Yesterday Zach Krajacic wrote in The Christian Science Monitor, “Imagine how many lives could be saved by passing a law that requires abortion providers to show mothers considering an abortion an ultrasound video of the procedure before they are allowed to perform the abortion.” His reasoning, “Upon seeing what happens during an abortion, many women might choose to have their baby rather than go through with the abortion.”
His thinking is so flawed says the woman who walked out of childbirth class when they showed the videos. I was happy to learn some breathing techniques but there was no way I was going to watch a birth on film. If I had been forced to see what happens during childbirth, I might have chosen to keep the kids in there. By the way, I would skip a life-saving organ transplant too if you made me watch a video of the operation first. How would a video preview affect Krajacic’s feelings about his annual regular prostrate exam or colonoscopy?
Krajacic infers that because so many pro-choice people also claim to be anti-abortion, then of course they would get on board with this brilliant way to reduce the number of abortions that take place. He writes, “If pro-choice advocates are sincere with their words, wouldn’t they be happy to see fewer women choosing to have abortions as a result of technology’s ability to help ensure a fully-informed conscience?”
According to RH Reality Check, “Eleven states are considering bills that would make ultrasounds mandatory for women seeking abortions. I would have been happy to have ultrasound technology available to me when I was pregnant after a miscarriage and terrified I would lose another baby. But my insurance company wouldn’t pay for it.
Too bad men like Krajacic couldn’t spend more time worrying about how technology could positively affect issues like prenatal health, or high infant mortality rates, or the racial gap in premature births. But life isn’t really the issue here, is it?
