On Tuesday, parts of a new Texas law that mandates doctors to perform a sonogram before an abortion were struck down by a federal judge the day before the measure would go into effect.
US District Judge Sam Sparks, who ruled on the measure, blocked provisions of the law that required doctors to describe the images to patients and forces the women to hear the description.
Though the ruling upheld the sonogram requirement, it’s still a huge victory — not only for personal freedom, but for medical rights as well.
Such a law infringes upon the freedom of speech. By compelling doctors to describe the fetus to their patients, they are forced to say things that may be against their will or ideological beliefs, and such speech has no respect for the patient herself, who may not wish to listen.
Even worse, the law required sexual assault and incest victims to sign statements in order to qualify for an exception to the ultrasound. Not only does the measure put private and highly sensitive information on the record, it is medically irrelevant.
There are two completely different issues at hand — abortion and medical ethics. And while it may seem that they go together (and indeed, in many cases, they do,) the Texas sonogram bill is an attack on the rights that every patient is entitled to with their doctor.
No doubt, abortion is not an easy topic by any stretch of the imagination. But laws like the sonogram bill add nothing to this kind of discourse.
It avoids addressing the core of the matter by attacking the patient-doctor relationship, a tangent that has nothing to do with the actual issue of abortion.
We at The Daily Cougar believe the debate should be focused on choice and deciding where life begins. The sonogram bill does nothing but clouds and eschews the basic medical liberties that everyone, especially a woman who has already made a very difficult decision, deserves.
Thank God I live in Canada!! The fact that these looney toones have the power to take it this far, strikes fear in the hearts of many women up here.
Keep the good fight going!! Our prayers are with the enlightened men and women who believe in the freedom of choice.
Protecting them from what? Reality?
I can understand why you would want that, after all, a woman isn't psychologically capable of confronting the consequences of her decision. She needs to be coddled and have the truth hidden from her. Basically, treat her like the New York Times treats its readers. (Thanks to 30 Rock for that line).
Abortion is murder. If you can't see that, you're morally retarded.
The issue at hand is the imposition of the government on a medical procedure. The Texas legislature is trying to force doctors to recite a politically motivated statement whether or not they agree with it. Compulsatory speech is not free speech. In addition, as of now abortions are legal in the U.S. and laws such as these only seek to undermine the federal statute. If opponents want to overturn Roe v. Wade then let them do it openly and directly. Their reluctance to do so indicates that they are aware that the majority of Americans believe that abortions should remain legal.
As for your last statement, murder is a legal definition, therefore abortion is decidedly not murder. If you believe that abortion is morally wrong then you are basing your belief on religious grounds. Again, this is an argument that you cannot win in the court of law.
And if you are so concerned for the welfare of the child, why not do something about the 40,000 children under the age of 5 that die everyday across the world due to neglect, malnutrition, abuse, etc.? What good is bringing a child into the world that cannot be provided for?
>The issue at hand is the imposition of the government on a medical procedure.
…The problem with this idea is that the government, through the State Board of Health, is imposed on *every* medical procedure. You're seriously arguing for deregulation of medical licensing?
> The Texas legislature is trying to force doctors to recite a politically motivated statement whether or not they agree with it.
Sticking the words 'politically motivated' in front of a statement isn't true; the state is recognizing its obligation to protect unborn children. The women deserve protection as well – at the same time as the child. Not after, and certainly not before.
> In addition, as of now abortions are legal in the U.S.
This law does noething to change that.
> laws such as these only seek to undermine the federal statute.
Roe v. Wade is not a law, it is a court decision related to the legality of outright banning medical procedures. It clearly has nothing to do with this law (which, unlike a supreme court decision, was voted on by the people's elected representatives) – because this law does absolutely nothing to restrict a medical procedure, it simply, using the state's regulatory authority, specified the parameters under which the procedure may be performed. The parameters are not even particularly onerous – they involve giving the patient informed consent, just like with all other procedures.
>. If opponents want to overturn Roe v. Wade then let them do it openly and directly.
I think they do, but seeing as how this case doesn't involve the right to abortion your comment isn't relevant.
>Their reluctance to do so indicates that they are aware that the majority of Americans believe that abortions should remain legal.
The next abortion opponent I meet who is *reluctant* to oppose Roe is the first. A majority of Americans believe that Luxembourg is a kind of cheese. I'm not particularly impressed with what "a majority of Americans" think – which is why we have elected representation and not direct democracy.
>As for your last statement, murder is a legal definition, therefore abortion is decidedly not murder.
Don't put words in my mouth. It makes you look like an idiot. Murder appears in the english dictionary, it is not a legal term.
> If you believe that abortion is morally wrong then you are basing your belief on religious grounds.
I'm an atheist.
>Again, this is an argument that you cannot win in the court of law.
Actually, there are several statutes that exist that give criminal significance to terminating the life of a fetus. So not only would I win in the court of law, but there is existing case law that supports my intereperetation, not to mention common sense and the science of human viability.
>And if you are so concerned for the welfare of the child, why not do something about the 40,000 children under the age of 5 that die everyday across the world due to neglect, malnutrition, abuse, etc.? What good is bringing a child into the world that cannot be provided for?
Non sequitur. I'd rather be starving than dead. Fortunately for you (and the 40,000 starving children you want to murder) I'm a multi-tasker and capable of trying to solve two problems at the same time – and I would never be so obtuse as to suggest that 'murdering people' is a solution to human suffering. Josef Stalin once said "Death Solves All Problems, No Man, No Problem" – I'm sure you'll be proud to find yourself in the company of one of the worst mass murderers in history.
As a reply question: When will you begin murdering those starving children? You're aware that biologically there is no significant difference between a term fetus and an infant? If you believe there are too many people suffering too much, you need to be intellectual honest and get to killing them.
Wazowski – how about your hero, Dan "I love the constitution while not giving a crap what it actually says" Patrick?
The Retardicans talk a "good game" on Constitutionality while trampling all over the rights guaranteed by it. They need to be gotten rid of.
>Wazowski – how about your hero, Dan "I love the constitution while not giving a crap what it actually says" Patrick?
I'm not familiar with Dan Patrick (the Sports Center anchor?).
>The Retardicans talk a "good game" on Constitutionality while trampling all over the rights guaranteed by it. They need to be gotten rid of.
"Retardicans" – that's classy.