The pro-abortion group, the Guttmacher Institute, has released its annual report summarizing the past year’s State’s legislation regarding abortion. Abortion-choice advocates look at these new laws and see defeat while anti-abortion choice supporters see victory. In fact, 2012 was the second most successful year in terms of making abortion more safe, more rare, and a more informed “choice” through legislation. In total, 43 new laws were enacted.
The requirements of the laws are not as intrusive as pro-abortion choice advocates would like to have us believe. Given what an abortion actually is, i.e., a surgical procedure which takes the life of a human being, these new laws really ought to have been old laws in the first place.
Requiring ultrasounds and that the mother to hear the heartbeat of her child before continuing with her choice. These provisions merely bring to the mother’s consciousness what it is she is aborting. It never ceases to amaze me that pro abortion choice advocates actually oppose the mother making an informed decision about her “health care” decisions. They are not only resistant to the “patient” being informed about what is being aborted, they also oppose the mothers being informed about the possible after effects of abortion. Abortion has been linked to depression, cancer, infections, and to a lesser degree, death. They also oppose waiting periods which are intended to give the mother time to think about what she is planning to choose. Contrary to abortion supporter’s belief, the provision is to curtail hasty decisions. It’s almost as though abortion choice advocates believe that the more informed a mother is, and the more time she has to think about her decision, the less likely she is to abort her baby, and we can’t have that now, can we.
Some states have also required parental notification before minors can go through with an abortion. Like I said, these laws should have been already on the books. Groups like Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute actually oppose this idea that parents should know when their child — yes, child — is having an abortion. This notification requirement serves multiple purposes. On the medical level, it allows the parents to be involved in their child’s medical procedures. An abortion is a medical procedure after all. Since Planned Parenthood has for years been complicit in covering up instances of statutory rape — having been caught on camera giving advice on how to lie when they fill out consent forms — these new provisions inform the child’s parents that their child is possibly in danger, not to mention that illegal sexual contact is being had with their daughter.
It’s not difficult to see why an abortion provider like Planned Parenthood might not be happy about the tightening of abortion laws. Despite boasting a mere 3% of services being derived from actual abortion services (however, 91.5% of pregnant women Planned Parenthood serve gets an abortion), it actually accounts for a large portion of their annual income. Planned Parenthood’s 2011-2012 Annual Report documents 333,954 abortions, and its own cite estimates that an in-clinic abortion costs between $300-$900 (the abortion pill costs roughly the same). Do the math, even if we take a low average cost of about $450 per abortion that calculates out to $150,279,300. Follow the money. Each year more states are defunding the abortion mill and add on top of that fewer abortion procedures due to legislative restrictions, that really hits the bottom line… hard.
Normally I’m not a fan of government regulation. More often than not it involves needless interference where none should exist. However, when it comes to elective abortion — taking the life of an innocent human being, which should be illegal — needs to be as obtrusive and hindering as possible. And while these new laws may make the process more cumbersome, they are not interference for interference’s sake, they make sense. The laws make it incumbent on the abortion provider to require that the mother is making the most informed “choice” possible, and waiting periods prevent hasty life-changing decisions. Opposition to restrictive legislation merely belies the claim that many abortion choice advocates make that they believe abortion be legal, safe, and rare. OK, so put your money where your mouth is and support laws and lawmakers who seek to make abortion as safe and rare as possible.
Sifting Reality 
I like the idea of the waiting period. I was involved in franchise sales, and there is a federal requirement that a prospective franchisee be disclosed (given a hundreds of pages document that describes in detail all kinds of info on the franchise company), and must be given at least fourteen days to decide whether or not to buy. Full disclosure and two weeks. Seems like common sense.
I’ll link below to the Albert Mohler piece about the Time cover story, but a couple of paragraphs stood out. These are from Frances Kissling.
“When people hear us say abortion is just another medical procedure, they react with shock,” Kissling said. “Abortion is not like having your tooth pulled or having your appendix out. It involves the termination of an early form of human life. That deserves some gravitas.”
Kissling also conceded the political harm the extremism of the abortion rights movement has caused. “The established pro-choice position–which essentially is: abortion should be legal, a private matter between a woman and her doctor, with no restriction or regulation beyond what is absolutely necessary to protect the woman’s health–makes 50% of the population extremely uncomfortable and unwilling to associate with us,”
The other one that kind of makes me squirm is the fact that making abortion clinics meet the same standards as other health care facilities, is somehow unduly burdensome.
http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/01/07/losing-ever-since-roe-time-sounds-the-siren-for-abortion-rights/