The front page article of the Jan. 18 issue of The Daily Collegian, "Pro-choice advocates expect strict abortion laws to take effect," is abundantly filled with half-truths and misstatements of fact about the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act.

The third sentence states, "The act requires women to receive counseling about alternatives and then wait 24 hours before having an abortion." A section of the act is a consumer-protection clause requiring abortion clinic workers to orally inform a pregnant woman that literature concerning alternatives to abortion, and medical complications that may occur, is available.

Options such as carrying the child to term and referral to adoption agencies are discussed in the pamphlets as well as possible medical assistant benefits that may be available for prenatal childbirth and neonatal care.

Objective and medically accurate information concerning how the abortion is performed, the physical development of the unborn child, risks of childbirth and the physical complications that may arise after an abortion, is provided to the pregnant woman. The objective and medically accurate information would be provided by the Department of Health.

Shouldn't the government make readily available to anyone the knowledge of any possible and medically-known consequences of any surgical procedure? Such is the reasoning behind the 1989 informed consent provision of PACA.

The National Organization for Women and other "pro-choice" women's-rights groups should celebrate this legislation. One needs information to make a choice, and denial of such medically accurate information to pregnant women is a pro-abortion action.

The article continues: "It also requires women under 18 years old to get their parents' permission before getting an abortion." In reality, the 1988 Abortion Control Act only requires women under 18 years old and who are living at home to get the permission of only one parent, or a court bypass.

Polls consistently show that parental consent and information consent laws are overwhelmingly approved by the populace, including Pennsylvanians. Polls from across the United States show parental notice laws reduce the instances of teen pregnancies, teen abortion rates and/or teen birth rates. NOW is aware of this and will try to discredit the worthiness of any poll saying parental consent has positive effects on society.

Parental consent is required before all other nonemergency surgical procedures besides abortion. Surely, parents have a right to know of a medical decision that could affect their daughter the rest of her life.

Furthermore, is Ms. Tosti-Vasey attempting to raise women's fears when she speaks of obtaining court bypasses? I offer Section 3206.F.1 of the 1989 Abortion Control Act provision dealing with court proceedings of parental consent which explicitly says the court of common pleas shall not fail to rule within three working days of the application.

Later, it says the 24-hour waiting period will be a delay and inconvenience women who must travel long distances to an abortion clinic. Also, "because the closest clinic is in Harrisburg . . . women will have to go for counseling one day and come back the next day for the abortion." By giving the impression that the abortion will be an exhaustive and dragged-out process, is this statement another attempt to raise women's fears?

In reality, the act allows for a pregnant woman to go to the doctor who is performing the abortion or a referring physician for the initial visit. If she decides to continue with the abortion, after having 24 hours to read literature and consider her options, she can then travel to the abortion clinic.

The U.S. Supreme Court decisions Roe v. Wade (and its companion piece, Doe v. Bolton) legalized abortion for the full nine months of pregnancy, any "inconvenience" is inconsequential.

Pro-life advocates support legislation that grants totally informed consent, which in turn empowers women to make the best choice for themselves. But how can abortion advocates say they care about women when they stifle, via judicial delays, legislation that provides objective and medically accurate information to pregnant women, while at the same time claiming to be "pro-choice" and "pro-woman"?