Court Says Texas May Enforce Abortion Law

NEW ORLEANS (AP) – A Texas abortion law passed last year that requires doctors to show sonograms to patients can be enforced while opponents challenge the measure in court, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling that signaled that the judges believe the law is constitutional.

The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a temporary order against enforcing the law and then went further to advise U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks how he should ultimately rule in the case. Chief Judge Edith H. Jones used her opinion to systematically dismantle the argument that the Texas law infringes on the free speech rights of doctors and patients, the key argument against the law.

“The required disclosures of a sonogram, the fetal heartbeat, and their medical descriptions are the epitome of truthful, non-misleading information,” Jones wrote. “The appellees failed to demonstrate constitutional flaws” with the law.

Sparks had ruled in August that several provisions of the state law violated the free-speech rights of doctors who perform abortions by requiring that they show and describe the sonogram images and describe the fetal heartbeat, all of which doctors have said is not necessary for good treatment.

The New Orleans-based appeals court cited a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that “upheld an informed-consent statute over precisely the same ‘compelled speech’ challenges made” in the current Texas case.

Earlier rulings have found laws requiring doctors to give “truthful, non-misleading and relevant” information are reasonable regulation, not ideological speech requiring strict scrutiny under the First Amendment, the appeals court said.

“‘Relevant’ informed consent may entail not only the physical and psychological risks to the expectant mother facing this `difficult moral decision,’ but also the state’s legitimate interests in `protecting the potential life within her,”‘ Jones wrote.

Jones wrote that the argument against requiring the doctor to perform the sonogram only made sense if a “pregnancy is a condition to be terminated.”

“The point of informed consent laws is to allow the patient to evaluate her condition and render her best decision under difficult circumstances,” Jones wrote. “Denying her up-to-date medical information is more of an abuse to her ability to decide than providing the information.”

Under the Texas law, a woman who has suffered rape or incest can avoid the sonogram requirement by certifying that she is a victim. Jones said the “the district court was especially troubled by the requirement” to make the certification, but that it doesn’t violate the woman’s First Amendment rights.

In his temporary order, Sparks also agreed with the doctors appealing the law that the doctor should not be compelled to show the woman the sonogram image, to play the sound of the fetal heartbeat and to explain the sonogram image verbally if the women does not want to look or listen. Jones found that there was no constitutional argument against these elements of the law.

“The woman seeking an abortion may elect not to receive these images, sounds, or explanations,” Jones wrote. “This election does not obviate the physician’s obligations to display the sonogram images or make audible the heart auscultation; the woman may simply choose not to look or listen.”

Jones wrote that the doctors had failed to make a convincing argument against the law and she made clear that she expects Sparks to use her ruling when making any further decisions in the case. Jones also said the Fifth Circuit would hear any further appeals in this case.

(© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)


One Comment

  1. Bob says:

    This is what happens when lawyers decide they and only they can tell you how to live, how to do your jobs and what’s best for everyone. A judge or appeals court has no medical training and doesn’t know what proper medical treatment consists of. The law has been challenged in court. A reasonable and prudent person would say that until a court says the law is constitutional, it is held in abeyance. According to this appeals court, the law as written, is enforceable until it drags out in the system for what could be years. In the meantime costs go up because the law requires sonograms, which aren’t readily available in poorer neighborhoods, plus added times while the doctors describe the blood guts and gore. This is nothing more than the anti-abortion movement flexing its muscles. Shame it has to encroach on a medical procedure. Next on the agenda is 3D videos of your heart and lungs before you have a transplant, no matter how little time is left.

  2. LJ says:

    “‘Relevant’ informed consent may entail not only the physical and psychological risks to the expectant mother facing this ‘difficult moral decision,’ but also the state’s legitimate interests in `protecting the potential life within her,”‘ Chief Judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the appeals’ decision.

    The state has legitimate interests in protecting POTENTIAL life? Whats next, banning condoms and birth control pills to protect potential life? This law has no relevance for the medical procedure the (actual not potential) citizen has chosen.

  3. altha says:

    The Republicans put all this “MESS” into law, you vote them in now deal-with-it.

  4. YRofTexas says:

    Good law.
    Shows that the mass of tissue is a viable, recognizable human being.
    Good law.

Comments are closed.

More From CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

Drip Pan: CBS Local App
Drip Pan: Weather App

Watch & Listen LIVE