Ultrasound Quotes Archives - Page 6 of 9

Proabortion attorney complains about ultrasound law

A proabortion attorney said the following about a law requiring a sonogram to be performed before abortions. The law would also allow a woman to see the sonogram image if she chose

“It’s really about chipping away at the various ways in which abortion care can happen in an effort to make it impossible for women to obtain it.”

Michelle Movahed attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which sued to block the state’s ultrasound law

Robin Marty, Jessica Mason Pieklo Crow After Roe (Brooklyn, New York: ig Publishing, 2013) 91

This completely ignores the fact that ultrasounds are already a routine part of abortion care.

The only way to truly, accurately date a pregnancy is through ultrasound; ultrasound is also needed because an ectopic pregnancy must be ruled out before an abortion is performed. Even if ultrasounds were not a part of routine abortion care, how would requiring one “make it impossible” for women to have an abortion?

The only consequences this law would have would be to make abortion safer and to offer women a chance to get more information about the baby they are about to destroy.

The goal of the law is to change minds and hearts by giving the woman more information about her own body.

Is it better for her to be exposed to ultrasound pictures (from a friend/family member’s pregnancy or her own future pregnancy) after she has the abortion, when it is too late for her to change her mind?

Share on Facebook

Planned Parenthood: Ultrasounds are “political propaganda”

In an AP article, David Crary described how some volunteer operated crisis pregnancy centers were offering abortion minded women ultrasounds so that they could see their unborn babies before making a decision whether or not to have an abortion.

From the article:

“Convinced that a look inside the womb will dissuade many pregnant women from abortion, anti-abortion activists hope to provide ultrasound equipment to hundreds of pregnancy centers that promote alternatives like adoption.”

Gloria Feldt, then president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America:

“They’re using medical technology as political propaganda.”

Feldt also, says, of the centers that show women ultrasounds:

“They don’t provide true medical care. What they do is malpractice, by not giving women unbiased information on all their options.”

Kate Michelman, then president of the national pro-choice group NARAL, now NARAL Pro-Choice America, commented:

“It never fails to amaze me how little respect they have for women’s capacity to understand what goes on in our bodies. I faced a crisis pregnancy after having three children, and I didn’t need anyone to show me a sonogram to inform me that my pregnancy would result in giving birth to a person.”

Michelman says that these centers:

“have one purpose in mind – to intimidate women out of choosing abortion, and using government money to do that. That is wrong.”

David Crary “Abortion Foes Hope to Sway Pregnant Women” AP February 1, 2002

In contrast to pro-life pregnancy centers, abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood clinics, which are funded by tax money, often lie and mislead women about the development of the unborn baby. They are nearly always turn the ultrasound screen away, and often refuse to let a woman see the picture, even if she asks to see it.

Read women’s first-hand accounts of going to abortion clinics and being misled and deceived here.

Read accounts of former clinic workers describing how they deceived women about fetal development and coerced them into having abortions while “counseling” them.

Read surveys from postabortion women on abortion counseling here.

And, finally, see Planned Parenthood lies in action on this recording, taken undercover at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

And here:

Share on Facebook

Genetic counselor tries to prevent women from seeing ultrasound

Genetic “counselors” are medical personnel that try to help women pregnant with babies that are disabled decide whether or not to abort them. If a person is at risk for having a baby with a disability, or when they already know that they are pregnant with one, these genetic counselors are supposed to be unbiased in guiding them whether or not to abort their disabled babies. From one genetic counselor:

“As a counselor, I consider it my job to accompany my patients to everything. The sonographer here at City is a right to lifer. When he knows someone has a positive diagnosis, that they are going to abort, he hands them a photo of the fetus. Imagine being forced to take it, to take that picture, when you know the pregnancy is Down’s, you know you’re going to abort!”

