Ultrasound Bill casts glimpse inside abortion debate

It isn’t often that a piece of legislation comes along and exposes rhetoric so hollow that it results in the systemic collapse of an argument. Such is the case with The Ultrasound Bill recently introduced in the 2011 Kentucky General Assembly.

For years, abortion supporters have circled the wagons around the idea of “choice,” aiming to convince the uninitiated that abortion is “a difficult decision that should be between a woman and her doctor and ultimately a choice only the woman should make.” That’s the line anyway. But what do you do with an abortionist who doesn’t want women to have all the information before they make that “difficult decision”?

This is why SB 9—The Ultrasound Bill, has passed the Senate by landslide margins in each of the past four sessions. The latest effort, which passed the Senate on Jan. 6 by a vote of 32-5, simply mandates that abortionists give a woman an opportunity to see an ultrasound picture of her unborn child. It doesn’t force the woman to look. Nor is she coerced or penalized if she doesn’t. The bill also bans late-term abortions and exacts heavy fines on abortionists who skirt the law and keep valuable information from their patients.

Ultrasound technology gives us a glimpse inside the womb, but ultrasound legislation casts a glimpse inside the abortion debate. And it is becoming clear that some choices are simply unacceptable to self-designated “pro-choicers,” especially if that choice might result in life.

This is reminiscent of the controversy over Madonna’s 80’s hit Papa Don’t Preach. The song so perturbed the abortion crowd because she vowed to “keep her baby,” which left them concerned that pregnant teens might actually follow her lead. Mandating ultrasound availability could do the same thing, but how choosing life for an unborn child would be bad has yet to be explained.

Last year, 1.2 million babies were aborted in this country. Many women come to regret their decision, wishing that they had more information and better counsel. Of course, an abortionist’s best allies are disinformation and obfuscation.

Shouldn’t we be just as angry at those who prefer to keep women in the dark as the abortionist in Philadelphia who kept his illegal practice out of the public spotlight for 18 years? Kermit Gosnell was arrested in January for practicing late-term abortions on six-, seven- and eight-month-old pre-born babies and committing infanticide on those born alive. It’s people like the $15,000-profit-per-day Gosnell who’d prefer to keep the public attention off his grisly practices, but what about the practices going on inside Kentucky’s two remaining abortion clinics?

Who could be opposed to forcing an abortionist to at least make an ultrasound available to a woman in his office?

Answer: Kentucky House Leadership which has been beholden to their Party’s pro-abortion wing for the last six years – killing all pro-life legislation passed by the Senate.

The Ultrasound Bill has deadlocked twice in Tom “if-you-send-it-to-my-committee-I-will kill-it” Burch’s Health and Welfare Committee. He publicly announced he’d kill the bill in 2009; killed it again in 2010; and he will kill it this year if the Leadership sends it there.

Twenty-one states have some kind of law requiring abortionists to offer women an ultrasound before allowing an abortion. Isn’t it time for Kentucky to ensure that women have this choice?

As for the “pro- choicers” who want to avoid an identity crisis, can they do anything but support the bill if they want to live up to their name?

All inclusive child welfare

When Tim Moore (R-Elizabethtown) recently attached the ultrasound bill as an amendment to child welfare legislation, a cry went up in Frankfort from legislators who say they couldn't believe Moore would do something like that. Tom Burch (D-Louisville) and David Watkins (D-Henderson) garnered the most attention in last week's Louisville Courier-Journal.

“'These are two elected officials that are supposed to be serving the people of Kentucky, and they’re out killing all the good legislation that could help the people of Kentucky — particularly the children,'” Burch said.

Equally angry is Rep. David Watkins, a Democrat and Henderson physician whose children’s health bill is affected by one of Moore’s anti-abortion amendments. 'I wish he really did care about kids,' Watkins said of Moore. 'This is the most absurd thing I’ve ever seen.'”

File this in the "Did they really say that?" category.

Tom Burch (D-Louisville) chair of the House Health and Welfare Committee opposed the ultrasound bill which would force abortionists to offer women seeking an abortion a chance to see the ultrasound of their unborn child if they so choose. Rep. Burch may be for the welfare of some children but certainly not for those who are unborn at 40 weeks and younger.

Why the anger over ultrasound legislation that would help women to make a more informed "choice?" Why not consider a comprehensive measure that considers the welfare of all children? And why blame the demise of child welfare legislation on somebody who believes that an unborn child at 40 weeks deserves the same child welfare protection as a child out of the womb at 41 weeks?