Indiana’s ultrasound law proves one thing: pro-aborts are either liars, or clueless

The wave of pro-life laws that have been sweeping the nation over the past few years has gotten pro-aborts into a frenzy fairly often. No law has caused more histrionics than the ultrasound laws various states have either passed, or attempted to pass. The furor reached a fever pitch with Virginia’s ultrasound law – so much so that the state ended up specifying that they were requiring trans-abdominal ultrasounds only, because pro-aborts kept likening trans-vaginal ultrasounds to rape.


Now it’s Indiana attracting the ire of the pro-aborts, as the state might soon require not just one, but two vaginal ultrasounds. See, for example, Slate‘s XX Factor blog, which calls the idea “ritualized humiliation” from a “prudish state.”

One of the major complaints that comes up over and over again about vaginal ultrasound legislation is that it’s unnecessary for medical abortions. And this brings us to the undeniable fact that all the fury around these ultrasound laws proves only one thing: these pro-aborts are either liars or clueless.

What many pro-aborts conveniently decline to mention is that these ultrasounds are needed, both before and after an abortion, regardless of what kind of abortion you end up getting. A woman needs one beforehand in order to determine her gestational age. It’s the medical standard. Without knowing how far into the pregnancy a woman is, there’s no telling what kind of abortion she’ll need to receive. And just randomly performing an abortion without finding out vital information such as gestational age first can be dangerous. But, you know, the pro-aborts are looking out for the women here!

Now, why would a woman need a post-abortion ultrasound? Well, that’s simple: to ensure that they got everything. It can be deadly if the abortionist left parts of the baby inside, and the best way to make sure that nothing was missed is by ultrasound. And a trans-vaginal ultrasound is the most accurate method. These ultrasounds are standard medical procedures. But apparently we’re to believe that women would prefer to skip the ultrasound and risk a life-threatening infection instead. Because, you know, that makes perfect sense!

As to whether or not the pro-aborts know this, and feign outrage just to prevent the bills from passing, or are just clueless probably depends on the pro-abort in question. Jill Stanek highlighted this willful ignorance, as she calls it, schooling RH Reality Check blogger Robin Marty, who was just astonished to find out that mandated pre- and post-abortion ultrasounds are actually regular Planned Parenthood policy. Apparently, Marty’s just clueless. Others, like NOW President Terry O’Neill, undoubtedly know better – and therefore are liars doing what they can to create a false outrage.

But does it really make a difference? Whether they’re liars or just stupid, it’s women who will pay the price either way.

  • Old R.N.

    Any ultrasound is good, before either a medical or surgical abortion. The only reason transvag ultrasounds have become so common is directly related to the obesity epidemic in the United States. I don’t mean to sound rude but, if there is too much abdominal tissue, then it is very difficult to impossible for the sound waves to be able to pass through and record an image. Again, sorry for the implication, but that is the plain fact.

    Personally, I see a mandated pre-abortion ultrasound, with complete visibility and mandated explanation of the ultrasound to the mother, as nothing more than complete informed consent. And what is wrong with having completely informed patients prior to their consenting to a surgical procedure? It is not rape to be given absolutely all the facts…is it? I thought rape was about being overpowered by another/another’s will? How is it rape, to be given full information in order to be empowered to make the single-most important decision a woman might ever find herself contemplating?

    • Old R.N.

      Although, the arbitrary death of an innocent human being should simply be illegal, period…but that’s a whole other argument!

  • Ryan J.F. Pulkrabek

    Anyone who is interested in this topic should download and read my comprehensive review about abortion ultrasound laws, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2213447. It breaks down the constitutional issues and suggest model legislation that would avoid the constitutional infirmities of statutes like these. Thank you for this post, Ms. Fiano. You’ll find support in my Article.

  • This is the exact reason why they are not “Pro-choice” but Pro-abortion. If they were Pro-choice they would have no problem with ultrasounds, in fact they would encourage them to make sure the mother makes the “right choice for her” as they are so quick to say.

  • Deege

    The ultrasounds are a no-brainer. I’m sorry to see that the second ultrasound has already been stricken from this bill.
    The fact that the same bill requires clinics dispensing RU-486, but not doctors’ offices dispensing RU-486, to set themselves up as surgery centers is the kind of thing that gives the other side ammunition.

    The arguments against ultrasound are dumb, but Indiana legislators can’t be the pot calling the kettle black. A facility that doesn’t perform surgery is not a surgery facility, even if you pretend it is in a law. They need admitting privileges, and a hospital referral agreeements, not preparations for surgery and anesthesia they will never perform or administer. That provision cannot be referred to as “commonsense legislation”. I do not support regulations that are not tied to a rational purpose even if there is a good cause behind them.