What kinds of laws have Crane worried? Here's a sample:
From bans on late-term abortions to requiring providers to offer women sonograms of their fetuses, conservative lawmakers in the United States are pushing abortion curbs this year in dozens of states.
Some bills may have a greater chance of success this year than in the past because there are more conservative legislators and governors.
"I am actually looking forward to a number of victories," said Mary Spaulding Balch, director of the department of state legislation of the National Right to Life Committee.
"We're very worried," said Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. Crane said that because anti-abortion forces have more votes, "the flood gates are open."
There's also a Texas measure that would require women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound first--though she has the right not to view the image of her unborn baby or hear the description of the unborn baby's stage of development--or listen to his heartbeat--if she chooses not to.
Among the more than 200 bills being proposed this year are an Ohio measure that would ban abortions once a heartbeat can be detected -- as early as 18 days for some women.
In several states, including Ohio, Florida, Kansas and Kentucky, measures were introduced banning abortion after 20 weeks. These mimic a Nebraska law which bans abortion after a fetus is deemed capable of feeling pain.
Lawmakers also are proposing bills that would limit abortion coverage in state health plans under the new healthcare law, and new parental consent requirements, according to Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization.
I often wonder just why these sorts of measures rile the so-called "pro-choice" side so much (before I remember that "pro-choice" really means "in favor of the choice to abort; not really in favor of the choice to stay pregnant for nine months and then give birth"). Why shouldn't we want women "choosing" abortion to have all relevant information, including information about the human being at the fetal stage whom she is about to have killed? If there's nothing wrong with abortion, why shouldn't she spend a few minutes viewing something like this before saying, "Okay, go ahead and kill her," to the attending abortionist?
And why shouldn't we enact laws forbidding abortion after twenty weeks? Do we really have such a poor view of women that we think that it's going to take her a whole twenty weeks to decide to end the life of the developing human being inside of her? Even if, like most women, she doesn't realize she is pregnant for four to six weeks after conception, she's had more than enough time to ponder her "choice" by the time the unborn child inside of her is this big, don't you think?
The truth is that abortion is the one "choice" that seems to depend on women being ignorant, afraid, pressured, scared, emotional, and irrational. Pro-"choice" activists know this, which is why they oppose any legislation that brings the true nature of this "choice" out into the open.
Pro-aborts are afraid that women, presented with the full truth about abortion, will choose life instead. That is the choice that puts them out of business--and that's why they oppose sensible restrictions to abortion whenever such legislation is offered.