Appellate Ruling Upholds Texas Abortion Law

[Jroc]

This is a good law let the women see the baby before they decide to kill it.

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld a Texas law that requires women seeking an abortion to have a sonogram exam and to listen to a physician's detailed description of the fetus, including whether it has developed limbs or internal organs.

Supporters of the law, enacted last year, say it is designed to ensure that women are fully informed about abortions and, ultimately, to discourage them from undergoing the procedure. It requires all women seeking abortions to have a sonogram, also known as an ultrasound scan, but it allows some women—such as those who certify they are rape victims—to avoid hearing a description of the fetus or embryo.

In a constitutional challenge to the law, U.S. District judge Sam Sparks of Austin ruled in August that it violates physicians' free-speech rights by compelling them 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."


Gov. Perry signed the bill in May.
.A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed Judge Sparks, concluding that the law merely requires physicians to provide "truthful, non-misleading information" and therefore doesn't violate their free-speech rights. The Fifth Circuit ruling clears the way for Texas to enforce the sonogram law, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement.

"The Texas sonogram law falls well within the State's authority to regulate abortions and require informed consent from patients before they undergo an abortion procedure," Mr. Abbott said.

The decision was the first by a federal appellate court upholding the constitutionality of a state law mandating a physician's description of an ultrasound

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577152992567818170.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[occupied]

Republicans: All your womb are belong to us.

 

[DaGoose]

Anybody that supports this law cannot possibly be in favor of small government. In fact, they actually have to be in favor of a big, activist government that forces involvement in the personal lives of its citizens.

So Jroc, why do you support government intervention in our private lives? I never took you for the "big gubmint" type.

 

[Conservative]

Anybody that supports this law cannot possibly be in favor of small government. In fact, they actually have to be in favor of a big, activist government that forces involvement in the personal lives of its citizens.

So Jroc, why do you support government intervention in our private lives? I never took you for the "big gubmint" type.

1 branch of the government does not make THE ENTIRE government.

This is nothing about 'Big Government.

The court did exactly what it is supposed to do... decided a case brought before it. A case about a STATE, not FEDERAL law.

GOOSE-FAIL.

 

[J.E.D]

Just goes to show you, cons like big gov't when it comes to social issues. They don't want consumer protection or affordable health care, but they sure as hell want to tell you what you are allowed to do in your bedroom or with your own body (especially if you're a woman).

 

[pegwinn]

Republicans: All your womb are belong to us.

Nooooooo. It's "if you wish to murder your baby you must look at it and at least acknowlege that you truly desire to kill it."

Anybody that supports this law cannot possibly be in favor of small government. In fact, they actually have to be in favor of a big, activist government that forces involvement in the personal lives of its citizens.

So Jroc, why do you support government intervention in our private lives? I never took you for the "big gubmint" type.

It's a state issue and thus the opposite of the current "big government" problem. If anything it is removing something the feds would love to cover.

Those that don't like it can move to California, New York, Massachusetts etc.

 

[DaGoose]

Anybody that supports this law cannot possibly be in favor of small government. In fact, they actually have to be in favor of a big, activist government that forces involvement in the personal lives of its citizens.

So Jroc, why do you support government intervention in our private lives? I never took you for the "big gubmint" type.

1 branch of the government does not make THE ENTIRE government.

This is nothing about 'Big Government.

The court did exactly what it is supposed to do... decided a case brought before it. A case about a STATE, not FEDERAL law.

GOOSE-FAIL.

Fuck you and your fucking state law.

I don't want you or the fucking government (state, local or federal) interfering with my personal life and decisions. And anyone who tries to tell me how to run my life by their morals can go fuck themselves.

Again.....it doesn't matter WHAT level of government it is. ANY government that intrudes on personal decisions is BIG gubmint and anyone who supports it supports big gubmint.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In a constitutional challenge to the law, U.S. District judge Sam Sparks of Austin ruled in August that it violates physicians' free-speech rights by compelling them 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."

The case concerned doctors’ free speech, not privacy rights.

The Constitutional question is: does the Texas law manifest an ‘undue burden’ with regard to those seeking an abortion. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Court held that an undue burden exists when a law acts as a ‘substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.'

The ‘free speech’ complaint was likely used by opponents of the law because they knew the requirement probably meets the Casey standard.

Although the measure may pass Constitutional muster, it’s a cruel, unnecessary requirement only adding to an already difficult situation for a woman so involved.

