Despite opposition from both far ends of the spectrum, we believe, as Bill Clinton said in 1996, that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."

Some N.C. legislators apparently don't. They're pushing changes to the law that would codify bullying tactics designed to intimidate women into changing their minds about having abortions. One change, in a supreme and sad irony, would actually increase the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions.

The N.C. House passed a budget this month that prohibits state grants, or federal grants that pass through the state, from going to the nonprofit Planned Parenthood. That money is used not for abortions but for teen pregnancy prevention, family planning and other women's health programs. If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions, cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood is exactly the wrong way to go about it. Without the education, planning and contraception provided by Planned Parenthood, unwanted pregnancies and resulting abortions would go up, not down. The move, incidentally, would cost the state millions to cover poor women's health care in emergency rooms and, in many instances, to pay for their children's care.

The House could vote this week to erect a number of other obstacles to abortion. The so-called Woman's Right to Know Act, co-sponsored by Mecklenburg Republican Rep. Ruth Samuelson, orders doctors and women to go through a battery of requirements, well beyond what is required for many other medical procedures.

The bill would impose a 24-hour waiting period. This by itself seems harmless enough. It's what goes on before and during those 24 hours that's an insult to women. The politicians spell out details of talks doctors would have to have with patients. You would think doctors would know better what those conversations should look like. But that approach wouldn't allow for the preaching legislators seek.

The legislation says no abortion shall be performed without the woman's "voluntary and informed consent." The bill's drafters then spell out no fewer than 21 things that must happen for the woman to be considered informed.

She must be told of the medical risks, including "any adverse psychological effects associated with the abortion." She must be told of nearby hospitals that provide ob/gyn care. She must be told that benefits may be available for care before, during and after childbirth. And that the father has to help pay to support the child, if she were to deliver it. And that she doesn't have to do this, because she could keep the child or put it up for adoption. And that she can visit agencies that offer alternatives to abortion. And written materials must be available that spell out in great detail, with pictures, the "anatomical and physiological characteristics" of the fetus at two-week increments, all the way to full term. And she has to undergo an ultrasound that depicts the fetus, with the doctor detailing its dimensions and offering a chance to hear the heartbeat. Don't worry, though: The bill says she can avert her eyes or cover her ears.

This is designed to "inform" the woman? Rather, it appears it's designed to torment her and shame her into changing her mind. It suggests women are unable to decide, with their doctor, what to do with their reproductive health. And that politicians know better.

If the agenda is to inform women, why did the House Transportation Committee back a "Choose Life" specialty license plate but forbid a "Trust Women, Respect Choice" plate?

Because it's not about helping women. It's about pushing an ideological agenda that disrespects them.