On Fetal Rights

Businesses of every kind strive to have the best and finest quality service. In our fast and highly technologically advanced society, if the competition sees your lack of preparation, new entrepreneurs take over and lead the way. In medicine, hospitals and legitimate medical centers are always investing in the best equipment to meet today’s challenges and the needs of the clients they serve.

The North Dakota legislature passed a bill whereby an abortion provider must offer an ultrasound that provides the auscultation of the fetal heart tone. One would assume a facility providing abortions, one who claimed to be concerned about their patient’s well-being, would provide such service without a mandate.

The Red River Women’s Clinic brought suit against the state of ND, seeking clarification on what the word “offer” meant. Instead of “choice” to provide their clients with the ability to arrive at an informed decision, they showed their desire to provide the least amount of service required by law, not to protect their clients, but to protect their pockets.

When providing a medical service, most would assume a medical facility would desire to not only meet such requirements, but even go beyond to prove they were the best facility to provide a service.

Not only were tax dollars wasted by going to court over this trivial requirement, but it suggests Red River doesn’t care to provide adequate service so one could make this “choice.”

For a moment, let’s set aside the life of the baby. An abortion facility is a for profit facility, with a minimum fee of $500 per surgical abortion. If a woman is given the opportunity to see and hear the fetal heart tone, she may decide to carry the pregnancy to term. If the clinic performed four less procedures, of the current average 25 per week, that would mean $100,000 per year in less revenue. This fact begs us to see “choice” has nothing to do with it, that the patient’s well being has nothing to do with it, but that this clinic and industry is driven by money and profits.

Why would a business want to provide adequate information, if it meant a prospective patient would then change their mind? In the suit, Red River claimed the cost of updated equipment would be a financial burden, yet no documentation was provided to prove such a burden.  The reality is the law didn’t require them to provide such service, only to offer it.

Some nonprofit pregnancy centers in North Dakota have provided free ultrasounds for years. We have yet to hear of a case of regret when a woman chose to carry the pregnancy to term, but often hear of the regrets of ill-informed women who chose abortion.

The legislature brought this bill as a tiny effort to inform women of this life and death issue.  Yet the ‘choice’ people found it a burden to provide that ‘choice.’  So an aborted baby still gets no trial, no jury, no stay of execution, only death.

Questions and comments: hpr1.com