It's quite possible, says columnist Cal Thomas, that women get more information at the supermarket, the bank and the automobile showroom than they get at most abortion clinics.
Regulations require that consumers get warning labels and nutritional breakdowns and miles-per-gallon disclosures. But until recently, a woman could get an abortion without any required cautions or information.
Not surprisingly, many women say they would have chosen an alternative to abortion had they had all the facts.
That's why a growing number of states are requiring abortion providers to explain all the dangers, possible side-effects and the startling information we know about fetal development. Research is discovering, for example, a young fetus' ability to feel pain.
And this is why we were so encouraged to see the Georgia House of Representatives pass Augusta Rep. Sue Burmeister's Woman's Right to Know Act this week requiring abortion providers to help women give truly informed consent during a 24-hour waiting period, and calling for true parental notification in the case of a minor's abortion.
Not even "pro-choice" advocates should be against allowing women to make informed choices.
Indeed, the House vote was a whopping 139-35 in favor and even three of four Augusta-area Democrats voted yes; Rep. Alberta Anderson voted no.
Why oppose it? Truth is, pro-choice advocates aren't really pro-choice; they're pro-one-choice: abortion. It galls them that informed consent laws, now in more than half the states, require abortion providers to go over all the choices including adoption.
That's just too pro-choice for the pro-choice extremists.
The real threat to the pro-choice movement isn't that some court will outlaw abortion; the real threat is that women will someday become too informed about all the choices to ever knowingly choose abortion.
The Augusta Chronicle (Augusta, Ga.)
Peninsula Clarion ©2013. All Rights Reserved.