Earlier this week, pro-lifers received good news when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Texas pro-life ultrasound law. The implementation of this law had been previously blocked due to an August ruling by a U.S. District Court. These ultrasound laws, which have become popular at the state level, require that abortion providers perform an ultrasound and give the woman an opportunity to view the image prior to an abortion. Arizona passed the first such law in 1999, and about 12 other states have followed suit.
However, this decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is important because this Texas law was unique. The law required the abortion provider to both make an audible heartbeat available to the woman and provide a detailed verbal description of the unborn child pictured in the sonogram. These features have made the law easier for opponents to demonize, and they may have made it easier for an agenda-driven judge to strike down the law.
Regardless, this decision is certainly consistent with the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey which stated that
states can regulate abortion as long as the regulations do not impose an undue burden to the women seeking an abortion. The Casey decision
gave greater constitutional protection to parental involvement laws. It also allowed states to enact informed consent laws, waiting periods, and these new ultrasound laws.
Now since ultrasound laws are a relatively new policy innovation, there is relatively little research about their effectiveness. I always have some concerns about the efficacy of laws which effectively require abortion providers to police themselves. Regardless, as the 39th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision approaches, pro-lifers should applaud this particular ruling and the ongoing trend in jurisprudence toward greater constitutional protection of pro-life laws.
Michael J. New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan — Dearborn, a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute, and an adjunct scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute in Washington, D.C.
And this law isn't "agenda driven"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLaws can certainly be agenda driven, but judges should not be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI stand corrected; I meant to say the agenda-driven fifth circuit (which hasn't the best reputation for quality of judicial analysis).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course it is. But it was passed by a legislature: a political branch, and thus the proper forum for advancing a political agenda.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin, every single law that we enact is "agenda driven". Every one. That's the primary function of democratic government.
Judges, OTOH, are only suppose to apply the laws without an agenda. Big difference.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll laws are agenda-driven. No judge should be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot a bad law, so long as ALL pregnant women (contemplating abortion or not) have the right to have an ultrasound available to them.
As for other good laws. I think we should require adoption centers to show how awful some children's lives are after adoption, as well as showing that adoptive families are excellent.
If we are going to cover pros and cons, we should go all the way and not give only those women contemplating abortions any advantages...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe irony is that Planned Parenthood normally uses an ultrasound to determine the size of the baby so they can determine how much to charge. They just DON'T want the woman to see it lest she start to view it as a baby instead of as just some random lump of cells.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI did not know that. They charge by the size of the child? It's absolutely ghastly - somehow making the idea of an abortion even more ghoulish.
I have thought for sometime that if any broadcast network ever had the courage to show an actual abortion using those same arthroscopic cameras that we see so often filming other "surgeries", abortion would be illegal again before the end of that week.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGot a citation for your claim?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBK is sort of correct. The cost of medical abortion (not just taking a pill) goes up depending on the length of the pregnancy. An abortion during the 6-11th week costs x dollars, and one done during the 11-13th week cost x + y dollars, and so on. They do an ultrasound to determine how far along the pregnancy is, which does determine the size of the baby/fetus (both terms are accurate and I won't pick one) but it isn't the size that determines the cost of the abortion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for the clarification.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can hear Obama and all the other Democrat babykillers wailing at the top of their lungs. Thank God for Texas!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmen!!
Gee, I didn't know that women were DENIED the opportunity to get an ultra sound before. Is it illegal for a woman who wants an abortion to voluntarily get an ultra sound before doing so?
It nearly sounds as though this sort of law is designed to FORCE women to get a service that they don't actually desire. But then strangely, advocates describe this use of force as an "opportunity" for the woman, who was supposedly somehow the victim in all of this and denied the "opportunity" to pay for a service that they usually do not want.
I think this illustrates an interesting tension in conservative philosophy. I think conservative thought has, to a large degree, bought into libertarian thinking on economic issues. Of course, according to that thinking, it is usually caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware. In this view of consumer sovereignty, we don't need big brother telling us what other services we must buy (providing us the "opportunity" to buy a service we already had the legal right to buy if we really wanted it) if we want to purchase a particular service. It would as if the government MANDATED that you purchase a copy of Consumer Reports and compared all the different automobiles in it, even if you knew exactly what car you wanted to buy.
But here there is an exception. Conservatives switch from the language of "force" to describe regulation they do not like to the language of "opportunity" to describe the regulation that they do like.
I think at the end of the day, this illustrates how self-serving the selective use of language by many conservatives simply is. They use overblown language about how liberty itself is somehow at stake, unless we stop regulating the banks so much. And how dare we even think about regulating payday loan companies, lest we shake the very foundations of the Republic. The high sounding words used to describe these points of view are inconsistent. The real issue is that they simply do not agree with the regulation in question. When they happen to agree with the regulation in question, what before they would regard as "coercion" magically morphs instead into "opportunity."
Here for you is the "opportunity" to purchase a service you do not want and do not believe you need. It is nothing more than Orwellian doublespeak.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVery well put, Mr. Welker.
Contrast this law, which no doubt has been touted by its proponents as necessary to educate a woman about the procedure, with the post above regarding the "liberal facism" of the Obama Administration regarding providing information re docs who are feted by drug companies with the goal of the docs prescribing more expensive drugs. Everyone knows it's facism to allow that type of education.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's always going to be an ultrasound before an abortion. The doctor has to rule out ectopic pregnancy and conditions like placenta previa before proceeding. Don't try to make it like the woman is being "forced" to pay for an ultrasound that she doesn't need. An ultrasound is a necessity. This law just says the woman needs to see what she's consenting to.
Cripes. Even your dentist will show you the x-ray before telling you you need a root canal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It would as if the government MANDATED that you purchase a copy of Consumer Reports and compared all the different automobiles in it, even if you knew exactly what car you wanted to buy."
Incorrect. You are confusing "routine commercial transactions" with "matters of life and death". Try:
It would be as if the government MANDATED that you learn about the full lethal potential of an automobile before getting behind the wheel of one, even if you insist that you don't care about the potential harm to yourself and others.
Which, of course, the government does in fact do (and with the full & complete support of virtually everyone all across the political spectrum).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBanks do not kill people. Abortions do....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't think of another surgical procedure where a patient is not shown the films or scans prior to giving informed consent to proceed. As an RN, part of my job was making sure a patient was fully informed before giving him or her that paper to sign. I don't see why abortionists should be able to skip over that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse