There was a piece this morning on NPR about not allowing the GE 4-D ultrasound to be used for prolife purposes.
BTW, anyone know if any of the prolife groups are organizing a protest of Sunday’s “March for Women’s Lies”

My Lord and my God. Is there anything that doesn’t fly on TV over there? Something for even which the BBC would say “No thanks”?

Al, more please? What does that mean? They’re not selling the machines to pregnancy centers? Not allowing the images to be used in prolife material? I’d like to hear more.

Both I think. There’s a group of physicians attempting to circumscribe the uses to which 4-D ultrasound can be used. here’s the info:
Prenatal Ultrasound Portraits Draw Criticism
»
from Morning Edition, Tuesday , April 20, 2004
Health officials are concerned about the new popularity of using ultrasound technology for prenatal portraits. The Food and Drug Administration warns that this non-medical use is both inappropriate and potentially harmful to fetal development. NPR’s Debbie Elliott reports.
There were studio’s providing for profit photography and these guys want to use it exclusively for diagnostic application. Of course, if you’ve ever worked in a Crisis Pregnancy Center, you know that leaves out Crisis pregnancy centers, as a pro-life commentator in the story observed.

The Morning Edition segment can be heard here, towards the bottom of the page.
I’m listening to it now….the gist is that ultrasounds outside the purview of doctor-patient visits are risky and should be limited. This would include ultrasounds performed for “entertainment” purposes (such as the places popping up here and there offering 4D ultrasounds to expectant mothers) or, according to one person, “psycho-social” purposes, ie., crisis centers using ultrasound to persuade pregnant women not to abort.

So if someone uses an ultrasound image to save a child from death at the hands of an abortionest, that can be harmful to the child? Am I missing something here?

For these “doctors” does the Scripture well apply:
Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter…. [Isa. V.20]
Well do the medical mercenaries know that the ultrasound has been an astounding abortion-dissuasion tool. Likewise, to return to the subject actually blogged here, Ms. Black’s less-than-honest look at the abortion procedure involves a few convenient shortcuts, which are discovered by a writer for the Sunday Herald in this article.
I myself blogged about this here.

Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for yourselves and for your children, for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.’

Al- Feminists for life put out a press release yesterday on that march..and why they are not participating.

Did anyone notice that just below the Herald article is a link for seafood recipes? Talk about repulsive.

I’m not sure I’d assume malice aforethought on this one. Ultrasound is a pretty powerful tool, and it could turn out that too much is not good for a developing baby. Maybe if God had intended for fetal development to be viewable, He’d have give the belly button an additional function I wouldn’t consider Crisis Pregnancy use frivolous, but I’d personally be a bit more concerned about *frequent* ultrasounds for the family photo album.

But the known risks of an amnio are substantially greater than the risks of an ultrasound, yet those are foisted upon any woman over the age of 35. I don’t think that concern for the baby is the issue here. On top of that, it is routine in many parts of Europe to do an ultrasound at EVERY doctor visit during your pregnancy. Has been for years. The babies seem fine.