Of course, the opposition is furious:
AUSTIN — A sonogram bill that would require women seeking an abortion to hear a detailed description of their fetus, as well as be presented images and heartbeats, won Senate approval Monday, moving it closer to becoming one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation.
Women could opt out of seeing the sonogram or listening to a heartbeat, if it is detectable, but almost all would have to listen to a doctor outline what organs and extremities have developed. The measure was tentatively approved, 21-10, and faces one more vote before it heads back to the House.
“It will be one of the strongest bills in the nation for informed consent,” said author Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston. “And hopefully, lives can be saved after seeing the sonogram and hearing the heartbeat.”
Um, no bovine excrement, friend of Watson. Well, not the "traumatize" part, unless you think that women are helpless, delicate flowers who will be traumatized to learn that the "blob of tissue" they're planning to kill already has a heartbeat in addition to other recognizably human features.
Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, said that under the guise of informing women of their options, abortion opponents are trying to bully women who are already struggling and distressed into having a baby.
“The purpose is to traumatize women who are considering an abortion procedure into making a decision otherwise,” Davis said.
Of course informed consent laws are passed in the hopes that when women really stop and consider that abortion will forever make them responsible for ending the life of a human being whom they chose to kill and in whose death they willingly and even gladly participated, they might change their minds; after all, pregnancy only lasts nine months, but abortion is forever.
But I can't understand how anybody who is really in favor of a woman's so-called right to choose to kill her unborn child actually opposes informed consent laws. How "pro-choice" is it to insist that the only way someone can choose freely is if they don't really understand what it is that they are choosing? How is it respectful of women to demand that nobody tell them anything at all about embryonic development and, in fact, to create a preference for lies and euphemisms: "blob of tissue," "product of conception," and so forth? How is it about "women's health" to insist that women undergo a surgical procedure in which nobody discusses what the goal of the surgery actually is, or defines success in a realistic way (e.g., "We intend to use suction to tear apart the embryo and vacuum her out of your uterus; then we will reassemble her arms, legs, torso and head to be sure we've got all of her out of you, and further scrape the uterine lining for missing remains, bone fragments and anything else that might cause damage to the uterus or secondary infection.")?
Imagine, for a second, that you are going in for surgery to have your appendix removed, and nobody actually says the word "appendix" or mentions that the goal is to take it out of you; instead, the whole thing is so wrapped in euphemism that you can't quite tell what it is the doctors plan to remove, or why. Would someone choosing an appendectomy under those circumstances really be making a free choice? Why, then, do we insist that the only way a woman can make a free choice to have an abortion is if we never actually talk about what she's having removed and killed?
Pro-choice people like to repeat the phrase that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. But I don't think they mean the "rare" bit at all (we can talk about "safe" some other time, since not too many people care about that, either). If informed consent laws would limit abortion to women who are heartless enough to be capable of viewing their child's heartbeat and/or listening to the medical facts of their baby's development, shrugging, yawning, and saying "Kill her anyway," then I think abortion might actually become rather rare. If pro-choice people really wanted abortion to be rare, they'd support informed consent laws too.
But the truth is, most people who support abortion think women should be able to choose to kill their unborn offspring without ever having to contemplate what it is they are actually doing. If women began to seen the unborn human inside them for the unique, alive, child he or she is, it would be a lot harder to give the kill order. And that would have repercussions on our society's mad addiction to sex without consequences. To protect that obsession, we're perfectly willing to keep women in the dark about what they're actually doing when they enter an abortion clinic pregnant, and come out the mother of a dead child.