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.”






























