"Pro-choice" for some, but not for all
2 December 2004 - Los Angeles Times

I'm no fan of the way Congress routinely uses "riders" to get things passed, but doesn't the pro-abortion lobby recognize its duplicity in advocating "choice" for pregnant mothers while railing against a legislative provision that gives more choice to doctors, hospitals and insurers?

If, as abortion proponents claim, abortion is just a routine medical procedure, then what's the harm in letting a doctor or hospital decide for themselves what procedures they will to perform, or letting insurers decide for themselves what procedures they will cover? Do we allow doctors to decide whether or not they perform mole removal, or do we force them and the insurers they accept to offer that service? If abortions are in such demand as proponents perceive, they shouldn't worry about some doctors offering that service and some not.

If the abortion lobby truly wants "choice", it should advocate choice and freedom for all, not just their subset of the population at the expense of others.