Sunday, February 26, 2012

Can Mandated Pre-Abortion Ultrasounds WEAKEN the Pro-Life Movement?


I don’t know if I’ve ever had as many simultaneous conflicting thoughts and feelings as I had in learning that conservative hero Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has vetoed a bill requiring women to get an ultrasound if considering an abortion.

First feeling: REPULSION

My feelings for McDonnell began with a CBN 700 Club segment where I realized how radically he had changed the state of Virginia’s financial problems enacting conservative principles like tax cuts and severe curtailment of government spending.  Since McDonnell was a graduate of Pat Robertson’s REGENT UNIVERSITY I had assumed he was on the “social conservative” side as well and was already feeling a bit of “Nikki Haley betrayal” when he endorsed Romney.  When I first read the headline I was repulsed that another conservative had turned to the dark side and betrayed us.


My first read on this subject was a Libertarian Republican article that stated a typical libertarian view:

We, at Libertarian Republican, are officially agnostic on where this line should be drawn. We think of ourselves as both pro-life and pro-privacy. Indeed, we think the purpose of government is to protect us in all of our rights; although we recognize, in practice, that there are gray areas and conflicts, and we suspect there will never be a final reconciliation of these conflicts in this or other such matters.

Being open minded and wanting facts – not feelings or preconceived conclusions – to be my basis of judgment, I understood the point of privacy but my strong anti-abortion roots were firm and reinforced with this FIRST comment:


“What is the big deal to give people information,” I thought?  Surely this isn’t too much to ask in a society.  But, I was knocked off my social conservative stool with the third comment:



I really hadn’t considered this point before.  If we conservatives are for personal responsibility, doesn’t that include not using the force of government to mandate EVEN WHAT PEOPLE KNOW?  I thought of the great idea of how helpful it would be for smokers to have a visible wake up call to the difference between a healthy and tar stained lung which caused me to becoming a lifelong non-smoker in grade school and how that had kept me from the devil tabacky. (At least the cigarette kind – I was still a Beechnut and Skoal man in High School and College).

It occurred to me that the government could then require us to go beyond warning labels to whole indoctrination classes for whatever propaganda was in vogue for the party in power.  I further waivered with the next comment.



This question had a profound impact on me.

  • Wasn’t the use of EXECUTIVE ORDERS pretty much a second thought to us when Bush was in office, but is terrifying now?
  • Didn’t most of us (alive) during the Reagan years applaud a “Drug Czar” and now wonder how the heck Obama has so much power?  And why didn’t we complain MORE when Bush hired 33 of them?  (Obama is at 38.)
  • When most FDR’s entitlements were agreed to be “temporary” until people got on their feet again by the US public, and transformed into a “right,” why would expect this power to grow out of control? 

I could see how a precedent could be made based on the mood of the country.  None of us over 40 – even remembering the hippie 70’s - could imagine society EVER getting to the point where gay marriage could not only be legal, but accepted by a MAJORITY of Americans.  It certainly enforces the idea that:

Once government is given power over ANYTHING – it is nearly impossible to remove it.

Like the EPA (or any other government department) that once had a great role to regulate irresponsible businesses, they slowly become infested with socialist or statist bureaucrats who succumb to the seduction of needing even MORE power to justify themselves or their hidden agendas.  Undeniably ANY government power can be excessive and misused depending upon who is in power.

Fifth Internal Debate: WHAT THE HECK DO I BELIEVE??!!!

Now in fairness to the story, the rejection by McDonnell was because the ultrasound required a “transvaginal” procedure.  (I don’t even want to know what that is.)  McDonnell and the GOP rewrote the bill to not be “invasive” using more conventional methods to accomplish the same thing. 

But we are still talking about the STATE of VIRGINIA demanding:

  1. A Medical Procedure
  2. To Accomplish a (good) propaganda purpose

Is it just me or has anyone else noted that our courts have recently dictated that the majority of people in a state have no say in law against judges, that abortion and privacy is a “right,” and that you needn’t prove you are even a constitutional citizen of this country to be President of it.  Is it that far fetched that this “law” couldn’t suddenly be determined by a future Virginia court to mandate knowledge of the trials of single mothers or the ease of oral abortion?

I am not one who believes the Ron Paul whacko proposition of libertarianism that government should not try to prevent rampant drug growth in your neighborhood.  (And in fairness to Paul – he is only slightly off where Jefferson stood for most of his life, although contrary to Washington, Adams and Monroe.)

So I proceeded to ask myself the following questions:

  • Am I a hypocrite for disdaining government oversight of medical services everything else but abortion?
  • Where do I draw the line of what government CAN do?
  • What does the Constitution and Federalist Papers say?

The last question suddenly helped me put a lot of this into perspective.  If we had a decent Supreme Court, or a properly educated Executive Branch that would realize the court can NOT impose new “law,” the unborn would already have protection by the RIGHT not just to LIFE, but also to LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPINESS.

I will end with this thought: We certainly have no qualms about defending the citizens of this country by using it’s taxing power to equip an army to defend against the Pearl Harbor’s and 9/11’s.  We also feel justified in removing the rights of those who attempt murder upon those who breath outside the womb.

Is it better for the taxpayer to pay and force a drunk driver to go to school before he kills an innocent victim, or keep putting him in jail on every infraction until he actually succeeds?

I understand that it has now been thirty years since we thought Ronald Reagan would somehow see Roe vs Wade over tuned.  I understand the idea of using the liberal strategy of chipping away at legal foundations to move the government (and people) closer and closer to our goal.

At the end of the day – this isn’t giving Viagra through ObamaCare or free cell phones to illegals.  It is attempting to prevent the unconscionable murder of a living human being with thoughts, a heart beat and a soul.  And frankly I’ll take my chances with government power to prevent even one death.

But it reinforces the impetus to find candidates who will not allow fanatical pro-abortion judges to become Federal Judges, or appointed to the Appellate Court or Supreme Court.  It demands a renewed effort for a Constitutional Amendment.

But, if we simply would continue to pray and educate in our spheres of influence, perhaps it wouldn’t even be needed.

God forgive us, as a country for what we have allowed.  Our intellectuals laugh at the idiocy of uncivilized cultures that offered human sacrifices – and even our “Pro Life” politicians rationalize political expediency for political power.

Let YOUR Kingdom come, let YOUR will be done – here in America.  Move the hearts of the mothers and fathers to defend life with their own, and please have mercy and grace on us.

And most of all Father, please forgive me for not praying for the unborn every day.

God help us.


Nice post on abortion. The rabid feminists oppose all ultrasounds before an abortion,even though they are already required in order for the abortionist to determine the size and age of the fetus before they dismember them. They don't want informed consent, where the doctor has to tell them about the fetus heartbeat or anything that would acknowledge the humanity of the unborn.

Yet they whine about a right to prenatal care. Comprehensive prenatal care would include ultrasounds during pregnancy and before an abortion. Anyone who opposes it is using it as a political tool to fight against laws that regulate abortion and make it "safe" and allow women to know more about the fetus. The abortionists don't want women to know the fetus is more than just a 'blob of cells'. I have a post on my blog [The BIG LIE ]with a video that shows how places such as Planned Parenthood tell students in their sex ed programs that the fetus is a blob of cells and that science doesn't matter. All they care about is their 'right' to abortion.

The rabid feminists are all about themselves and dehumanizing the fetus as much as possible so that they can try to feel less guilty for their actions. When they fight laws that provide informed consent, such as ultrasounds, it exposes them for who they really are...killers who really don't care about quality prenatal care and the health of women.

Post a Comment


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More