The media misinformation campaign against Pennsylvania’s Women’s Right to Know Act (House Bill 1077) continues. Media outlets across the state are using new Quinnipiac University Polling data, which contains factual errors in the very questioning, to give the impression that Pennsylvania not only disapproves of informed consent before abortion but that Pennsylvanians have reversed our forty-year tradition of opposing abortion-on-demand.

The Women’s Right to Know Act provides a pregnant woman the opportunity to see an ultrasound image of her unborn child and observe the heartbeat prior to an abortion. Empowering a woman with all the facts about her pregnancy is crucial when she is facing a decision as grave and irrevocable as abortion.

Planned Parenthood admits that trans-vaginal ultrasounds are done in 99% of the early abortions at their facilities. Ultrasounds are a standard element of abortion protocol. The abortionist requires an ultrasound to determine the gestational age of the child, to verify the child has implanted in the uterus and that the woman has not already miscarried. The bill merely gives a pregnant woman the legal right to view that image. Under current law, there is no obligation for the abortionist to provide her with the image or explain to her the status of her pregnancy.

Quinnipiac polling data released Thursday shows Pennsylvanians oppose an “ultrasound mandate” by a margin of 48% to 42%. Pressing the issue further, the poll found Pennsylvanians oppose a requirement for a trans-vaginal ultrasound prior to abortion by a margin of 64% to 23%. However, the premise for these poll questions is completely inaccurate. House Bill 1077 is not an “ultrasound mandate” nor does it call for trans-vaginal ultrasounds.

Opposing an ultrasound prior to abortion is like opposing a steering wheel when driving a car. You can’t do it without one. An abortion cannot be done without the performance of an ultrasound according to the standards of the National Abortion Federation.  Planned Parenthood even concedes, “our health centers already include ultrasounds routinely as an integral part of the thorough and standard medical practices in our abortion services.”

The questions in the poll themselves are based on a false premise, which does not accurately reflect the provisions in the bill. The media has seized on the data and heralded it as the definitive repudiation of the bill by the voters. These conclusions are more rooted in politics than fact. The Philadelphia Inquirer went as far as to assert that Republican Governor Tom Corbett’s recent drop in approval rating was partially due to House Bill 1077, despite the fact the bill has not yet come to the House floor and the governor had not taken a position on it at the time the poll was conducted.

Even with the false premise of the polling questions, which ultimately favors the pro-abortion position, men opposed ultrasounds prior to abortion by a much greater margin than women. Pennsylvania women were pretty evenly divided on the issue but it was men who gave the pro-abortion side the edge in the poll. (So much for the supposed “War on Women.”)

Beyond misrepresenting the Women’s Right to Know Act, Quinnipiac’s findings should be called into question for claiming more Pennsylvanians support abortion than oppose it.  The poll found 54% of Pennsylvanians favor abortion legal in all or most circumstances. Only 37% opposed abortion in all or most circumstances. If those numbers were correct, Pennsylvania would be reversing an over forty-year tradition of opposing abortion virtually on demand.

Pennsylvania is well-known for being a pro-life haven despite its blue tendencies during presidential elections and a one million voter registration advantage for Democrats. One of Pennsylvania’s most popular governors, Bob Casey, Sr. (D) was an outspoken pro-life advocate, signing into law the nation’s most protective law for unborn children at that time, the Abortion Control Act. Casey defended the law all the way to the US Supreme Court, ultimately resulting in the Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision. Casey became a national pro-life hero after being denied a speaking role at the 1992 Democratic National Convention over his stance on abortion.

It may not fit into the media’s narrative but the political landscape in Pennsylvania has not changed on the right to life. Nationally, Gallup polling has shown in several of the past few years more Americans self-identify as “pro-life” than “pro-choice.”  It would be far-fetched to believe Pennsylvania, with such a long pro-life history, was completely bucking national trends on the issue.

The media has grossly misrepresented the Women’s Right to Know Act (House Bill 1077).  When a woman faces a decision as grave and irrevocable as abortion, she deserves to have the full range of information relating to her pregnancy and the development of her unborn child ahead of time.

Ultrasounds are a routine medical test and are already part of the standard process at abortion facilities. This legislation ensures a woman has the chance to view that ultrasound image and is provided with vital information relevant to the decision she is about to make.

According to Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation, ultrasounds are already being done as a routine part of their abortion procedures. Determining the type of ultrasound done prior to an abortion is left up to the doctor and the bill does not change that. The media has inaccurately claimed the bill mandates trans-vaginal ultrasounds. In fact, an abortion itself requires an ultrasound be performed and it is the doctor’s decision as to the particular method.

Contrary to the assertions of the media and abortion advocates, it is not the ultrasound that violates a woman, but the violent and invasive act of abortion. Abortion is traumatizing for women and always ends the life of an unborn child.

Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation Legislative Director Maria Vitale Gallagher said, “Women are strong. We deserve nothing less than to be fully informed about our pregnancies and the development of our unborn children. If the General Assembly does not pass this legislation it would be doing a huge disservice to women across the Commonwealth.”

Pro-life advocates are taking action in response to the recent Obama Administration mandate that compels religious institutions to cover contraception in their insurance plans. Pro-life advocates are sounding the alarm that if the federal government can mandate contraception coverage now, it could also mandate abortion or physician-assisted suicide coverage in the future.

The National Right to Life Committee, of which the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation is a state affiliate, rightly warned in 2009, that the “preventive health services” provision in the Obamacare would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to mandate coverage of any medical service, including abortion, simply by adding the service to a fluid list.

After widespread public outcry, President Obama thought he could re-brand the mandate by offering a so-called “accommodation.” However, pro-life and religious organizations saw right through it. National Right to Life reported that under the “accommodation,” certain insurers will be directly required to offer coverage of birth control methods without copayments, while forbidden to charge anything extra for this option.

The White House argued that the expanded use of birth control will save any health plan money, and therefore, nobody is really paying for it. The same twisted logic could be employed to justify the future abortion mandate: By ordering health plans to cover elective abortion, health plans would save the much higher costs of prenatal care, childbirth, and care for the baby.

The National Right to Life Committee, of which the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation is a state affiliate, released the following in response to the recent Obama Administration attacks on conscience rights. 

In response to criticism of its recent regulation requiring coverage of FDA-approved birth control drugs and devices, the White House today announced a purported “compromise” under which insurance plans will be required to provide the coverage in all plans, without charging anything additional for it. 

The Administration position is that insurers can be required to provide the coverage for “free” because birth control is less expensive than childbirth.  The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the national federation of right-to-life organizations, issued the following comment, any part of which may be attributed to NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson:

“President Obama today promulgated a scam that, if he is re-elected, will allow him to mandate that every health plan in America cover abortion on demand,” said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.  “The same twisted logic will be applied:  By ordering health plans to cover elective abortion, health plans would save the much higher costs of prenatal care, childbirth, and care for the baby — and under the Obama scam, if a procedure saves money, then that means that you’re not really paying for it when the government mandates it.”

By this form of doublespeak, one could say that the federal Medicaid program was not really “funding abortion” when it paid for 300,000 abortions a year (prior to adoption of the Hyde Amendment in 1976), because after all, every abortion that the government paid for also saved the government money.  

The Obama “you must pay, but nobody pays” scam might also be applied to other “cost-cutting” mandates.  Perhaps every health plan will be mandated to cover physician-assisted suicide, in states in which assisted suicide is legal.  After all, each suicide would result in a net savings to the plan, and under the Obama scam, that means it is really free and nobody really pays for it. 

Some journalists have wrongly reported that the ObamaCare law contains language prohibiting the federal government from mandating that health plans cover abortions.  This is erroneous.  The law prevents the Secretary of Health and Human Services from including abortion in a list of federally mandated “essential health benefits.”  But the birth control mandate is based on an entirely different provision of the law, which allows the Secretary to mandate that all health plans cover any service that the Secretary places on a list of “preventive” services.  There is nothing in the law to prevent the Secretary from placing abortion, assisted suicide, or any other additional services on the preventive services list, nor does the Secretary require the agreement of any other authority in the government to do so — except, perhaps, the president.

At his press conference today, President Obama suggested that the birth-control mandate was recommended by “the nation’s leading medical experts.”  The actual make up of the handpicked panel that made the birth control recommendations was reported by Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online here (http://nrlc.co/wlEyK4). 

NRLC supports enactment of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (S. 1467, H.R. 1179) (http://nrlc.co/zKiSSV), which would allow health providers to decline to provide abortions or other specific medical services on the basis of religious belief or moral convictions.

The Pennsylvania House Health Committee voted on Monday  to advance the Women’s Right to Know Act (House Bill 1077), which would offer a pregnant woman the chance to view  an ultrasound image of her unborn child and observe the baby’s heartbeat prior to an abortion. The bill passed with support from both Republicans and Democrats on the committee.

“This legislation will empower women by giving them a high-tech tool that will provide them with critical information about the development of the child in the womb.  House Bill 1077 represents a victory for women, and a victory for patient rights,” Gallagher added.  “Before a woman makes a decision as grave as abortion, she should have the chance to see what’s really going on in her pregnancy,” said Maria Vitale Gallagher, legislative director for the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation.

Pennsylvania House Bill 1077, entitled The Women’s Right to Know Act, is advancing in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The bill empowers women by offering truly informed consent before an abortion by providing the opportunity for a woman to view the ultrasound image of her child and observe the heartbeat.

“For too long, women have been pressured into making a decision on abortion without having all the facts,” said Maria Vitale Gallagher, legislative director of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation. “In order to make an informed decision, women must be given relevant information about the development of the child in the womb, and this legislation helps to provide that.”

Demonstrating its widespread appeal, the bill currently has 112 co-sponsors in the 203-member Pennsylvania House, already above the number needed for final passage. The co-sponsors go beyond party lines with Republicans and Democrats coming together in support of this common sense legislation to protect women.

The prime sponsor of the bill, State Representative Kathy Rapp (R-Warren) detailed in a video address what the Women’s Right to Know Act means to her personally and why she is proud to champion its passage in the House. View VIDEO: State Rep. Kathy Rapp on the Womens Right to Know Act

Nearly two dozen other states have passed similar legislation providing women the chance to view an ultrasound and these laws have withstood court challenges. The most recent example was in Texas, where a judge ruled a Texas ultrasound law was constitutional and could go into effect.

Ultrasound laws are proven to reduce the abortion rate. When mothers are truly informed with accurate medical information regarding their pregnancy, they are more likely to choose life for their unborn children. The most recent data from the Pennsylvania Department of Health showed a slight decline in the number of abortions in the state. In 2010, 36,778 abortions were performed in Pennsylvania. The Women’s Right to Know Act is an important step toward further reducing that number and ensuring the informed consent of every Pennsylvanian woman.

It is a tragedy that so many women are left with lifetimes of grief and regret after abortion. Many claim they were not truly informed about their pregnancy, the development of their unborn child and the consequences of abortion. A sad irony is that the pro-abortion movement which purports to be “pro-woman” rails against providing mothers with medically accurate information critical to making a grave and irrevocable decision.

“This legislation represents a victory for patients’ rights. Women have a right to all relevant information about their pregnancies. With this additional knowledge, women can be empowered to make informed choices for themselves and their families,” Gallagher added.