At issue | Feb. 13 column by Cynthia L. Williams Smith, "Senate bill burdens women, doctors; ultrasound mandate adds cost, stress"
Senate Bill 9, the "ultrasound bill," did not force a woman to view an ultrasound before terminating her pregnancy. It would have provided the test but would not have required the woman to look at it. The bill, which died in a House committee late last week, would have given her choice she doesn't have now, even if she asks for it.
Why is providing a test that would unquestionably be performed before any other medical procedure involving a woman's uterus a bad thing? Doesn't a woman receive an ultrasound before cysts are removed? She is able to see inside her uterus during the ultrasound and is given information afterward about what the test revealed. And she certainly isn't given information about her options from a pre-recorded phone message.
Smith claims that women are "well aware of the gravity of the decision they are making." How can they be if they don't even know what is inside them and they are being told on the Planned Parenthood Web site that the procedure is simply "a gentle emptying of the uterus?" It doesn't mention what the uterus is being emptied of which will likely include the "external members and internal organs" of a fetus.
That image is a far cry from being told that what is in a woman's womb is simply "a clump of cells" which is what I was told (and I believed it) 24 years ago when I opted for an abortion. I received more care and instruction to have my wisdom teeth pulled than I did to have a baby removed from my womb. And it's not much better today.
The Planned Parenthood Web site also claims that most people who have emotional issues after an abortion are women who are already emotionally disturbed or without family support or who terminate a wanted pregnancy due to medical issues. What they don't tell you is that the emotional pain of an abortion is buried in the deepest part of a woman and may not surface for decades.
For me, it surfaced years after the abortion when I was hoping for a positive pregnancy test and realized that the only difference in the two fetuses was timing. Biologically, they would be the same. And, as it turns out, the pregnancy I terminated would be the only one I would experience.
Is Planned Parenthood telling women about that possibility? They can't provide statistics on it because they don't study long-term effects for women who have had an abortion.
They are able to perform the "emptying" and move on to the next patient never giving it another thought. Unfortunately, they mistakenly act as if the mother is able to forget it too. She may rationalize it, but she won't forget it.
And, if later she suffers a miscarriage, as many post-abortive women do, the guilt Smith thinks she is preventing by opposing this legislation has now doubled.
The claim that this bill will adversely affect the poorest women is also a sham and certainly not a justifiable reason for discarding the bill. There are pro-abortion organizations that would be more than happy to use their resources to help a poor woman terminate her pregnancy. They help pay for the woman's abortion, but they can't help pay for her transportation needs? Please.
Anyone who supports this bill is not ashamed to say that they hope it limits abortion. Not because a law is being passed to prevent women from having the choice, but in hopes that more women who are given complete information and a chance to see their unborn child will make the choice to not have the abortion.
And that is exactly what proponents of abortion (not choice) like Smith don't want to happen. So, who exactly is it that needs to "come clean and stop insulting the integrity of the women of Kentucky?"
Perhaps the Kentucky House leadership, which added a pro-abortion member to the Health and Welfare Committee so the bill would not reach the floor, would be a good place to start.
Apparently they are pro-choice, unless the woman might choose "no" or if elected legislators might choose "yes."