Judges: Texas Can Enforce Sonogram Law Now

[marmar]

A panel of federal appellate judges has authorized Texas officials to enforce a controversial abortion sonogram law while its constitutionality is being challenged in court.

In an opinion, the judges said the measure's opponents "failed to demonstrate constitutional flaws" in the measure, which they said was "fatal" to their effort to prevent it from taking effect.

The abortion sonogram law, which lawmakers passed last legislative session, requires doctors to perform sonograms and describe what they see, including the size of the fetus and the length of its limbs. The measure has been in court almost since it passed, with opponents arguing it violates doctors' First Amendment rights by forcing them to disclose information that isn't medically necessary and that the woman may not want to hear.

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Austin District Judge Sam Sparks' temporary order this morning, preventing the sonogram measure from taking effect. ..............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legislature/2011-abortion-sonogram-bill/judges-texas-can-enforce-sonogram-law-now/

[xchrom]

1. legally forced procedure the patient doesn't want. oy. nt

[mrs_p]

2. and probably has to pay for. ugh.

[southernyankeebelle]

3. Why the hell don't they just shoot the woman. Evidently they won't be happy until she is dead.

[Solly Mack]

4. Exactly. They are forcing a woman to have a medical procedure.

[They_Live]

5. In many cases

this is an invasive sonogram procedure, if done in the early stages of pregnancy. Which just makes this even worse.

[freshwest]

6. Applauded by 'small government, anti-police state' Ron Paul Libertarians everywhere!

What's wrong with this picture?

The intertubes must be stuck again, I don't see how it works.

I just dunno.

[yellowcanine]

7. This is repugnant. Sonograms are not risk free and medical necessity is a medical judgment.

So the law orders a doctor to perform a medical procedure which may not be medically necessary and dictates how the doctor must communicate the results to the patient. That has to be unConstitutional.

[marsis]

8. Thsi could only come from

the party that cries and bitches about smaller government.

[sakabatou]

9. Yup

[sakabatou]

10. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Austin District Judge Sam Sparks' temporary order

Last edited Tue Jan 10, 2012, 06:02 PM - Edit history (2)

Thank you, Judge Sparks!

[BlueMTexpat]

13. Judge Sparks appears to be sane. The 5th Circuit panel does not.

The temporary order would have prevented the sonogram law from taking effect.

You may have misread or your "gratitude" was meant sarcastically

[sakabatou]

16. Sorry for my ignorance

[beac]

11. Ah yes, more "small government"... so tiny it can fit inside a woman's reproductive organs.

Sickening and sad.

[bongbong]

12. According to repigs

According to 'pigs, a doctor CANNOT inquire about a client owning guns, but MUST inquire about their wombs.

[ceile]

14. The sonogram is NOT the issue.

Every termination must have a sonogram- it's how the doc determines the fetus age. What's at issue is the doctor having to describe what he sees: "...describe what they see, including the size of the fetus and the length of its limbs." That part is not medically necessary and could be, IMO, considered mental torture to what could possibly be an already traumatised woman.

[w8liftinglady]

15. As a woman in Texas, I am simply devastated.

I see self-induced pregnancy termination right around the corner...just like the old days.