Saturday, August 22, 2009

Friday, August 21, 2009

Caring about Health and Life

The July post below this one was left on top of the blog for over a month. Each time I came to update or write a new post, I glanced over that post and thought it still summed up how I felt so well that I just left it alone. Who would have guessed that the vocal opposition in town hall meetings would have thrown the Democrats in such disarray? Here's to healthy obstruction!

In the meantime, though, I found the video news clip below about the state of Connecticut banning 3-D and 4-D ultra-sounds like the ones produced by Peek-A-Womb or similar providers.

A few years ago, when I first saw pictures produced by the new 3-D technology, I said to my wife, "This is going to really upset the pro-abortion activists. A picture's worth a thousand words."

I knew images like these would prompt reactions like what the mom in the video says: "I feel more like the baby is real...not just a blob."

I wonder if any other bloggers or media voices will raise the same question I have: Do the liberal lobbyists and legislators in Connecticut find the power of 3-D images of unborn babies a threat to their political agenda? Why would a state ban something with no medical evidence to support thier actions?

Well, let's consider this article written in the New York Times by Connecticut
Senator George C. Jepson: In 1990, Connecticut passed pro-abortion laws so "if Roe were overturned tomorrow, the status quo would be maintained without exception. As a result, Connecticut now ranks in the forefront of states protecting abortion rights."

The passage of that law, however, "was nevertheless supported by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford and the Pro-Life Council of Connecticut."


Pro-abortion Senator Jepsen explains: "For abortion opponents, the statutory standard for a fetus's viability is an important symbol - the first step in restricting choice. Drawing a line at viability implicitly acknowledges, as Roe did, that states can legislate legal protection for a fetus. There can be no question, however, that the legislation's intent and effect supports abortion rights.... We had aggressive, intelligent lobbying from the Connecticut Coalition for Choice."

I could be wrong, but I suspect many opponants of 3-D ultrasounds are not concerned about risks to the baby (after all they believe a woman has the right to kill it so why would they oppose her taking a picture of it alive and well?). No, the concern is about the powerful pro-life implications of the image. I can't help but think that the 1990 Connecticut lobbyists and legislators (who were willing to rest the abortion question on "viability" of the fetus) now find 3-D images disturbing because they put faces on the unborn. They help expectant mothers see first-hand a viable baby much earlier than was possible in 1990. Pro-abortion advocates may be afraid that the definition of viability will change from "able to live if outside the womb" to "clearly living and waiting to be outside the womb"? I wonder if they winced when they first saw the General Electric TV ad that said, “When you see your baby for the first time on the new GE 4D ultrasound system, it really is a miracle.”

Here's the clip that triggered these thoughts:


website tracking statistics
Flat-Panel Television