Genetic counselor Felicia Arcana

Rayna Rapp Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: the Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America (New York: Routledge, 1999) 67

Abortion proponents and providers know the power of ultrasound, and many of them have the desire to shield women from seeing the truth about their unborn babies. Clearly, this activist doesn’t want the woman to be swayed against abortion. One might think that a woman would want (And a medical professional provide) every single bit of information she can get about her own body and her own pregnancy before she makes a life altering irrevocable decision that affects her health and future. But abortion proponents encourage women to make these decisions without seeing their babies on an ultrasound and knowing the development of their child.

Share on Facebook

Former clinic director on why abortion providers fight against ultrasound requirements

Former abortion clinic director Abby Johnson describes why abortion providers fight laws requiring women to be asked if they want to see an ultrasound of their baby before an abortion

“Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the National Abortion Federation both REQUIRE ultrasounds to be performed before an abortion takes place. During a first trimester procedure, a transvaginal ultrasound is required. An abdominal or transvaginal is allowed in the second and third trimesters.

There is one reason for this. They need to be able to see exactly how far along the woman is in her pregnancy so the abortion facility knows how much to charge for the abortion. There is one reason they don’t want women to see their ultrasound…it is too risky. Ultrasounds expose the lie of the abortion industry. They show that it is not just a “blob of tissue” or a “mass of cells.”

Ultrasounds show the humanity of the child. They don’t oppose ultrasounds because it is too time consuming. They are performing them anyway! They are required (by their own rules) to perform them. It is not traumatizing for the woman. They are about to perform an invasive and painful procedure on these women and they are seriously worried about how an ultrasound will feel? Of course not. They only oppose ultrasounds because of the risk…a woman may choose life and they may be out several hundred dollars. It is pretty plain and simple.”

Abby Johnson “Abby Johnson: Counselor for My Abortion Had 9 Abortions” LifeNews.com 4/23/12

Share on Facebook

Woman changes her mind about aborting baby after seeing ultrasound in abortion clinic

unbornbaby10weeksultrasound — Ultrasound of baby at 10 weeks, a little younger than the baby in this quote

A pro-life website received the following testimony:

“I have one child (2 years old). He is my heart and soul. I contemplated having an abortion with him. I went all the way to the clinic and proceeded with the preparations. However, I when I [sic] was given the sonogram, I asked to see my child living and breathing through me. I was 11 weeks pregnant. I saw my son on the screen kicking and moving his arms! I could not believe it. At that point, I asked for my money back (I could only get a portion), and I left that clinic and did not look back.”

While Planned Parenthood has been promoting a study which purports to show that seeing an ultrasound image does not influence women’s decisions of whether or not to abort (conducted based on the records from one abortion clinic by researchers who likely never actually set foot in that clinic to observe what was going on), one has to wonder why, if ultrasound viewing really has no impact on a woman’s decision, pro-choice groups oppose these laws so strenuously and spent tens of thousands of dollars fighting them in court.

Share on Facebook

specialist in maternal – fetal medicine on ultrasound technology and abortion

Testimony of Steve Calvin, M.D., specialist in maternal – fetal medicine, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights, Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing on “The 25^th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade: Has It Stood the Test of Time?” January 21^st, 1998:

“… At the time of the Roe V Wade decision, ultrasound during pregnancy was largely experimental. During the 70s and 80s the beneficial uses of ultrasound in pregnancy multiplied…

Current ultrasound imaging techniques reveal the marvelous complexity of prenatal growth and development… However, the use of this wonderful window on the womb has become increasingly disconcerting for some who would rather view the fetus as pregnancy tissue or the product of conception….

We are clearly in a new era of obstetrics because of ultrasound and the expanding concept of treatment of the fetus as a patient. Yet there is an inescapable schizophrenia when modern medicine works under ethical rules which say that a fetus is a patient only when the mother has conferred the status.”

