Posted on 08/30/2011 6:23:15 PM PDT by Hawk720
If R. v. W. isn’t found to be gross misconduct, this ruling should be. Sparks can’t resist a revealing his prejudice and mocking the legislature.
Citing Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (1992), a US Supreme Court ruling on abortion limitations and Equal Protection, Sparks admits,
This legitimate interest obviously justifies singling out abortion providers and the patients thereof, because they pose a serious potential risk to the life of the fetus that may become a child.’
However, he goes on to admit his prior bias:
“The Court has grave doubts about the wisdom of the Act, but that is no legal basis for invalidating it. The Acts onerous requirements will surely dissuade or prevent many competent doctors from performing abortions, making it significantly more difficult for pregnant women to
obtain abortions. Forcing pregnant women to receive medical treatment from less-skilled providers certainly seems to be at odds with protecting the physical and psychological health and well-being of pregnant women, one of the Acts stated purposes. H.B. 15, Sec. 12(1). However, rational basis review requires this Court to accept even tenuous rationales for the advancement of a legitimate
government interest.
In short, if the Texas Legislature wishes to prioritize an ideological agenda (2) over the health and safety of women, the Equal Protection Clause does not prevent it from doing so under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Court must reject Plaintiffs Equal Protection arguments. (p. 20/55)
That footnote (2) ?
“2 It is ironic that many of the same people who zealously defend the states righteous duty to become intimately involved in a womans decision to get an abortion are also positively scandalized at the governments gross overreaching in the area of health care.”
So the sonogram will still be performed, but the dr. will just not be able to point out the image of the baby?
As far as I can figure it, the judge didn’t like the penalties and engaged in a bit of ideology by claiming that the law “advances an ideological agenda,” by requiring the abortionist to describe any cardiac activity or the presence of limbs. How can a doctor “ideologically disagree” with the facts of these findings, if they are on the sonogram?
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.