Supreme Court leaves Kentucky's ultrasound law in place
Source: Associated Press
Supreme Court leaves Kentuckys ultrasound law in place
20 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court on Monday left in place a Kentucky law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before abortions.
The justices did not comment in refusing to review an appeals court ruling that upheld the law.
The American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law on behalf of Kentuckys lone remaining abortion clinic. The ACLU argued that display and describe ultrasound laws violate physicians speech rights under the First Amendment.
The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the Kentucky law, but its sister court in Richmond, Virginia, struck down a similar measure in North Carolina.
....
Read more: https://apnews.com/d36c289f1d5692fea014e5996f19de7a
Hat tip, Joe.My.God:
SCOTUS Rejects Challenge To Abortion/Ultrasound Law
December 9, 2019
https://www.joemygod.com/2019/12/scotus-rejects-challenge-to-abortion-ultrasound-law/
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)We desperately need to remove Moscow Mitch And His Minions.
atreides1
(16,046 posts)We need to quit putting all of the blame on RW men...because RW women are just as complicit, if not more so!!!
Moscow Mitch has to go, but so do the women in Congress who support him!!!
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)SCOTUS rules the law unconstitutional will that kill the Kentucky law?
okaawhatever
(9,453 posts)Pachamama
(16,873 posts)...ultrasound of their anus or vagina done and the images shown to them after.....
Pacifist Patriot
(24,647 posts)I consider this to be state-sanctioned rape, and nothing less.
heckles65
(544 posts)Non-consensual vaginal insertion. How is this not rape?
riversedge
(69,710 posts)Lonestarblue
(9,874 posts)An ultrasound is a medically unnecessary procedure being forced on women against their will. How is this legal? If a doctor wants to remove my appendix when I have no symptoms, I have the right to refuse that unnecessary medical treatment. How is this different? SCOTUS is showing us what will happen when a case comes before them that will allow them to overturn Roe v. Wade.
eggplant
(3,891 posts)You have the right to refuse the ultrasound. You just can't have the abortion without it.
Wuddles440
(1,098 posts)more such decisions/actions by SCOTUS in the future - they are nothing more than an extension of the CONS and their fascist thugs.
CaptainTruth
(6,546 posts)... they'll pass a law requiring McDonalds to show you a picture of a cow before you order a hamburger.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,784 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(48,784 posts)onenote
(42,374 posts)Four votes are all it takes to grant a petition for certiorari. So that means that at least one of the following Justices did not support hearing the challenge to the appeals court decision: Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer.
The question is why?
The answer, I fear, may be found in the way the issue was presented by those challenging. This was not a case in which women, as patients, were the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were doctors and the basis of the claim was that forcing doctors do disclose the results of an ultrasound violated the First Amendment rights of doctors. While the dissent in the appeals court argued, in effect, that the real issue was the part of the law that forced doctors to conduct ultrasounds in all cases, that issues seems to have gotten swept under the rug not only in the appeals court decision upholding the law, but also seems to have gotten lost in the petitioners challenge to the appeals court ruling.
Polybius
(15,235 posts)True, it takes four votes to hear a case. Assuming all 5 Republicans passed on this, that means at least one out of the four didn't want to hear it. Which one we may never know.
I hate to say it, but I think it's RBG. Last week she granted Trump his tax stay. Procedural, yes, but she didn't have to do it.
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)These christo-fascists are not going to go quietly. Ever. But if the SCOTUS takes little baby steps in reviewing these cases, and allows some things to stand, like this ultra-sound matter (even though I think they're medially-unnecessary and there is no cost justification
for the insurance companies to reconcile this in coverage), they lend the appearance of being sympathetic to the right.
Roberts knows that there is going to be a showdown. I just think he's trying to delay the inevitable.
lark
(23,003 posts)He is a far rw supporting russian repug just like the other 5 who only have fealty to oligarchs, and not their own country's laws. I hope & pray for once in his life he votes solely for the constitution and against drumpf when all the obstruction of information cases land there, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.
onenote
(42,374 posts)It's easy to point a finger at the Republicans, but in this instance, if all four Democrats on the Court had voted to grant cert, the case would have moved forward. At least one of them decided to let the appeals court decision stand.
swag
(26,480 posts)be
AZ8theist
(5,338 posts)What is Susan Collins "level of concern"?
Nitram
(22,663 posts)keithbvadu2
(36,360 posts)Gynotician
Initech
(99,909 posts)PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,746 posts)Why don't doctors stand firm against this bullshit?
I don't think I have EVER seen doctors pointing out that this kind of procedure is unnecessary and violates a woman's bodily integrity. What the fuck is wrong with doctors?
onenote
(42,374 posts)The following groups filed a brief arguing the Court should strike down the KY law:
BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, THE NORTH AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR PEDIATRIC AND ADOLESCENT GYNECOLOGY, THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, AND THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS SUPPORTING PETITIONERS
A second brief was filed the American Public Health Association.
The plaintiffs in the case were the Woment's Surgical Center; Ernest Marshall, M.D., on behalf of himself and his patients; Ashley Bergin, M.D., on behalf of herself and her patients; Tanya Franklin, M.D., on behalf of herself and her patients
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,746 posts)TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)If you haven't seen medical organizations objecting to these laws, you haven't been paying attention.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,746 posts)Thank you.
but somehow I never seem to see what they say. That should get more coverage than it does.
Hekate
(90,189 posts)...need to amplify the truth.
question everything
(47,264 posts)Will they put toothpick under her eyelashes to force them open?
onenote
(42,374 posts)"nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the pregnant woman from averting her eyes from the ultrasound images or requesting the volume of the heartbeat be reduced or turned off if the heartbeat is audible. Neither the physician, the qualified technician, nor pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if the pregnant woman refuses to look at the displayed ultrasound images or to listen to the heartbeat if the heartbeat is audible."
To me the bigger issue is forcing a woman to undergo the ultrasound.
question everything
(47,264 posts)Hekate
(90,189 posts)...like to boast that -- what? We drove out Al Franken while they kept all the wife-cheaters and wife-beaters?
The RW no longer plays by any rules of honor and integrity, but they keep winning.
We have to work smarter. Much smarter.