Quoted in Mei Ling Rein. Abortion: an Eternal Social and Moral Issue (Wylie, Texas: Information Plus Reference Series, 2000)

Share on Facebook

Pregnancy centers report 80 to 90% of women choose life when shown ultrasounds

According to Thomas Glessner, “Prior to ultrasound technology, pregnancy centers reported that of the abortion-minded’ women who came in for testing and advice, about 20 percent to 30 percent decided to remain pregnant. With pregnancy centers using ultrasound machines, that proportion has jumped to 80 percent or 90 percent.”

Jennifer Kabbany “Abortion vs. UltraSound,” Washington Times, October 29, 2003

Share on Facebook

Mother describes ultrasounds of her son, questions abortion

A woman discusses her pregnancy and ultrasound:

“… What is a sonogram? A picture, produced by sound waves. It is a factual thing, a part of reality, difficult to manipulate. Which doesn’t mean that it doesn’t involve emotion. When I saw James’s [her son’s] first sonogram, at 4 ½ months, I fell hopelessly in love. I could hardly feel him moving inside me yet, and I had been worried, after my miscarriage, that there would be something wrong. But on the screen my husband and I saw a perfectly round head, beautiful spinal cord, legs kicking, and hands grasping.. As we watched, the baby (we didn’t know the sex) opened its hand and proceeded to suck its thumb… What makes a sonogram so dangerous and emotionally troubling for abortion advocates is the obviousness of a separate life inside a woman’s body, not an appendage. The fetus seems so happy in its own little world, so safe and unconcerned in a close, warm womb where all its needs are automatically met.

The view of the womb we get from a sonogram illuminates what ought to be the safest time in a human’s life. Instead, the sanctuary of the womb is invaded routinely, with the support and even encouragement of society. The Planned Parenthood clinic across the street from our apartment offers abortions up to 16 weeks – just about the age of James’s first photo, which I have lovingly placed in his first photo album. In the sonogram, he held his hand with his thumb out and his fingers tucked in; he still holds his hand that way. In my womb he was active at night and had hiccups several times a day; he still does. His sonogram was simply an introduction to the person we are getting to know. How can doctors deliberately tear our little beings who are able to move around and suck their thumbs? And how can their mothers allow it?

…

Now that I have James, I see myself quite differently. I have someone who thinks the world of me! I have someone who, as long as he lives, will be able to say “my mother…” and mean me! I have someone who must be put first, and that is a relief. And I have someone who, God willing, will live beyond me, which makes the world seem a more comfortable place. And right now I have an adorable baby whose smiles melt my heart and whose perfect little face brings tears of joy. I wouldn’t have missed this experience for anything.

Maria McFadden “Motherhood in the 90s: to Have or Have Not” Brad Stetson, editor The Silent Subject: Reflections on the Unborn in American Culture (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1996)117-119

Share on Facebook

Sonogram at crisis pregnancy center convinces mother that baby is not “tissue”

Rebekah Nancarrow has an ultrasound at Planned Parenthood (for which she paid $80), but wasn’t allowed to see the results because “that will only make it harder on you.”

She went to a Pregnancy Resource Center and was given a free ultrasound and allowed to view it. She said:

“Had I not had the sonogram, I would have had the abortion. But that sonogram just confirmed 100% to me that this was a life within me, not a tissue or glob.”

Mark O’Keefe, “Activists Tout Ultrasound Images to Discourage Abortion” Newhouse News Service, 2003 Quoted in Randy Alcorn Why Pro-Life? Caring for the Unborn and Their Mothers (Hendrickson Publishers, 2011)

Share on Facebook

“My body, my choice” is arrogant, says writer

A woman who had 2 miscarriages saw her third, living child on an ultrasound and said the following:

“I now find the slogan “my body, my choice” amazingly arrogant. If there is one lesson I have learned through this year, it is that I do not create life. Life passes through me….I do not create life, I only house it. I did nothing different with any of my four children, but two lived within my womb and two died there. Life-giving is beyond my power, beyond my body, beyond my choice.”

Lori Stanley Roeleveld “My Turn” (weekly column) Providence Journal Sun. June 27, 1993. E-3

Share on Facebook