Ultrasound and Abortion

T-Wax writes well here on the topic of presidential elections and abortion:

If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and even John McCain) are truly serious about reducing the “tragedy” of abortion, why don’t they propose legislation requiring a woman to have an ultrasound before an abortion? After all, a woman should be informed about any medical procedure, especially one that may have emotional repercussions. An argument against the ultrasound law is ultimately an argument against science, against better medical advice, against the idea that a woman should be able to make a well-informed choice.

Let’s redirect some of the money that goes to paying abortions into paying for ultrasounds. We could substantially reduce abortions in no time, and without touching Roe vs. Wade. Then, President Clinton can indeed boast about resolutions that are more than “hot air.”

Will this happen? Not a chance. Eloquent words about the abortion “tragedy” translate into empty commitments to “choice.” Backed by the powerful abortion lobby, the pro-choice politicians are not advocating a well-informed woman’s right to choose. They are for restrictionless abortion.

We will not see ultrasound legislation because for many politicians, losing the support of the abortion lobby is a greater tragedy than the loss of another generation through the slaughtering of the unborn.

Read the whole thing.