By Dave Andrusko

NRLC President Carol Tobias

National Right to Life President and Pro-Life Perspective Host Carol Tobias uses the day before the 4^th of July PLP broadcast to investigate the curious way pro-abortionists have fought ultrasound laws which are, after all, “classic informed consent laws because they empower a women considering abortion with facts about the development of her unborn child and the opportunity to view a real-time ultrasound of the child in utero.”

The twist is that they do not argue that this is an “undue burden” (the test formulated in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey), but instead are supposedly an infringement of the abortionist’s “right” to free speech!

Mrs. Tobias quotes Mary Spaulding Balch, JD, who directs NRLC’s Department of State Legislation, who said, “This ‘back –to-the-future’ approach is paternalism on steroids, made worse because these laws are not about the rights of so-called ‘doctors’ but of women to receive accurate and impartial information.”

The bulk of today’s edition of Pro-Life Perspective (which can be heard at www.prolifeperspective.com) is Balch’s thoughtful critique of this bizarre inversion of informed consent as outlined in a piece written for Yahoo News by Liz Goodwin.

Alluding to Goodwin’s article, Balch agreed that opponents are arguing that the laws are unconstitutional because they are supposedly “compelled speech,” which, as Goodwin points out, is an argument the Supreme Court has generally looked favorably upon.

But, as Mary notes, “This is a classic example of misdirection. Forget everything about the right of patients to informed consent. They are saying, what really matters–what only matters–is that the abortionist on his own should be free to decide what the woman needs to know.”

However the High Court has agreed there are instances where “compelled speech” is okay. Balch cited two: Flight attendants are not free to decide whether to tell passengers of safety precautions. The passenger is free not to pay any attention.

Likewise, the courts have upheld the right of the government to put graphic warning labels on packs of cigarettes, Balch said, to alert the public to the health risks of smoking. The smoker is free to ignore the warnings.

In the same vein, in the abortion context, ultimately the woman makes the decision, Balch explained. “But many women live to regret their abortions, which is one important reason why they have the right to hear about their unborn child.”

Take five minutes to listen to Pro-Life Perspective at www.prolifeperspective.com. If you miss any episodes this week, you can hear them here.

Have a great 4^th of July!

Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha