Let Freedom Reign!

HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 

 Supreme Court Blocks Texas Neanderthal Sonogram Law

Go down 

Posts : 9729

PostSubject: Supreme Court Blocks Texas Neanderthal Sonogram Law   9/29/2011, 10:35 pm

cheers cheers cheers At least there's some sanity left on the SCOTUS
Supreme Court Blocks Texas Neanderthal Sonogram Law
Quote :
Today the Supreme Court told Texas not to enforce an unbelievably primitive GOP-sponsored law that requires women to undergo an invasive vaginal procedure before they can have a legal abortion: Supreme Court Blocks Texas Abortion/Sonogram Law.
The U.S. Supreme Court said Thursday that Texas can’t enforce an abortion/sonogram law passed by the state legislature last summer while the measure is under appeal, the Texas Tribune reports.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow the law to go into effect while it was being appealed.

An Austin judge ruled that the parts of the law that required a doctor to display an ultrasound image, make the heartbeat audible and describe the fetus before terminating a pregnancy were unconstitutional.
Back to top Go down

Posts : 1328

PostSubject: Re: Supreme Court Blocks Texas Neanderthal Sonogram Law   10/1/2011, 11:01 am

I believe Indiana requires a sonogram, but doubt it's vaginal.
Back to top Go down
happy jack


Posts : 6635

PostSubject: Re: Supreme Court Blocks Texas Neanderthal Sonogram Law   11/13/2017, 6:09 pm

Bears watching.

SCOTUS’s Choice: Preserve Constitutional Liberties or Detonate the Culture War Idea

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453680/supreme-court-free-speech-rights-trump-culture-war cat

DAVID FRENCH November 13, 2017 1:50

In a pair of critical First Amendment cases, the Court will soon decide whether the state can trample on citizens’ free-speech  conscience rights. Today, we must pause and consider an important constitutional moment. Earlier this morning the Supreme Court granted review in a case called National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Xavier Becerra. The issue is simple: Can the state of California require a pro-life crisis-pregnancy center to advertise the availability of free or reduced-cost abortions? For those who are unfamiliar with the pro-life movement, the grassroots, front-line effort to defend the unborn often starts with a small house or a storefront, typically in a distressed neighborhood — the same kind of neighborhood where abortion clinics so often cluster. In that house or storefront you’ll find a small staff of mainly volunteers, people who help administer pregnancy tests, doctors who can perform ultrasounds, and counselors who work with frightened and panicked women to help explain the alternatives to abortion. The goal is to help mother and baby, to hold her hand and walk with her through the pregnancy, connecting her with the right resources and institutions if she chooses to keep and raise her child or connecting her with the right agencies if she chooses to give it up for adoption. Though not all crisis-pregnancy-center staff and volunteers are people of faith, most are deeply religious Catholics and Evangelicals. Defending the unborn and supporting young mothers is a core part of their life’s work. Given the sexual revolutionaries’ near-sacramental support for abortion, it should come as no surprise that pro-abortion radicals despise crisis-pregnancy centers. They accuse them of misleading women and stigmatizing abortion (what’s wrong with stigmatizing abortion?) and have launched a legislative assault designed to steer pregnant moms away from their doors. In California, this took the form of a law called the Reproductive FACT Act, and its target was crystal clear. Declaring it unfortunate that California hosts more than 200 crisis-pregnancy centers, the state claims that these centers “often confuse [and] misinform” women. Thus, it requires centers to prominently post or distribute a notice that reads as follows: California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [phone number]. In other words, it’s requiring pro-life citizens to advertise the existence of free abortions, and point women toward them. –––– There’s a term for this: compelled speech. Historically, it’s been considered among the worst forms of state censorship. It’s one thing for the state to tell you that you can’t speak. It’s another thing entirely for the state to commandeer your voice and compel you to advance your opponents’ cause. There’s a term for this: compelled speech. Historically, it’s been considered among the worst forms of state censorship. The Supreme Court is now considering two critical compelled-speech cases. It will hear the first, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, on December 5. In Masterpiece, the state of Colorado is attempting to compel a baker to create a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding, which his religion holds to be immoral. Here, the state of California is demanding that pro-life Californians advertise abortion services. Both cases represent direct state assaults on the rights of conscience and free will of American citizens. By this point we know that there is no way to declare a truce in the culture wars. Our value systems are too different for agreement, and they’re often even too different for compromise. But when the culture wars escalate to the point where a majority has the power to implement policy (like free or low-cost abortions) and the power to suppress dissent, then the American system will begin to crack. The First Amendment is a core liberty that protects all others and helps preserves civil peace and national unity. It’s the liberty that gives dissenting Americans hope that they will always have another opportunity to persuade, that their ideas will always have a chance. If, however, you deprive Americans of that hope and try to conscript them into serving the ideas they oppose, you won’t “settle” any debate; you’ll just create a pressure-cooker of fury and resentment. History teaches us that it’s extraordinarily difficult to separate people from their convictions, and societies that don’t protect the rights of conscience and free will are vulnerable to instability and civil unrest. No, I’m not arguing that pro-life Americans will revolt if they lose this case. The system is not that fragile. But we maintain firewalls for a reason, and if you seek to breach the constitutional firewall against compelled speech, you are asking for a dramatic escalation in the culture wars. You’re begging for more polarization. You’re forsaking the wisdom of the Founders for the short-term satisfaction of authoritarianism. And, over the long run, you will tear this country apart.

Back to top Go down


Posts : 3295

PostSubject: Re: Supreme Court Blocks Texas Neanderthal Sonogram Law   11/23/2017, 12:44 am

It does.

Quote :
In recent years, Republican legislators in more than a dozen states around the country have passed laws that require doctors to say specific, misleading statements to abortion-seeking patients before performing the procedure—from requiring doctors to perform sonograms and describe them to patients, to mandating that they tell patients that a pre-viable fetus will feel pain, that there are negative mental health consequences to abortion, or that there is a causal link between abortion and breast cancer. (These points have been widely discredited.)

On Monday, the Supreme Court accepted a case that could have major repercussions for this type of required speech by abortion providers, and it comes from an unexpected group of plaintiffs—anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers, facilities that are usually religiously affiliated and, though advertised as health care clinics, do not offer abortion and often also lack medical licenses or certified staff.

The case—National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra—will come down to the First Amendment rights of health professionals. The Supreme Court will consider whether a 2015 California law that requires religious-affiliated crisis pregnancy centers to post notices regarding the availability of abortion violates the First Amendment right to free speech. But by ruling on this case, the Supreme Court may also lay a foundation for advocates of reproductive rights to challenge the anti-choice restrictions on abortion providers’ speech in other states.

“When the court is looking at whether the state can make crisis pregnancy center doctors say certain things, the flip side of that issue is can the state make doctors who provide abortions say certain things,” says Andrew Beck, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s reproductive freedom project.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content

PostSubject: Re: Supreme Court Blocks Texas Neanderthal Sonogram Law   

Back to top Go down
Supreme Court Blocks Texas Neanderthal Sonogram Law
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: