Editorial

In America’s seemingly endless debate about abortion each side seeks to frame the debate to its advantage. Those who oppose abortion, including myself, note human life begins at conception and is thus worthy of protection from the beginning. These persons are “pro-life.” Those who support unlimited abortion rights shift the debate away from the child (using the technical medical term of “fetus” in order to de-humanize the child) and instead focus on the rights of women to make their own decisions. For these persons, “pro-choice” is the rallying cry.

An April 2 debate in the Florida House of Representatives, however, demonstrated that advocates for unlimited abortion rights do not really believe in choice or they would support a common-sense bill that would give girls and women as much information as possible in order for them to make an informed choice. And what was the response of the “pro-choice” representatives and lobbyists? Opposition, of course.

House Bill 257, sponsored by Rep. Anthony Traviesa (R-Tampa), would require girls and women to have an ultrasound and be offered the opportunity to view that image before their pregnancy is terminated by abortion.

A House Healthcare Council staff analysis noted current law already requires ultrasounds for second and third trimester pregnancies prior to an abortion, although the law does not require that those images be viewed by the patient unless the patient requests to see the ultrasound. The analysis also found that many abortionists already provide ultrasound services, citing a Jacksonville abortion clinic’s Web site as one example.

Meanwhile, Herald-Tribune.com reported in the last year four states adopted similar requirements, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion organization, with a total of a dozen states having similar laws.

The bill also attempts to strengthen Florida’s parental notice law with respect to setting criteria for a judicial bypass, which pro-lifers are concerned is a loop hole undermining the intent of the law.

Traviesa told the House: “This is a pretty simple bill. We’re going to require an ultrasound, and if you don’t want to see it, say so, sign something and you don’t have to see it. But for those who do want to see it, they’re going to have it,” according to the Palm Beach Post.

But for “pro-choice” advocates, the bill is simply too much information and is an assault against “choice.”

“Planned Parenthood is extremely concerned and opposed to this dangerous piece of legislation. It ties the hands of doctors from being allowed to make the best decisions for their patients,” said Adrianne Kimmell, executive director of Florida’s Planned Parenthood affiliates, the St. Petersburg Times reported.

Planned Parenthood is America’s largest abortion provider and one of the most high-profile leaders in the “pro-choice” movement.

Planned Parenthood’s opposition to the ultrasound bill illustrates my opposition to the NFL’s Jacksonville Jaguars Foundation’s support of Planned Parenthood of Northeast Florida, which I editorialized about last year, “Michael Vick, the Jacksonville Jaguars and moral hypocrisy” (Aug. 30). Critics responded that the Planned Parenthood affiliate was about much more than abortion and the Jaguars were not funding its abortion activities. Nevertheless, here are Florida’s Planned Parenthood affiliates, including the affiliate funded by the Jaguars, lobbying against ultrasounds for pregnant women and girls.

During the House debate, some representatives expressed great indignation at the ultrasound bill.

Rep. Joyce Cusack (D-DeLand), a registered nurse, argued that “this is not about protecting the rights of women. It’s about eroding the rights of women,” according to The Tallahassee Democrat. “You have a right to a vasectomy if you choose; therefore, don’t tell me if I have a right to have an abortion if I choose.”

Rep. Susan Bucher (D-West Palm Beach): “Rep. Traviesa, you know, I’m sick and tired of having men bring these kinds of bills that deal with women’s health care issues and calling them ‘quality’ and calling them ‘safety.’ I’m sure that you would have some consternation if us women in the House would bring additional regulations for your sexual-organ procedures,” the Palm Beach Post reported.

House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber (D-Miami Beach) said the ultrasound bill is “offensive” because it’s intended to cause a pregnant woman to ask, “are you sure you want to do that?” reported South Florida Sun-Sentinel. “Just to constantly second-guess and challenge a woman who makes what I imagine is one of the hardest and most difficult decisions a person has to make.”

So much for “pro-choice.”

At least one female lawmaker saw the value in HB 257. Rep. Marti Coley (R-Marianna) told the House, “I wouldn’t want any surgical procedure done without all of the information available. As a woman, as a mother, I ask you to support this bill, not to invade privacy but to ensure that all women are offered safe health care,” according to the Palm Beach Post.

Thankfully, the bill passed the Republican-controlled House overwhelmingly, 70-45, largely on party lines, unfortunately.

The Senate, also controlled by Republicans, will be a much more difficult path for its version of the bill, SB 2400, sponsored Sen. Daniel Webster (R-Winter Garden), a member of First Baptist Church of Central Florida. Webster’s bill was scheduled to be heard in the Health Regulation Committee April 8 (the same day this issue went to press).

In several media interviews, Webster expressed optimism about getting the bill to the Senate floor, although his version does not include the parental notice provisions of Traviesa’s bill. Webster explained to the Miami Herald, “I don’t think we can pass anything else” other than the ultrasound provisions.

This is the tragic reality of the Florida Senate, where even such a reasonable, common-sense bill merely providing women and girls all the best information possible before making a potentially life-changing decision is too much for the likes of former Senate President Jim King (R-Jacksonville).

“If a woman wants to have an ultrasound it should be at her request,” King told the Herald-Tribune. “I don’t think there’s any woman who goes to an abortion clinic for an abortion who hasn’t agonized over some of those things already. And she shouldn’t have to jump through extra hoops that nobody else has to jump through.”

As difficult as it will be for the ultrasound bill to become law, a fetal homicide bill (HB 513), adopted 80-36 in the House also on April 2, faces even steeper odds in the Florida Senate where no action is anticipated.

The bill would create a separate murder charge for the death of an unborn child through violence, throughout a pregnancy. The bill is closely patterned after the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which applies only in federal cases. Many states define life at conception for purposes of prosecuting violence against pregnant women, according to the Sun-Sentinel.

What was the response to this bill? Planned Parenhood’s Kimmell told the Sun-Sentinel: “It elevates a fetus and an egg, frankly, to the status of an adult person. The purpose of this bill is to create tension with Roe vs. Wade. It’s a chipping-away strategy we’ve seen for years now.”

So much for “pro-choice.”

Sen. Webster’s ultrasound bill puts a lie to the “pro-choice” argument since it narrowly addresses making information available to women and girls who are about to make a life-changing decision. Now is the time for pro-life citizens to have their voices heard, urging members of the Florida Senate to adopt SB 2400, a bill that is both pro-life and pro-choice.