Yoest-Keenan Debate On The Texas Ultrasound Bill

Last week the Fifth Circuit Court upheld the new Texas ultrasound bill that requires that a woman contemplating abortion be told what the sonograms of their babies reveal.  Abortionists already take sonograms of the babies so that they can plan the procedure and, most importantly, know how to charge the mother for the abortion.  However, many refuse to let the woman actually see the sonogram picture of her baby.  Why?  Because many, if not most women who see that picture opt against the abortion.

Well, the NARAL and Planned Parenthood types have now bunched their undies because they understand (rightly) that the number of baby-murders will drop in Texas, along with their cash intake.  Last week, Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life and Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL, appeared together on Fox News Channel to have a brief debate on the matter.  That and LifeNews' analysis is here.  However, if you cannnot see the embedded video of the debate on the LifeNews page, click here.

A few things to note about NARAL's conniption fit here:

1. Recall that NARAL has been spearheading a campaign for the past few years to silence pro-life pregancy centers, claiming that the pro-life centers "offer misleading information".  They claim that they want the women to "have correct medical information".  In Maryland, Baltimore City and Montgomery County had their measures enacted; fortunately, the courts have stymied the measures on constitutional grounds.  So after trying to accuse pro-lifers of not providing "accurate medical information", they're having hissies over abortionists having to provide - accurate medical information?
2. Keenan says the law "forces a woman to have an ultrasound against her will".  That's a flat-out lie.  A woman undergoing an abortion has an ultrasound taken as a routine part of the procedure.  The law merely requires that she be informed of the results of the ultrasound.  Throughout the debate, she repeats that line like a mantra.  That's all she apparently can think to say - and it's a lie to boot.
3. NARAL's antipathy to ultrasounds is understandable.  One of their founders was the late Dr Bernard Nathanson.  While he was in their camp, he was responsible for thousands of abortions, and helped the pro-abortion crowd come up with the slogan "pro-choice".  However, all that happened before the advent of ultrasound machines.  When Nathanson saw some ultrasounds, and one of an abortion in progress, he became convinced of the humanity of the unborn baby.  He did a 180-degree turnaround and became a staunch pro-life advocate (and a convert to Catholicism).

Virtual March for Life

Americans United for Life has launched an internet-based project that they've dubbed Virtual March for Life.  They've pitched it at those who cannot be in Washington on January 22nd for the actual March for Life.  It is done through the selection of "avators", something about which I need to study.

It has come under some criticism, however.  In a sense, I can understand the criticism.  I myself am a pro-life activist.  I firmly believe in Father Frank Pavone's statements in his flyer, "Our Media Is the Streets."  I link to it because I urge its close study.  For over 15 years, I've been in front of various abortuaries as a sidewalk counselor.  I've been involved in a number of street protests - and I've led some of them.  Last year,  or two ago, when something called the Red Envelope Project became quite the fad amongst some prolifers, I took strong issue with that.  In an exchange that I had with the founder, he flat out said that (paraphrased) "folks will not go into the streets, they will not write letters to the editor, but they will send an envelope.."  In other words, he was providing a cop-out.  If he had encouraged his followers to take the next step and become more active, I might have seen some worth to this project.  By the way - its website appears to be defunct; that's why there's no link.

Let's get back to the Virtual March for Life.  I ask you to look carefully at the main page.  If you look on the right side of that page, it offers the opportunity for a "virtual march" for those who cannot be in Washington.  Note that word cannot.  The unfortunate criticisms that I hear seem to indicate a belief that AUL is offering this venue for those who simply choose not to come to Washington.  As I look at this, it seems that AUL is offering this alternative for those who are honestly unable to come to Washington.  Now perhaps AUL might emphasize that point a bit better on their site and suggest local action, but still, a more-than-precursory glance at the page makes plain the intent of AUL.  Besides, I just cannot see Americans United for Life deliberately submarining Nellie Gray and her March for Life.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to have differences of opinions with each other, as good people will indeed disagree on things from time to time.  Let us be careful, though, to make certain that we are at least representing each other accurately.