Texas: Judge stays sonogram law (calls it state-ordered speech)

Houston Chronicle ^ | August 30, 2011 | TODD ACKERMAN

[Cincinatus' Wife]

A federal judge in Austin on Tuesday ruled that key components of Texas' abortion-sonogram law are unconstitutional, stopping the state from enforcing it until a court rules on a legal challenge filed on behalf of several obstetrician-gynecologists.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks said...the law, which was to take effect Thursday, violates the free speech rights of doctors and patients. He ordered that the state cannot impose penalties against doctors who don't fulfill its requirements.

"The Act's onerous requirements will surely dissuade or prevent many competent doctors from performing abortions, making it significantly more difficult for pregnant women to obtain abortions," wrote Sparks, granting the temporary injunction. "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 Act's stated purposes."

Attorney General Greg Abbott immediately announced he has filed a motion to appeal the ruling.

...Gov. Rick Perry said he has full confidence in Abbott's efforts to appeal.

"Every life lost to abortion is a tragedy, and today's ruling is a great disappointment to all Texans who stand in defense of life," said Perry. "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-changing decision."

...To those women seeking an abortion, the law would have required doctors to display an ultrasound image of the fetus, make the heartbeat audible and describe the fetus' dimensions, cardiac activity and internal and external organs.

Sparks said all of those requirements violate First Amendment protections against state-ordered speech.

[snip]

The Center for Reproductive Rights in New York in June filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of "Texas Medical Providers Performing Abortion Services,"......

[Tempest]

Awesome now Perry can let the issue die and claim he tried.

More Kabuki theater.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

You know, you’re beginning to annoy me.

The lawsuit against the sonogram law was filed in June.

Everyone knew this was coming.

Doesn’t it always with Leftist, activist courts? If they can’t block it in the state legislatures or win at the polls, Democrats ball it up in the courts.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had the motion to appeal the judge’s order ready to go and immediately filed it.

Gov. Rick Perry didn’t have to say anything. He could have said something about the appeal having to work its way through the court....blah blah.

But he did not. Perry made a very strong statement.

You are spinning and twisting and not an honest broker about this.

I imagine you feel quite smug about putting that nasty bit of business in the first post.

Good for you. I hope every one coming to this thread will read the entire article and in the future, view everything you post with a wary eye and an sense of doubt.

[Tempest]

Rick Perry: shameless political thespian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we3mU0HBukY

[Tempest]

Alright I guess I should digress before the Perrazis blitzkreig me....

[Zakeet]

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks said...the law, which was to take effect Thursday, violates the free speech rights of doctors and patients.

Do you think the same judge would say ... ObamaCare ... violates the rights of doctors and patients by forcing them to purchase a product they do not want, interfere in the doctor/patient relationship, deny services that many need, and charge prices not set by the free market?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Nice.... You post an ABC report out of AUSTIN (hell, why not San Francisco or NYC outlet?) from 2009 when Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison (and Karl Rove and his team were pushing her primary challenge against Perry) — as evidence that Gov. Rick Perry does it all for show.

Like I said, viewers of this thread will make their own judgment.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Great point!

Pelosi-Reed and the Democratic Party rammed it through and Obama signed it.

Now the states are coming after them.

[COBOL2Java]

Like I said, viewers of this thread will make their own judgment.

Indeed. Thank you, CW for these informative posts.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

You’re very welcome.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Cincinatus' Wife.

"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 Act's stated purposes."

HTF would that be a possible result? I guess this is another continuation of the myth of the back-alley abortion.

[olezip]

...To those women seeking an abortion, the law would have required doctors to display an ultrasound image of the fetus, make the heartbeat audible and describe the fetus' dimensions, cardiac activity and internal and external organs.

It looks like the judge prefers to keep the women who murder their babies ignorant. Best they not be disturbed by knowledge of what they are killing. Best for the doctors not to lose potential income from the business of the murder of babies.

Keeping the population ignorant is consistent with Democrat policies and their disordered minds.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Animated billboards close to abortuaries could also make an impact.

How this is supposed to be different than the Surgeon General’s warnings on tobacco and alcohol, I am not at all sure.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

This is a disappointing result, of course, but not necessarily surprising. There have been a number of cases in recent years in which judges (state and federal) have struck down laws that require crisis pregnancy centers to have a sign specifying that they do not provide abortion services or referrals. These laws have been overturned for similar reasons, because they infringe on the free speech rights of the centers by forcing them to engage in particular speech (e.g., a sign). It’s not terribly surprising that a judge would look at these sonogram laws the same way, and rule that they, too, force the clinics to engage in particular speech.

The two situations are worlds apart morally and ethically, of course.

[ClearCase_guy]

Does the Miranda Decision force police officers to engage in particular speech? Is that a first amendment issue?

I guess keeping the public informed is a good idea only some of the time.

[netmilsmom]

So now, the doctors can skip the disclaimer that is given to patients about the risk of any procedure because it “violates the free speech rights of doctors and patients.”?

Am I reading this right?

[shield]

Perry Ping....

IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.

IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.

[Lady Lucky]

Wonder what this judge thinks of Truth In Lending laws?

[Oceander]

Funny for some posters (and I'm not directly addressing the OP here) how all issues, no matter how complicated can get boiled down to a simple yes/no binary dichotomy.

First off, I would point out in defense of the state's case that this is not a matter of violating anyone's First Amendment rights; as a licensed physician doctors can be told by the licensing state to disclose or to inform their patients about a lot of things those doctors might not otherwise wish to tell their patients about. The wellbeing and freedom of their patients trumps any residual free speech rights they might have under an otherwise legitimate, rational licensing regime.

Second, whether one agrees with abortion or not - and I take it that most folks here disagree with abortion (as do I, so don't start in on me) - the basic issue here is whether there is any rational basis for Texas' actions that relates to something other than dissuading women from having abortions, as well as whether, consistent with Supreme Court precedent on the matter of abortion, Texas' view that attempting to dissuade, but not prevent, women from having abortions is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

On that score, I would be inclined to speculate that Texas will probably prevail because abortion is itself a procedure fraught with potentially serious medical complications for a woman and also because there seems to be a rational basis for believing that the knowledge imparted by the sonogram and heartbeat is relevant to ensuring that a woman has all the information needed to make a fully informed decision about whether or not to have an abortion.

Then again, abortion is one of those areas where the usual rules frequently don't apply, on both sides of the issue.

[hocndoc]

Yes! Will someone tell me why it is logical to assume that “less-skilled providers will be willing to meet the “onerous” requirements that more-skilled providers won’t?