In a post earlier today on Senator Dennis Schmidt's sonogram bill, I said
A sonogram provides more medical information to the mother. Can one make a sound, logical argument against more low-cost medical information in the decision-making process?
Of course, I knew at the time that there'd be some folks who would proffer plenty of shallow arguments...and it didn't take long.
From KELO, our state Planned Parenthood director Kate Looby weighs in:
Looby says legislators should instead spend their time trying to come up with solutions to prevent unintended pregnancies.
Like this takes rocket science. For those who want to reduce the odds of pregnancy, use birth control. Getting the tubes tied or having a vasectomy is more reliable, still. For those who want to be sure of not having an unintended pregnancy, don't have sex. But liberals are experts at making the simple seem complex.
Looby also offers another shallow argument:
She adds that the legislation is another attempt to manipulate women who are already facing very difficult, private decisions.
Yes, a private decision. A decision so private that she needs an abortionist to accomplish it for her. A not-so-private decision that involves the man who helped her conceive the child. Oh, and then there's the child she'll be killing, too. Not too private, when you get down to it.
Only when it comes to defending abortion is less information considered better.
0 comments:
Post a Comment