Judge rejects forced ultrasounds in N.C.

[ProSense]

Judge rejects forced ultrasounds in N.C.

By Steve Benen

After North Carolina Republicans reclaimed control of the General Assembly in 2010, they got right to work tackling culture-war issues Democratic lawmakers had previously rejected. Near the top of the list: requiring women to undergo medically unnecessary ultrasounds before terminating a pregnancy.

At the time, then-Gov. Bev Perdue (D) vetoed the bill, but the GOP-led legislature overrode the veto in July 2011, passing the measure into law.

Late Friday afternoon, however, as Raleigh’s News & Observer reported, the proposal ran into trouble in the courts.

A federal court judge on Friday struck down North Carolina’s controversial law requiring women seeking abortions to be shown an ultrasound image while a doctor describes the images.

U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles ruled that provision of the 2011 law was an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights because it imposes state-mandated speech on medical professionals.

“It is an impermissible attempt to compel these providers to deliver the state’s message in favor of childbirth and against abortion,” the judge wrote.

There is a certain irony surrounding a policy like this. For years, Republicans have said they’re against “big government” interfering in Americans’ health care. The very idea of placing politics between a patient and a physician is ridiculous, conservatives have said, and allowing the government into an examination room is offensive at a fundamental level.

- more -

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/judge-rejects-forced-ultrasounds-nc

[onehandle]

1. The law, unlike male Republicans, is not in favor of rape by plastic wand.

Dear DNC, 2014 and 2016 need to be 100% about women.

[ProSense]

2. Kick! n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

3. Excellent!

K&R

[Thor_MN]

4. It's unconstitutional because it infringes on the DOCTOR'S rights?

I haven't had any coffee yet this morning so I'm thinking I must be reading that incorrectly...

[rocktivity]

5. I guess they're talking about doctors' right to make the best medical decisions

that is, the law effectively practices medicine and isn't qualified to.


rocktivity

[bettyellen]

6. Isn't it bizarre? Wow.

[okaawhatever]

9. The Doctors were forced to describe the fetus and say other things whether the woman wanted to

hear them or not. In most states passing these laws, they're requiring Doctors to say things that aren't even true. They are trying to legally force a Doctor to tell a woman seeking an abortion that it increases her risk of breast cancer. I believe the link is that a woman who has never had children has a higher risk of breast cancer, but they don't want the distinction made. It's one of the many lies the anti-choice crowd tell.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

11. Triana put up good info last Friday when the news broke...

From LBN: http://election.democraticunderground.com/1014700737

And the NC Group: http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1069&pid=4354

[livingwagenow]

7. That's great! recced. nt

[shenmue]

8. Whew!

[Sissyk]

10. KandR

Some good news on this front.