HuffPo: Sonogram ‘Changes Lives’ for Gay Parents but is ‘Coercion’ for Abortive Mothers
Sonograms have the ability to “change lives,” according to The Huffington Post. Apparently, they also can change agendas.
In a post Sunday by Jon Summers at HuffPo Gay Voices, Summers shared the joy of seeing his adopted son’s face on the sonogram of the 17-year-old girl who had decided to give her child to Summers and his fellow gay partner.
In a piece entitled, “How this sonogram changed our life,” he described how the picture on the sonogram “taken months before we met ... will always mean the most … It was at that moment when I first said to myself, ‘That's my son.’”
It’s strange for HuffPo to celebrate sonograms in this instance, but be so vehemently against them in cases of abortion.
In 2011, the site repeatedly expressed outrage over the proposed pre-abortion mandatory sonogram laws in Texas, and similar measures in four other states, calling such measures “invasive” and “coercion.” HuffPo writer Anu Kumar staunchly opposed any kind of law, like sonograms, that would give more information to the woman who was going to have an abortion.
Citing the World Health Organization’s abortion guidelines, Kumar dismissed sonograms as “not necessary” and rejectsed counseling that went along with sonograms as advancing lies like, “the ability of a fetus to feel pain,” and the notion that abortion has health consequences on the mother. Another Huff Po writer Charli James wrote: “Just as with required counseling, waiting periods and Virginia's mandatory ultrasound bill signed earlier this year, disguising anti-choice bills under a veil of health concerns is an underhanded way to restrict a woman's right to choose.”
Another classic HuffPo double standard.
What HuffPo fails to state outright, is that in twisted pro-abortion logic, a fetus is only a human being if the mother wants it to be. Without seeing that obviously human and moving being inside her, a pregnant mother is kept from seeing what the pro-abortion side is hiding. Namely, that their logic is laughable and the idea that one person has the right to decide whether or not someone else gets to live is a travesty.
