The Corner

Court Upholds Texas Ultrasound Law

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.







National Review







18 pt

18 pt






/* Style Definitions */


{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;





mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;





font-family:”Times New Roman”;



mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;





Michael J. New is a visiting assistant professor of social research and political science at the Catholic University of America and an associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute in Washington, D.C.

Most Popular

White House

The Trivialization of Impeachment

We have a serious governance problem. Our system is based on separation of powers, because liberty depends on preventing any component of the state from accumulating too much authority -- that’s how tyrants are born. For the system to work, the components have to be able to check each other: The federal and ... Read More

Put Up or Shut Up on These Accusations, Hillary

Look, one 2016 candidate being prone to wild and baseless accusations is enough. Appearing on Obama campaign manager David Plouffe’s podcast, Hillary Clinton suggested that 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein was a “Russian asset,” that Republicans and Russians were promoting the Green Party, and ... Read More

Feminists Have Turned on Pornography

Since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the feminist movement has sought to condemn traditional sexual ethics as repressive, misogynistic, and intolerant. As the 2010s come to a close, it might be fair to say that mainstream culture has reached the logical endpoint of this philosophy. Whereas older Americans ... Read More
White House

The Impeachment Defense That Doesn’t Work

If we’ve learned anything from the last couple of weeks, it’s that the “perfect phone call” defense of Trump and Ukraine doesn’t work. As Andy and I discussed on his podcast this week, the “perfect” defense allows the Democrats to score easy points by establishing that people in the administration ... Read More
PC Culture

Defiant Dave Chappelle

When Dave Chappelle’s Netflix special Sticks & Stones came out in August, the overwhelming response from critics was that it was offensive, unacceptable garbage. Inkoo Kang of Slate declared that Chappelle’s “jokes make you wince.” Garrett Martin, in the online magazine Paste, maintained that the ... Read More

‘Texodus’ Bodes Badly for Republicans

‘I am a classically trained engineer," says Representative Will Hurd, a Texas Republican, "and I firmly believe in regression to the mean." Applying a concept from statistics to the randomness of today's politics is problematic. In any case, Hurd, 42, is not waiting for the regression of our politics from the ... Read More