So Jroc, why do you support government intervention in our private lives? I never took you for the "big gubmint" type.

Correct.

This is yet another example of conservative hypocrisy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If this includes first trimester then it should be unconstitutional under current constitutional law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If this includes first trimester then it should be unconstitutional under current constitutional law.

The Casey Court upheld the right to privacy but replaced ‘timing’ with ‘undue burden.’ In essence the Court allows the state to erect as many hurdles as it wishes short of an outright ban.

 

[manifold]

Jesus Big Brother Christ, what a stupid law.

 

[Conservative]

Anybody that supports this law cannot possibly be in favor of small government. In fact, they actually have to be in favor of a big, activist government that forces involvement in the personal lives of its citizens.

So Jroc, why do you support government intervention in our private lives? I never took you for the "big gubmint" type.

1 branch of the government does not make THE ENTIRE government.

This is nothing about 'Big Government.

The court did exactly what it is supposed to do... decided a case brought before it. A case about a STATE, not FEDERAL law.

GOOSE-FAIL.

Fuck you and your fucking state law.

I don't want you or the fucking government (state, local or federal) interfering with my personal life and decisions. And anyone who tries to tell me how to run my life by their morals can go fuck themselves.

Again.....it doesn't matter WHAT level of government it is. ANY government that intrudes on personal decisions is BIG gubmint and anyone who supports it supports big gubmint.

wow... get smacked down in a few threads, and you go all steroid on us...

 

[manifold]

Rightwingtard logic: I don't mind getting ass raped by the government as long as it's state government and not the federal government.

 

[initforme]

I can see the point of those who support the law. My only added point is then those who support it should be willing to pay more taxes to help support the child once it is born. If we want to outlaw abortion then we as a society must be willing to pay for programs that help support the child because we all know if this doesnt happen the child has no realisitic chance of a good start. Cant have it both ways.

 

[Charles_Main]

So on this one issue, I guess Democrats are against Education? I mean that is all this is. making sure they make an Informed Decision. Just from my own Experience alone with 2 kids, I wager more than a handful of Women thinking about Abortion, Choose Adoption or keeping the kid after actually seeing it in the womb. Especially the further along ones.

Once you see what is with out a Doubt, a little person, with hands and feet and a thumb to suck, it's harder to terminate it.

What is so wrong, with some women changing their minds and choosing not to abort?

And why are so many on the left so unwilling to compromise? This Law does nothing at all to stop a woman right to Abortion. It's simply a compromise, an attempt to at least make sure they are fully aware of what they are doing.

 

[manifold]

I can see the point of those who support the law. My only added point is then those who support it should be willing to pay more taxes to help support the child once it is born. If we want to outlaw abortion then we as a society must be willing to pay for programs that help support the child because we all know if this doesnt happen the child has no realisitic chance of a good start. Cant have it both ways.

If you can handle a little mud sling'n, this thread is for you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/201438-if-you-support-compulsory-gestation-and-you-oppose-social-welfare-services.html

 

[Charles_Main]

Rightwingtard logic: I don't mind getting ass raped by the government as long as it's state government and not the federal government.

Well, The State Government is a damn site easy to deal with, and fight if necessary, than the Federal one. I would much rather answer to and deal with assholes in Lansing, than Assholes in DC.

 

[initforme]

Nothing at all wrong with them changing their minds in my book. At the same time I need to step up and monetarily help support the child because the mother inevitably wont be able to do it nor afford it. As I said if you dont agree with my stance then you want it both ways, that makes you a hypocrite.

 

[Conservative]

So on this one issue, I guess Democrats are against Education? I mean that is all this is. making sure they make an Informed Decision. Just from my own Experience alone with 2 kids, I wager more than a handful of Women thinking about Abortion, Choose Adoption or keeping the kid after actually seeing it in the womb. Especially the further along ones.

Once you see what is with out a Doubt, a little person, with hands and feet and a thumb to suck, it's harder to terminate it.

What is so wrong, with some women changing their minds and choosing not to abort?

And why are so many on the left so unwilling to compromise? This Law does nothing at all to stop a woman right to Abortion. It's simply a compromise, an attempt to at least make sure they are fully aware of what they are doing.

the left hates it when we know what we are doing... it means we won't support them.

 

[initforme]

My viewpoint is to root for not having an abortion AND being given monetary help to assure the child is geting what it needs. This is NO, ZERO form of socialism. It is not anything close to a socialistic stance. It is a stance about helping out life.