The bill was scheduled to take effect on September 1, 2011.
However, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) filed a class action lawsuit against the law and U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks granted a preliminary injunction. Judge Sparks believed the law was "unconstitutionally vague" and that it "violates the First Amendment by compelling physicians and patients to engage in government-mandated speech and expression."
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an appeal, resulting in the Fifth Circuit’s ruling on January 10, 2012.
In Appeals Court's decision, Chief Judge Edith H. Jones wrote:
The required disclosures of a sonogram, the fetal heartbeat, and their medical descriptions are the epitome of truthful, non-misleading information. The appellees failed to demonstrate constitutional flaws. The point of informed consent laws is to allow the patient to evaluate her condition and render her best decision under difficult circumstances. Denying her up-to-date medical information is more of an abuse to her ability to decide than providing the information.
Governor Perry issued a statement hailing the court’s decision:
Today's ruling is a victory for all who stand in defense of life. Every life lost to abortion is a tragedy, and this important sonogram legislation ensures that every Texas woman seeking an abortion has all the facts about the life she is carrying, and understands the devastating impact of such a life-ending decision. We will continue to fight any attempt to limit our state’s laws that value and protect the unborn.
The anti-life forces were clearly not happy.
Nancy Northup, President and CEO of CRR wrote in a statement following the Appeal Court’s decision:
This clears the way for the enforcement of an insulting and intrusive law whose sole purpose is to harass women and dissuade them from exercising their constitutionally protected reproductive rights. Until today, every court that has reviewed similarly intrusive laws has ruled the laws unconstitutional....
This law reflects the hostility of anti-choice lawmakers to women, their reproductive healthcare providers, and their constitutional rights. This law, and this decision, inserts government directly into a private decision that must be protected from the intrusion of political ideologues. Anyone concerned with the erosion of our constitutional rights should be profoundly concerned and disappointed by today's events.
Characterizing the Appeals Court's ruling as an "abhorrent precedent," the President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Cecile Richards, wrote in a press release:
Politicians forcing doctors to use an ultrasound for political — and not medical — reasons is the very definition of government intrusion. The ruling today means that Texas can force doctors to use ultrasounds to shame a woman in the exam room — or deny her care.
As much of a pro-life victory as this was, it wasn't for those children conceived during an act of rape or incest whose mothers terminate their lives.
The battle continues....
0 comments:
Post a Comment
The Motley Monk appreciates your comments. Please post them below: