Key parts of the so-called sonogram law passed by the Texas Legislature during the last session were struck down as unconstitutional by a US District Judge today in Austin. Early this summer the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a class action lawsuit against the new ultrasound requirements behalf of Texas medical providers performing abortions and their patients. The Houston Chronicle reports that US District Judge Sam Sparks ruled that the law violates doctors' and patients' free speech rights and said the state cannot impose penalties against doctors who fail to meet its requirements.In a press release the Center for Reproductive Rights said that “today’s ruling is a huge victory for women in Texas and a clear signal to the state legislature that it went too far when it passed this law. Politicians have no business telling doctors how to practice medicine or meddling in women’s private medical decisions.” Governor Rick Perry issued a statement saying the ruling was a “great disappointment to all Texans who stand in defense of life. 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. I have full confidence in Attorney General Abbott's efforts to appeal this decision as he defends the laws enacted by the Texas Legislature."
As the Los Angeles Times reported, anti-choice legislation flood the state legislatures this year, and Texas’ sonogram law was set to go into effect Thursday on September 1st. According to an article in the Texas Independent, requires women seeking abortions to undergo a sonogram at least 24 hours before the procedure (with the waiting period reduced to two hours for women who live more than 100 miles from an abortion provider). Doctors must also show and describe the images to the woman and play sounds of the fetal heartbeat. Women could only opt out of hearing the sonogram described by certifying in writing that they either underage, were pregnant as a result of sexual assault, or were carrying a fetus with a medical condition. The Washington Post reported that ruling also struck down a requirement that allows women to avoid seeing the sonogram images only if they sign a statement that they are pregnant because of sexual assault or incest. Sparks ruled, that the state cannot compel a woman to disclose such private information that she may not even wish to tell police.
The Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the law on eight grounds and based their request for a preliminary injunction on four: Equal Protection, subjecting pregnant women to unwanted speech, vagueness, and compelling speech by physicians and patients. Judge Spark’s ruling found that the law was unconstitutional based on vagueness and compelled speech.
The Judge rejected the Equal Protection challenge saying that “if the Texas Legislature wishes to prioritize an ideological agenda over the health and safety of women, the Equal Protection Clause does not prevent it from doing so under these circumstances.” Although in a footnote on that page the Judge wrote that “It is ironic that many of the same people who zealously defend the state’s righteous duty to become intimately involved in a woman’s decision to get an abortion are also positively scandalized at the government’s gross overreaching in the area of health care.”
In rejecting that the law subjects pregnant women to unwanted speech, Judge Sparks wrote that despite the logic of the plaintiff’s argument, “the State of Texas wishes to force a particular message upon a captive, and potentially unwilling, audience.” The Judge went on to write that there “are limits to the government’s power to impose whatever message it desires, on whomever it likes, under any circumstances it desires, those limits seem fairly undefined, at least as applied to this case.”
The Judge did rule that the law “contains three provisions that are, at least under some circumstances, unconstitutionally vague.” The Judge also ruled that the law violated the 1st Amendment because “compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity, and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen.”
Posts
7 comments:
Well, here I am offering what you euphemistically refer to in the post as "unwanted speech".
The unconstitutional nature of that phrase clearly speaks for itself.
My question is: How do you know your moral code is righteous?
You are EXCITED that an attempt to humanize that innocent little baby swimming in its mother's womb has been struck down by a judge, although you personally would never have considered murdering your own child - eagerly viewing the sonograms - and believe that abortions should be rare.
So, sometimes your sense of righteousness is used to condemn the liberty of free thought in others - eg. the campaign of loathing of Rick Perry based on your righteousness - and sometimes what's good for you, should be deprived to others.
How do you make those judgements? Popular opinion? Ouiji Board? Rock, Paper, Scissors?....God?
Edmund Burke wrote that unwanted kindness is the root of religious persecution, and I'm sure you will agree as you truly loathe my friendly comments.
But....and here's the kicker...how can I be religiously persecuting you if you are ambivalent about God?
weird, ain't it?
As much as you would like to make this ruling about abortion specifically - it was actually about the Constitutionality of something specific in the law. The government cannot mandate speech. Period.
As someone who claims to revere the Constitution you should celebrate this ruling, as it stops the government from mandating what a doctor can say to their patient. Whatever your position on reproductive rights, this ruling is about upholding the Constitution.
You are absolutely correct about government's inability to mandate speech as speech is a right endowed in man by God/Creator. The right of all men to speak freely is to be unabridged, unless of course fomenting riot and/or treason.
You are however incorrect in your appreciation of the Constitution as I again refer to what is euphemistically referred to as "unwanted speech", which is exactly that kind of speech our Founders wanted protected at all costs.
Only a totalitarian regime and its supporters considers certain speech as "unwanted speech."
The law gave a voice to the human being inside the womb. Therefore, this judge's ruling is clearly unconstitutional.
Further, the judge's ruling reveals the utter depravity of an educated (sic) man's personal philosophy that believes eugenics a necessary addition to the maintenance of civil (sic) society.
Apparently you didn't even bother reading the Judges decision or this blog, because the judge ruled that the "unwanted speech" argument was invalid:
"In rejecting that the law subjects pregnant women to unwanted speech, Judge Sparks wrote that despite the logic of the plaintiff’s argument, “the State of Texas wishes to force a particular message upon a captive, and potentially unwilling, audience.” The Judge went on to write that there “are limits to the government’s power to impose whatever message it desires, on whomever it likes, under any circumstances it desires, those limits seem fairly undefined, at least as applied to this case.”
He rejected that argument, but then supports it. I read correctly and you made my point once again. Calling a duck something other than a duck, isn't going to fly.
There is no right to not be offended and in this case the plaintive was offended by the picture of a human baby inside her womb. "Unwanted speech" indeed!
Further, the fact remains only totalitarians fear "unwanted speech".
To push the point even further, the judge dares to inform US that there “are limits to the government’s power to impose whatever message it desires, on whomever it likes, under any circumstances it desires . . .". This from a ideology that wants to control every aspect of human life? (!)
What is ObamaCare if not the absolute denial of the civil liberties of those in the health care field who will be told what, how, where, and how they will provide their service to the state for evolved human machines either deemed suitable for "modification" or extermination?
That, my friend, is the definition of ABSENCE of Liberty.
All wrapped up in this glowing light of phoney-do-gooderism - because they CARE more about you than you care about yourself....as they excuse themselves from such "goodness". If you believe they didn't, then you are hopelessly naive in regards to human nature.
I don't know if you are ready for this fact, but Leftist/Liberals/Communists/Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists/Democratic Party Leadership lie. Like their Pharisee kin, they enforce laws on others, but excuse themselves.
Every totalitarian regime preaches "equality" and "the people" while the people get poorer or sent to prison while the leaders amass wealth and power. The creative, productive, entrepreneurial, and diverse thinking people disappear.
Therefore, my voice - the suffering dissident - is "deemed" a threat to their power.....eerrrr "the nation." I always joked to you that I was the most dangerous woman in town, but you (mistakenly) thought I was an idiot. I mean, really....risking her own career to defend a 15 year old boy...what a Loser!
See what I mean, these Leftist/Liberal earth angels of light are as phoney as the Obama Jobs Package IV....or Jefferson doing everything he could to free slaves...except to actually free his own slaves! So, that all men created equal business was just "high-minded blather" to him, while the rest of us took his noble words at face value.
Because, you see in the mind of a Liberal/Leftist/Communist/Democratic Party Hack...there is always a new way to "interpret" the law as the judge in this post opines, "those limits seem fairly undefined".
One other thought, and I want this to be clear, some Republicans lie too. Human nature is hopelessly depraved and all men are tempted by power, glory, and kingdom.
It is to those humble men/women that appreciate the depths of their own depravity and cry out to God for a Redeemer that I look to for elected representation. No man is perfect, but those that think about rightly about the holiness of YWYH are the most honorable and trustworthy among us.
This will end phoney-do-gooderism and hypocritical posturing, simply thinking rightly about God. We shall know them by the fruits of their deeds - good fruit feeds and nourishes the people so they live in safety and peace - bad fruit - destroys and starves so the people live in constant turmoil, fear, and unrest.
Only the truly wicked would fear such leaders, and rightfully so. But, the most vulnerable of society; the widow, the orphan, and afflicted would enjoy complete safety and rest.
Denial of the reality of human nature is the most dire threat to our Liberty. The light of Liberty's lamp is a light to all the world - causing despots to tremble and the humble and powerless a reason to cheer in exultation.
It is free - all we have to do is believe it and defend it - and the world is turned upside down.
Now, that's a real utopia... sigh
What's the down side?
Post a Comment