Posted on 12/09/2019 8:51:59 AM PST by Morgana
The Supreme Court has upheld a Kentucky law slowing women a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn baby before having an abortion. Ultrasounds are generally done before abortionist to determine the age of the baby prior to the abortion, but abortion clinics normally don’t let women see their baby because they may change their mind after seeing their child.
The nation’s highest court declined to take up a challenge to the law from abortion activists. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Kentucky’s only abortion clinic, EMW Women’s Surgical Center, had asked the courts to strike it down.
In early 2017 the Kentucky legislature passed the bill and U.S. District Court Judge David Hale struck it down shortly thereafter. Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin appealed Judge Hale’s ruling.
In gutting the ultrasound law, which passed overwhelmingly, Judge Hale wrote, “The court recognizes that states have substantial interests in protecting fetal life and ensuring the psychological well-being and informed decision-making of pregnant women,” but added, “However, HB 2 does not advance those interests and impermissibly interferes with physicians’ First Amendment rights.”
But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and refused to have the entire court reconsider a ruling by a three-judge panel that upheld the law.
Earlier this year, judges, from the 6th Circuit, ruled 2-1 that the law did not violate a doctor’s First Amendment rights to free speech, writing that the information gleaned from an ultrasound was “pertinent” to a woman’s decision-making.
“The information conveyed by an ultrasound image, its description, and the audible beating fetal heart gives a patient greater knowledge of the unborn life inside her,” wrote John Bush, a nominee of President Trump. “This also inherently provides the patient with more knowledge about the effect of an abortion procedure: it shows her what, or whom, she is consenting to terminate.”
According to the Associated Press, attorneys from the ACLU, maintained that HB 2 forces abortionists to “deliver ‘ideological’ messages to their patients, even when it’s against a patient’s wishes,” a violating of the abortionist’s’ First Amendment rights.
By contrast, Chad Meredith, an attorney for the state of Kentucky,
said the message isn’t ideological but instead delivers “pure scientific facts” relevant to an abortion procedure. He noted that the lone abortion clinic in Kentucky — EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville — routinely performs ultrasounds before doing abortions.
“All that House Bill 2 requires them to do is to turn the monitor around, show it to the patient and say ‘here is what this depicts,’” he told the court based on an audio recording. “This adds absolutely no more than five minutes to the procedure. There’s nothing unreasonable about this.”
The law would require abortion center staff to display the ultrasound image for the woman and describe the dimensions of her unborn baby and the presence of internal organs, if seen, according to the Associated Press. The bill includes fines of up to $100,000 for the first offense and $250,000 for subsequent offenses if abortion doctors violate the law by failing to give women the opportunity to see the ultrasound of their unborn child, the report states.
During consideration of the bill, state Sen. Whitney Westerfield, R-Hopkinsville, who sponsored the bill, explained why the measure was so important. He said a friend of his shared her abortion story with him and told him how an abortion clinic nurse refused to let her see her unborn child on the ultrasound screen.
“She regrets to this day not being able to see it —knowing now, feeling certain, that had she been able to see it, had she been allowed to see it — she wouldn’t have made the decision that she did,” Westerfield said. “Regardless of everyone’s position on abortion in this chamber, I think we can all agree that fewer is better.”
In attempt to mock the ultrasound bill, a Kentucky Democratic representative also introduced a bill to require men to swear on the Bible to be faithful to their wives before receiving erectile dysfunction prescriptions.
Remember, the right to choose involves a woman’s body, and is a purely private decision.
That’s why according to the abortionists, the government must pay for it and the woman can’t see an ultrasound of the area before the abortion.
and 1 + 1 = sqrt(-1 * pi)
Praise God for the SCOTUS upholding ultrasounds as this simple step to opening eyes to what abortion is
I’ve also seen over the last 20 years teaching Confirmation to teens that ultra sounds of the baby in womb has persuaded more of them to say “that’s a baby” then any instruction I can give them.
Then how will they sell the parts, if the fickle b@tch goes and decides to keep it.
Letting? How about making it mandatory?
There is a mobile rescue clinic that allows women to hear the baby’s heartbeat before they get an abortion. When they hear it, many change their mind.
I’m glad this was done while Bevin was still governor.
There is no way Beshear would have appealed it. He’s another baby killer. In addition to being corrupt.
I am so grateful that we elected an ethical, conservative AG. He will limit some of the corrupt crap that would have occurred with Stumbo as AG covering Beshear’s butt.
That case was reversed on appeal as well.
I’m sure the great “CATHOLIC” Nancy Pelosi will be ecstatic over this news. /s
So, Planned Parenthood is against full disclosure of information to the woman?
As I've said before, I'm a long way from an absolutist anti-abortion fanatic myself, but I approve of measures like this. In the near future, it may be possible to go further by sampling the DNA of the fetus and quickly computing utterly lifelike videos of how the yet-to-be-born child will look at the age of six months, one year, five years, and so forth. In a dystopian story I once read — or near-utopian, depending on your view — women who had had abortions were forced to watch just that sort of video once a month for twenty or thirty years after the abortion. This hypothetical society was part of a "grand compromise" between anti-abortion forces and pro-choice agitators. It's an interesting notion even if it technically tramples all over the First Amendment.
Letting? How about making it mandatory?
The SCOTUS generally requires four votes to grant a Petition of Certiorari to hear a case. There are four liberals on the bench and so, at least one of them must have declined the petition -- probably out of concern that if the SCOTUS did take the case, the conservative majority would use the case as an opportunity to weaken abortion rights.
Let’s see.
What I meant by “mandatory” is simple.
If a Woman CHOOSES to kill her Unborn Child, the Ultrasound is just part of the Procedure and is disclosed to her up front.
If the Woman CHOOSES to shut her eyes and plug her Ears during the Ultrasound, she can do that. It wouldn’t be a Clockwork Orange thing.
“A friend of mine works for an organization that offers counseling and ultra sound pictures of your baby if you’re considering an abortion.
Literally 70% of these women decide against abortion when allowed to see the xray. PP is waaaay against this practice for just that reason.”
...UPDATE. It’s 80%. Just talked to my friend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.