If even a pro-choicer believes that seeing the picture of a fetus is in and of itself a pro-life argument (which, of course, it is), then wow.

It seems to me that your reasons have changed. You said the SD law was bad because the content of the message was inaccurate. There is nothing inaccurate about a picture, unless it has been doctored. Now you're saying the real problem is that the information in the picture is not medically relevant. And of course that's true enough: the purpose of the picture would not be to convey medical information per se. It would be to convey more general information about a fetus in the hopes that it would lead to better decision-making on the moral question. But I don't see what the big problem is there. Do you believe it's unconstitutional or just a bad legislative idea? And why?

It's not clear to me when you believe the government has a right to do this. You gave a long list of examples, but I have others. Warnings on cigarettes - is that okay? Travel warnings about not visiting countries that the government believes are dangerous? Or, what about this. Spanking is legal, but some people say that it's good for kids and some say it's bad. If the government made pediatricians pass out information discouraging the practice when kids get their first vaccines, would that be a tresspass on liberty?