Search  |  Login  |  Register

By Walter M. Weber1326313008000

Expectant mothers and their unborn babies won an important victory in federal court yesterday. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rebuffed a challenge to the Texas sonogram bill, a new law that, among other things, requires abortionists, before doing an abortion, to take and display to the mother a sonogram of the unborn baby and to let the expectant mother hear the baby’s heartbeat. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) had filed an amicus brief, on behalf of itself and the Houston Coalition for Life (HCL), supporting the Texas law. The case is Texas Medical Providers Performing Abortion Services v. Lakey, and the appeals court’s opinion is available here.

The new Texas law had been scheduled to apply to abortions after October 1, 2011. However, abortionists had filed a federal lawsuit challenging the new bill, and a federal district court on August 30 had granted a preliminary injunction forbidding enforcement of key sections of the statute. The state appealed, and the ACLJ filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the state’s appeal.

The district court had ruled that requiring abortionists to provide information to women as part of the informed consent process “compels speech” and triggers strict scrutiny. The court went on to hold that the Texas law was not likely to survive such strict scrutiny.

The ACLJ/HCL amicus brief attacked this part of the district court ruling. “Informed consent requirements, while they may literally compel speech, do not trigger strict constitutional scrutiny,” the brief explained. “Rather, the First Amendment requires only that such measures be reviewed for reasonableness. There is no exception to this rule just because the context involves abortion.”

This should be common sense. Informed consent is an established part of medical practice. Doctors are supposed to advise their patients, beforehand, of the nature and risks of a contemplated procedure. A physician who keeps his patient in the dark can be sued for malpractice. Nevertheless, the abortionists in this case argued for a different, demanding legal standard for informed consent. But as the ACLJ/HCL brief pointed out, to subject informed consent speech to strict scrutiny “would throw into disarray an entire area of law.” The Supreme Court has already rejected this notion: “Thus, a requirement that a doctor give a woman certain information as part of obtaining her consent to an abortion is, for constitutional purposes, no different from a requirement that a doctor give certain specific information about any medical procedure.” (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992)

Happily, the three judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously agreed: “such laws are part of the state’s reasonable regulation of medical practice and do not fall under the rubric of compelling ‘ideological’ speech that triggers First Amendment strict scrutiny.”

The court of appeals went on to note that it is no objection that the woman, after receiving the information, might decide not to abort. “If the sonogram changes a woman’s mind . . . that is a function of the combination of her new knowledge and her own ‘ideology’ (‘values’ is a better term), not of any ‘ideology’ inherent in the information she has learned about the fetus.”

Regarding the particular disclosures required under the Texas law, the appeals court observed that it is “obvious” that the “disclosures of a sonogram, the fetal heartbeat, and their medical descriptions are the epitome of truthful, non-misleading information.” Indeed, the court added, denying up-to-date information “is more of an abuse to her ability to decide than providing the information.”

The case now proceeds back in the district court, where the state is well-positioned to win the case entirely. In the meantime, the Fifth Circuit has struck a valuable blow against the ongoing deception characteristic of abortion practice. Only by concealing the reality that abortion destroys a living child with a beating heart has the abortion industry been able to keep pregnant women in massive numbers on its lethal disassembly line. Now that women in Texas will be seeing and hearing their babies before the abortionist can apply the knife to them, we may see a very significant drop in the number of abortions done. If so, that will be a triumph of both knowledge and life.

Latest in
Pro Life

Abortion Profits Protected

By Matthew Clark1435698000000

I’ve been following and writing about this case since it was being considered in the Texas legislature. Now it’s being called “ biggest abortion case at the Supreme Court in nearly 25 years.” Last night the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a pro-life Texas law from going into effect, allowing the...

read more

BREAKING: Supreme Court Temporarily...

By Jay Sekulow1435612907746

This afternoon, the Supreme Court of the United States ordered to stay the Fifth Circuit’s ruling upholding the common-sense abortion restrictions passed by Texas in 2013. In a 5-4 vote with Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito dissenting, the Court granted the...

read more

Late-Term Abortion Vote in 2015?

By Palmer Williams1435164473617

In a huge victory for life this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised to bring the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act up for a vote in the Senate by the end of 2015. This is a historic moment as a bill that would ban horrific late-term abortions has never before received a...

read more

Fetal Homicide Laws – We Can Do More

By Michelle Terry1435084566884

Earlier this year, an attack on a pregnant woman in Colorado that ended with the death of her unborn baby – but no charges filed for the baby’s murder – has reminded us of an often-overlooked area in the right to life battle. The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) has been on the forefront of...

read more