[Tempest]

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

More Kabuki theater.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[GeronL]

Does this mean doctors don’t have to inform patients of the risk of an operation? Does this mean that we don’t need warning labels on prescription pills any more?

[TheOldLady]

You’d have to be Reed Richards to stretch as far as that judge to make that ruling.

God bless Greg Abbott and Rick Perry. Prayers that their challenge to the ruling succeeds.

Women who have abortions eventually realize the enormity of their sin, and those who are moral and good suffer greatly in their penance.

Once a woman has had an abortion, she can never again say, “At least I never killed anyone,” when discussing Bill Clinton.

The plaintiff, Jane Roe, in Roe v. Wade found out all about these issues when she matured.

Abortion: spiritual death for the mother as well as literal death for the baby.

[BlueLancer]

BTTT

[TribalPrincess2U]

Thank you CW for your tireless effort to keep things straight on Perry—our not as perfect as some want but a damn sight better then the others running.

Go Perry!

[Tribune7]

So all those requirements to put warnings on cigarette packages and list ingredients on food packages are now void in Texas?

The biggest problem this country faces really is arrogant -- and extremely stupid -- judges.

[hocndoc]

I would appreciate any help from our FR lawyers in telling me where I’m wrong in my attempts at evaluating the ruling and, especially the order:
Part 1 http://wingright.org/2011/08/30/critique-of-judge-sam-sparks-texas-ultrasound-opinion/

Part 2 http://wingright.org/2011/08/31/critique-of-judge-sam-sparks%e2%80%99-opinion-on-texas-ultrasound-law-part-2/

There’s also the post titled, “Doing the work skilled providers won’t” http://wingright.org/2011/08/31/doing-the-work-skilled-providers-wont/ ( should have said “skilled abortionists.”)

[casinva]

I am thankful Greg Abbott and Governor Perry are working hard as a team on this, to keep sonograms as a part of a woman’s pregnancy experience, and I will be praying for them as they work through all they need to do.

I am friends with a director of one of the Texas crisis counseling centers, a private, Christian center that is obviously pro-life. She has said they put a lot of emphasis on having the sonograms done and that it not only helps with any possible medical issues but has also consistently brought reality to the soon-to-be mothers. The little mothers, well and I guess older ones too, can see that little precious baby inside their bodies, and my friend who is the director says it DOES make a difference.

What is more amazing to me though is what she was saying about the sonograms and the parents of the girls who accompany their daughters to the sonogram (something the clinic requires of minor children as a part of receiving services from them).

She says that even though some parents come in with their daughters with a strong desire to get this part of the medical care and counseling over with, some of those with plans to do what they need to do to “get rid of the baby through whatever means including going somewhere else for an abortion” (they also get referrals through schools so not all going there are Christians or pro-life at that time) that when the parents of these young girls see these sonograms, the reality of a real life there hits them as well.

After their sonogram experience, many of those parents, I’m told, are there to support their daughters through birth and adoption while others have committed themselves to helping their daughters raise their grandchildren and to helping their daughters get through life. It is amazing.

That result of seeing LIFE is probably why this policy is being attacked. The left wants to hide information, not give it, and that includes the kind of information that comes with a sonogram.

I am saddened to hear this honorable medical measure is being attacked by those who want to promote abortions, but I know our officials here in Texas will keep working to do all they can to protect the lives of these sweet children inside their mommy’s womb and ALSO their mommies and grandparents.

[Arrowhead1952]

"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,'

"Forcing Americans 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 the individual."

Say judge, will you make that statement on 0 bummer care? You started it, now finish 0 bummer care.

[2harddrive]

This “judge” has an inferior mind. This requirement is no different than the full disclosure requirements existing when you buy securities, or get a mortgage for your home. It is a case of fully informing the consumer. OVERRULED!