An article in the Austin American Statesman discusses an abortion rights group attempt to halt the new pre-abortion sonogram law implemented during the last legislative session. Their claim is that the law is unconstitutionally vague and intrudes on the free speech rights of doctors. The law requires a doctor to perform a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion. The woman can decline to view the image or listen to the fetal heartbeat, but she must listen to the physician describe the developing fetus. Women can avoid the verbal explanations in cases of fetal abnormality, incest, or rape. Governor Perry and the laws sponsors have expressed their hope that the added information will prompt more women to change their mind about the abortion. The reproductive rights center claims that the sonogram goes to far because the information is "not part of standard medical care". U.S District Judge Sam Sparks was concerned with the centers failure to argue the undue burden that the requirement places on women - a standard used to measure the constitutionality of informed consent laws. Sparks took issue with the provision allowing state regulators to randomly inspect abortion facilities. He also finds fault with the punishment for violating the sonogram law due to its murky definition of standards. The ruling is at least a month away.
This article is extremely important because it addresses one of the most controversial issues in today's society. The law imposes greatly on a woman's right to make decisions for herself. Doctors should not be responsible to enforce the social agenda. It will be interesting to see how Judge Sparks interprets the constitutionality of the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment