water ripple: I think you misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear enough, or something. Here's a redo:
Sonograms are very important, as you forcefully argue. However, their importance occurs at a certain juncture in a pregnancy: it's important when the woman decides she wants to keep the baby, and it is intended to make sure that a little 'un is doing well.
The proposal at issue here, though, isn't intended for those purposes. Rather, they want to buy lots and lots of sonograms for pregnancy crisis centers, not for legitimate and valuable medical purposes like in your case, but solely to achieve political objectives. Since these things aren't cheap, and aren't necessary at that juncture in the pregnancy (since the woman either a) doesn't plan on keeping it, or b) isn't sure whether to keep it) it amounts to wasting lots and lots of money that could better be spent on other things (like, say, prenatal care for people that have been in your shoes).
I'm pretty skeptical of the 'show a woman a picture of a fetus' method - i think we should encourage people to be more rational and less emotional with decisions, rather than the other way around - but if it's decided that that's an acceptable method of achieving certain policy goals, there are way, way cheaper methods of doing it, like just putting up posters of other sonograms or something.