The New York Times is reporting that
....[L]ast month’s Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act marked a milestone for a different argument advanced by anti-abortion leaders, one they are increasingly making in state legislatures around the country. They say that abortion, as a rule, is not in the best interest of the woman; that women are often misled or ill-informed about its risks to their own physical or emotional health; and that the interests of the pregnant woman and the fetus are, in fact, the same.
As usual, however, the pro-life movement continues to abort intellectual honesty:
"Informed consent is really a misleading way to characterize it," said Roger Evans, senior director of public policy litigation and law for Planned Parenthood. "To me, what we’ll see is an increasing attempt to push a state’s ideology into a doctor-patient relationship, to force doctors to communicate more and more of the state’s viewpoint."
Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, said, "It’s motivated by politics, not by science, not by medical care, and not for the purposes of compassion."
The Guttmacher Institute, a research group and an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, said recently that "a considerable body of credible evidence" over 30 years contradicted the notion that legal abortion posed long-term dangers to women’s health, physically or mentally.