Posted on 01/17/2014 10:17:13 PM PST by boatbums
A federal judge on Friday struck down a 2011 North Carolina law requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound and explain it to a woman before having an abortion, arguing it violated the constitutional right to free speech of doctors.
U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles found that a state does not have "the power to compel a health care provider to speak, in his or her own voice, the state's ideological message in favor of carrying a pregnancy to term."
The law "compels a health care provider to act as the state's courier and to disseminate the state's message discouraging abortion, in the provider's own voice, in the middle of a medical procedure, and under circumstances where it would seem the message is the provider's and not the state's," she added in her 42-page ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
This is one of the most moronic judicial rulings I have ever seen.
Its total crap like this and the fact that the idiot sheep public are unknowing, uncaring or indifferent, about this judicial rule is what is scary and upsetting.
Abortion is the one area of “medicine” in which libs utterly retreat from their “informed consent” principle. They want women to know as little as possible about what they are contemplating.
.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles found that a state does not have “the power to compel a health care provider to speak,
But the Federal Government does??
Do you have a gun in the house?
Do you feel safe in the house?
etc etc.......
I call bullshit!
Doctors speak the state’s ideology all the time. One example is only prescribing those drugs which the state decides are legal. When they are prescribed they must be prescribed in the way the state has decided meets the State’s standard of health care. You also have doctors speaking the ideology of the state when the law requires the reporting of certain diseases. Not that I disagree with it but a doctor could be against reporting certain diseases.
The argument is without merit. The doctor is not required to be against abortion he just must present the facts about fetal development as supported by the ultrasound. Evil hates the truth, always has and always will.
You state it very well.
Killing Babies = Choice = Good
Protecting Babies = Informed Choice = Bad
Yep, this Country is doomed.
In today’s world “Money is Speech”, unless you think the Government should fund Political Campaigns.
Nothing “Activist” about it.
As far as your other point about Eminent Domain, you are correct. Property Rights have been attacked for decades.
I agree. I remember back in Florida in the late 80's early 90's the state senate was debating a law called "A Woman's Right to Know Act". It was along the same lines as this NC statute only it didn't have anything about ultrasounds in it. It mandated that a pamphlet be given to a woman and the doctor discussing what the pamphlet said prior to her undergoing an abortion. The pamphlet discussed fetal development, alternatives to abortion and the risks of abortion. Charlie Crist, a Republican at the time, was the lone hold out on that vote and it died. Some of the comments from the democrats had to do with whether or not women already knew all this information and if mandating the doctor discuss the points with them was "treating them like children" (that was an actual comment).
I really do think judges like this one imagine that all women know what they're getting when they seek an abortion so ANY impediment to just getting on with it is seen as illegal. As a former volunteer for many years with a crisis pregnancy center, I can attest that LOTS of women do not truly know the truth about abortion. They think it's just a "blob of tissue" and not a human life. We had an ultrasound machine and a tech in the center and gave free tests to any woman who wanted one. A big percentage decided NOT to go have an abortion and gave the gift of life to their babies. A fetal heartbeat starts at THREE weeks gestation!
I also counseled women who had abortions. The vast majority of them did NOT know the truth either about the development of their child, what happened in their abortion or how it affected them afterward both physically, emotionally and spiritually. Women deserve to know the truth. Judges like this one are allowing the abortion industry to play them every bit as much as the women they service. We MUST stand up together and do whatever we can so that abortion won't have to be made illegal - it will be unthinkable. Education is a big step towards that.
Yep! That is the main reason.
The black-robed tyrants strike again! Hell in a handbasket!
Not if you're having an abortion but you can't even get your ears pierced without full consent.
I agree. As I said in an earlier post, abortion is the one medical area where libs want to restrict information rather than require it. For example, think of all those TV ads for prescription medicines, where they must list all the possible side-effects, no matter how rare those side-effects might be or how uncertain the relationship of the side-effect to the medicine actually is. But with abortion, their attitude is “see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil.”
Yes, it does!
The thief comes not, but to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. (John 10:10)
This 2010 Obama appointee is using a trendy liberal debating falsehood that has no legal import. Her use of "ideology" in this incendiary fashion demonstrates an absence of judicial temperament. May she be forever overturned.
You are right - there has been a fifty-year effort to obfuscate the nature of the human fetus/embryo, so many women really do not know the basic biological facts concerning their unborn child. They have been told it’s a blob of protoplasm, or something like a fish, or part of their own body, kind of like their appendix, but not the actual facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.