Trust Who with the Choice?

I recently dropped into the "Real Choice" blog; of interest, an article about NARAL's "trust women" (shouldn't that be spelled with an "i" or "y"?) campaign.

Aside from the very fact that abortion is proof positive that some women can't be trusted, at least not with the lives of their unborn children in times of stress, is NARAL's real agenda about trusting women?

NARAL doesn't trust women at all...Who they really are about trusting is abortionists.

I'm reminded somewhat of the speech given at the University of Texas by NARAL president Nancy Keenan. She essentially said that the "choice" should be up to "the woman, her family, her doctor, and her God." Yet, when you follow the actual practices of these people, you come to realize that they really mean "the choice should be up to her abortionist and anyone else pushing her to get an abortion."

"The choice should be up to the woman." Yet, there is no outcry about the fact that the single largest demographic in the country which favors abortion is young unwed men, and that many a woman is brought to the "clinic" against her own desire of even will. There is, moreover, no outcry from NARAL about the fact that in countries such as China and India, women aren't given the choice at all; after the first child, their choices for pregnancy are "abort, or else." Finally, there is an utter lack of support for any initiative which might encourage the woman to make an informed decision (for example, ultrasound laws or informed consent laws with waiting periods of any time, no matter how short), let alone for organizations such as the various crisis pregnancy centers, "mothering houses," and other resources for women who don't want the abortions.

"The choice should be up to her family." Who, specifically, does this include? Apparently not the [underaged] girl's parents (let alone those of an adult woman), since NARAL and company oppose parental notification laws (let alone parental consent). They have fought such laws tooth-and-nail, even when those laws make provisions for the possbibilities of abusive parents or other situations in which the woman's safety could be endangered.

"The choice should be up to the girl's doctor." Yet these folks also oppose conscience clauses which would allow doctors (and pharmacists) to opt out of being complicit in abortion. They also oppose any option which involves crisis pregnancy centers, to which many a good doctor or pharmacist might refer the woman in question. And then there is the push to begin making it mandatory for hospitals, even private 9read: Catholic) hospitals to either provide abortions or allow and abortion provider to set-up his mill nearby; tell me that's leaving some choice up to the doctors.

"The choice should be up to the woman's God." This from a group whose their rallying cry is often "Keep your rosaries of my *******." The oppose any statement by any religion (or religious leader) opposing abortion, whether it's an official statement, a voter's guide, a sermon or homily, a prayer vigil, or even a private counseling session in which the woman is told to "trust that God knows what He is doing in bringing this child to the world." Who, exactly, is the God to whom she was referring? Moloch? Quetzalcoatl? Obama?