Ceci Connolly has a column in today's Washington Post entitled "Access to Abortion Pared at State Level." Here's the first paragraph:

This year's state legislative season draws to a close having produced a near-record number of laws imposing new restrictions on a woman's access to abortion or contraception.

So, what are some of these laws? It's enlightening to see which laws are considered "restrictions" on abortion or contraception.

West Virginia and Florida approved legislation recognizing a pre-viable fetus, or embryo, as an independent victim of homicide

Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) has signed legislation that makes a "viable fetus" a distinct victim of a crime such as murder or manslaughter

And these laws restrict abortion how?

Missouri, for example, has set aside $1 million to encourage low-income pregnant women to carry a pregnancy to full term and potentially give the infant up for adoption

Again, how does helping women who don't want abortions put restrictions on those who do?

Oklahoma, Democratic Gov. Brad Henry signed a law in May that requires parental notification for minors, deems a fetus a "victim" under assault laws and mandates that abortion providers give specific counseling relating to the developmental stage of a fetus and a list of groups that support women who choose to carry a pregnancy to full term.

These all seem like reasonable policies to me. Certainly, it is not too much to ask women to know something about a fetus before she decides to have it removed surgically. No other medical procedure is performed without extensively educating the patient about what to expect. Why is abortion different? Why shouldn't women have all the facts prior to making her choice? And finally, how mean-spirited would you have to be to demand that a list of support groups for women whose choice in not to have an abortion shouldn't be afforded to them.

It seems to me that people opposing these measures are pro-choice only as long as that choice is abortion every time.