Exalting “Choice,” pro-abortionists loathe pro-life alternatives that give women a choice

By Dave Andrusko

Ruth Tisdale, Director of Client Services at Advice and Aid Pregnancy Centers, Inc. (left); Jeanne Gawdun, KFL senior lobbyist (center); and Donna Kelsey, Executive Director of Wyandotte Pregnancy Clinic, at hearing for SCR 1606.

Ruth Tisdale, Director of Client Services at Advice and Aid Pregnancy Centers, Inc. (left); Jeanne Gawdun, KFL senior lobbyist (center); and Donna Kelsey, Executive Director of Wyandotte Pregnancy Clinic, at hearing for SCR 1606.

It would be unfair, I suppose, to expect pro-abortionists to take even one half-step step back to consider whether any pro-life legislation merits something other than instant dismissal. Referring to Kansas, one pro-abortionist glumly concluded (after checking off a list of “horror” stories), “In addition to the restrictions coming out of the House, it’s shaping up to be a banner year in the battle over reproductive rights in Kansas.” (From “Kansas Has A New Abortion Bill. And It’s BIG,” by Jessica Pieklo.)

Let’s talk about one part of the BIG bill, HB 2253, and a concurrent resolution, SCR 1606, to see if there is anything the Pieklos of this world might find meritorious.

I understand how SCR 1606 would drive them off the deep end. Pro-abortionists cannot—CANNOT—abide Pregnancy Maintenance Resource Centers (also known as Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Women Helping Centers). It drives Planned Parenthood and its ilk to distraction to think that a single baby—“planned” or otherwise—might slip through their fingers. Which is why there is simply no name (however intemperate) or no charge (however it distorts the facts) that goes too far.

So to pass a resolution commending Pregnancy Maintenance Resource Centers–aargh.

But I wonder if their too small hearts might grow a size or two if they read, as I did, the testimony of Donna Kelsey, Executive Director of the Wyandotte Pregnancy Clinic in Kansas City. They are located behind a school and next to a church and “are always faced each day with many abortion calls.” Kelsey says the callers want to know if they provide abortions—or want to make an appointment for an abortion—and they tell them no—that they don’t do abortions or refer for them.

“We will tell them what we do provide and invite them to come in for an appointment,” she told the Kansas House Health and Human Services Committee. “Some may hang up, yell at us, or cry and ask for help.  Our phone is answered 24/7 by a counselor.  Many of our clients find us by our website.  Other means of finding out about us are Billboards, Yellow Pages and the Mobile Pregnancy Clinic RV.”

Her testimony is a testimony to what these life-affirming alternatives provide. But what really struck me—and what ought to strike pro-abortionists—is Kelsey’s assertion that 95% of these women “make the abortion decision because of the father of the baby.” Kelsey added this important reminder: “It is important that the client understand it is her decision.”

Which dovetails into intent of the Pro-Life Protections Act (HB 2253) which you would think even PPFA could applaud. I’m not sure I understand partially, let alone entirely, what the pro-abortion position is on coercion. As best I can tell, they don’t look hard, or at all, to see if a girl or woman is being compelled to abort. Nor are they apparently eager to see if the father is older than the minor girl and open to charges of statutory rape. Too busy making sure her “choice” is exercised—aka, a quick as possible abortion.

But you would think that pro-abortionists would be even more concerned than we are that the girl or woman’s “freedom to choose” is actually free, right? Alas, you would be wrong.

As Kathy Ostrowski, Legislative Director for Kansans for Life, explained last week, women who may be coerced into abortion are addressed in at least four ways by HB 2253, which:

  • strengthens a state-produced anti-coercion warning which abortion clinics must post inside the premises;
  • empowers a pregnant women by insuring she has access to scientific risks that meet the legal standard of information relevant to her pregnancy decision;
  • requires abortion businesses to link to the entire state’s “Woman’s Right to Know” website with 4-D ultrasound presentations on gestational development;
  • adds new services for women diagnosed with “medically challenging” pregnancies.

(That last bullet point addresses the fact that abortion has been promoted, not only as a “solution” to unborn children diagnosed with serious and lethal conditions, but even for those with Down syndrome.)

 There was a great deal more we could glean from Kelsey’s testimony and from that of Mrs. Ruth Tisdale, who is  the Director of Client Services for “Advice & Aid Pregnancy Centers, Inc.) in Johnson County, Kansas. Let me end with the penultimate paragraph in her testimony:

“The reality is that even with the support we offer, a woman can still feel trapped by her situation and doesn’t see any other option. We share with her that regardless of her decision for the pregnancy that we are here to help. We strongly believe that no woman wants to make an abortion decision. We believe she feels like that is the only choice she has because there are no viable options for her out there.”

Which, of course, is why the Abortion Industry loathes CPCs: they give her a genuine choice.