In fighting ultrasounds, pro-abortionists prove they can’t handle the truth or accept the consequences: a choice not to abort

By Dave Andrusko

Editor’s note. My family will be gone on vacation through August 24. During that span we’ll run prior posts from the past year that remain timely and/or were particularly well-received. We will also add a new story or two as events dictate.

Simply because it is so important, we’ve posted multiple stories explaining how the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a federal appeals court decision to uphold Kentucky’s Ultrasound Informed Consent Act. Today we add one more.

In brief, HB 2 is a 2017 law, based on model NRLC legislation, passed by huge majorities in both houses. It requires abortionists to perform an ultrasound prior to an abortion, display and explain the images, play the audio of any fetal heartbeat, and offer women the opportunity to view the images. As Ingrid Duran, NRLC’s director of State Legislation, observed, “Contrary to the misinformation spread by the abortion industry, the mother is not forced to view the images. She is free to view the image of her baby if she wants, or may divert her eyes away from the screen.”

The ACLU, hewing to a line the Supreme Court has already rejected in a prior case, argues this is a free speech issue. “burdening” abortionists’ First Amendment rights.

Of course, their real objection is that, “If mothers have the opportunity to see and hear their baby, they may reject abortion,” as bioethicist Fiorella Nash told the British Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC).

As Mrs. Nash keenly observed, “For women to be truly free, we must be intellectually free, and that means challenging and breaking loose from decades of indoctrinating propaganda. If abortion promoters regard women as too infantile to be given the uncensored truth, it is difficult to see on what basis they can speak of giving women an informed choice—and a choice that is not informed is no choice at all.”

If you think about it, working night and day to ensure that women are told nothing about the “it” (their babies), really does show contempt for their ability to think for themselves and make a genuinely—genuinely—informed choice.

Nash also told SPUC, “Out and out denial of the humanity of the unborn continues despite the now routine use of ultrasound, including clear 4D ultrasound images and the growing body of evidence which demonstrates the ability of the unborn child to detect and respond to touch, sound, light and pain.”

But, then again, “Denial has always been a necessary defence mechanism for abortion advocates,” as Nash observed. However, “rather than have the courage to face scientific realities head-on, many supporters of abortion hide behind ever more elaborate and misleading language to conceal the truth of what abortion involves.”