Who's Pro-Choice Now?

Today's New York Times has a must-read article on pro-life groups' emerging reliance on sonogram and ultrasound technology as part of their efforts to persuade pregnant women not to have abortions.  The article profiles a woman who decided to have her baby after hearing the heartbeat.  Even though the woman had willingly chosen to visit a crisis pregnancy center (after being informed that the center did not perform abortions), not everyone approves of such "pressure tactics":

Groups that favor abortion rights, however, see the technique as a pressure tactic. Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, said that while ultrasounds were legitimate medical care for pregnant women, "they shouldn't be misused to badger or coerce women by these so-called crisis pregnancy centers."

"With or without ultrasound," Ms. Keenan said, "women understand the moral dimensions of their choices."

Apparently Naral Pro-Choice America opposes the use of medical technology to give pregnant women more information about what's happening inside their bodies before they decide to have an abortion.  So in Naral's world, medical technology is good, as long as it leads to more efficient abortions, and providing maximum information to pregnant women is good, as long as the information pertains to the availability of abortion. 

How exactly can this group be considered "pro-choice?"

Rob