The 2011 Texas legislative session had its share of controversy, and perhaps the most controversial law to come out of that statehouse is the Texas Sonogram Law.
The bill mandated that all women seeking an abortion undergo a sonogram and consult with her doctor on the results of that test, at least 24 hours before an abortion. In addition, it requires the doctor to describe the fetus, whether the woman wished to hear the description or not.
The opposition, led by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) sued in District Court. In August, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks granted a preliminary injunction against its enforcement. Sparks upheld the sonogram requirement but struck down the provisions requiring doctors to describe the images. He also struck down a requirement that victims of sexual assault or incest sign statements attesting to that fact, writing that the state was trying to “permanently brand” those women.
In mid-January, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court ruled that Texas could implement the law immediately. The court said it considered the law constitutional and sonograms, fetal heartbeats and fetuses’ medical descriptions are important information. In addition to overturning Sparks’ decision, it used its opinion to direct Sparks in future decisions on the issue.
The CRR responded with an appeal to federal court, and yesterday the court ruled. The judge said he could not block the Texas law because an appeals court had already ordered it to take effect.
Supporters of the law say they only wish for women to fully understand all that abortion entails. They believe that if women knew all the facts including the potential harm to themselves, it would lead to the fewer than the 81,000 abortions performed every year in Texas. However, they also point out that if, after the sonogram and consultation, the woman still opts for an abortion, nothing stands in her way.
And while supporters of the law celebrate the court’s decision today, CRR said it will continue to fight in the courts to strike down the law. The law does provide for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity and for women who travel great distances to a doctor. A group of doctors have joined the CRR in their quest saying that the law infringes on their First Amendment rights and is unconstitutionally vague regarding enforcement. They claim the law requires them to perform a medically unnecessary procedure, and one that the woman may not want.
Image Source: Wikipedia
Comment and add to the story without registration, but keep the comments meaningful please. Links are not accepted.
