 7:23 amgood site, good work, thanks!!!
September 14th, 2009 at 9:53 am