Ultrasounds for life

Ultrasounds for life

Pro-abortion groups are complaining that crisis pregnancy centers are using ultrasound to show pregnant moms their children which often dissuades those moms from seeking abortions. “Not fair!,” yell the pro-aborts.

Abortion rights advocates say the proliferation of antiabortion pregnancy clinics is a dangerous trend, confusing vulnerable women by mixing a seemingly neutral clinical environment with a religious agenda.

“They can set up a waiting room and an exam room, but that doesn’t mean they employ actual medical practices,” said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, a D.C.-based network of abortion providers.

How dare they confuse potential abortion customers with the facts? Gee, I thought pro-choice was about giving women a choice based on the truth. Guess we’ve exposed that lie. Oh, and are we supposed to believe that abortionists offer a “seemingly neutral clinical environment” without an ideological agenda of their own?

Back in May 2004, we did an article in Catholic World Report on the positive effects that ultrasounds had in pregnancy clinics.

Before introducing routine ultrasound examinations for the women who visited their centers, A Woman’s Concern (AWC) found that 61 percent of the women classified by counselors as “abortion-vulnerable” would opt for abortion prior to an ultrasound examination, while 33.7 percent would choose to carry the pregnancy to term. Once ultrasound examinations were provided, 63.5 percent of the same “abortion-vulnerable” women decided to continue their pregnancies, and only 24.5 percent chose abortion.

The Washington Post article offers a study that gave even better numbers: “72 percent of women who were initially ‘strongly leaning’ toward abortion decided to carry their pregnancies to term after seeing a sonogram. Fifty percent made the same choice after counseling alone.”

Who’s really soaking the taxpayer?

Technorati Tags:, , ,