Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

North Carolina ultrasound abortion law ruled illegal by judge
Yahoo News ^ | Jan. 17, 2014 | David Adams

Posted on 01/18/2014 10:37:21 AM PST by Anton.Rutter

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.

"This is not allowed under the First Amendment," Eagles ruled.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: abortion
In North Carolina, 17 percent of pregnancies end in induced abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
1 posted on 01/18/2014 10:37:21 AM PST by Anton.Rutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Anton.Rutter

Rather than implementing it as a “social” policy which for some reason gets overturned (in the face of other social policy), why not turn abortion into a fiscal policy?

Why not just tax the crap out of it?

Either through a special “fee” or sales tax on abortions.

Give me a reason that even Grover Norquist couldn’t support that.


2 posted on 01/18/2014 10:47:58 AM PST by RangerM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RangerM

Court rules that “doctors” can withhold medical information from “patients”??


3 posted on 01/18/2014 10:49:02 AM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RangerM

There are states which require background checks and registration for one to exercise their second amendment rights. Abortion rights (and press rights too) should require no less.


4 posted on 01/18/2014 11:06:30 AM PST by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

Abortion policy is full of inconsistencies with other laws and policies.

For example, underage teenage girls are considered adults for purposes of getting an abortion without parental consent. You need parental consent for just about anything else involving your under 18 daughter, but she can go have an abortion.

Some liberals also decry sending our young adults into the military and into war zones, claiming that conservatives such as Bush were killing our children. For that purpose, adults are still considered children. But for abortion purposes, people who are still children are considered to be adults.


5 posted on 01/18/2014 11:19:22 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Anton.Rutter

An Bowbama appointee.


6 posted on 01/18/2014 11:26:03 AM PST by Bushbacker1 (Molon Labe! (Oathkeeper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

“Court rules that “doctors” can withhold medical information from “patients”??”

Judge appointed to bench by FUBO in 2010. She’s from Memphis. Can’t find a picture, but based on her bio, I am betting a “Holder’s Person.”


7 posted on 01/18/2014 11:36:02 AM PST by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Anton.Rutter

This is a travesty by yet ANOTHER ACTIVIST JUDGE!

F the Kritarchy! Arrest the judge.


8 posted on 01/18/2014 11:41:36 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anton.Rutter

Then make them hold the body of the baby the the just had killed


9 posted on 01/18/2014 11:45:34 AM PST by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

I don’t disagree, but it’s for naught if an activist judge is going to overturn it as a bit of social activism.

I’m suggesting we take that aspect out of it, and make it purely fiscal.


10 posted on 01/18/2014 12:09:56 PM PST by RangerM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

Some people don’t show up on film.


11 posted on 01/18/2014 12:14:28 PM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Anton.Rutter

They should certainly be warned of all the dangers of having an abortion, including mental health issues.

Perhaps if women started suing after abortions for their failure to warn, abortion doctors would get out of the business.


12 posted on 01/18/2014 3:36:06 PM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anton.Rutter

We have a major Judge problem that needs to be Fixed.


13 posted on 01/18/2014 3:39:48 PM PST by MaxMax (Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anton.Rutter

Judge Striking Down NC Ultrasound Law Was Obama Appointee

U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles, nominated in March of last year by President Barack Obama, has blocked (.pdf) certain provisions of North Carolina’s informed consent law, the Woman’s Right to Know Act.

Specifically, Eagles blocked provisions that would have required abortion practitioners or their trained technicians to perform an ultrasound on women seeking abortion in their facilities, allow women to view the screen to see the ultrasound image, and provide an explanation of what they see on the screen. Eagles ruled that these requirements are in violation of the abortion practitioners’ freedom of speech.

The Plaintiffs contend these speech-and-display requirements violate the First Amendment by compelling unwilling speakers to deliver the state’s message discouraging abortion. [...]

[...] The First Amendment generally includes the right to refuse to engage in speech compelled by the government. Both compelled statements of opinions and compelled statements of fact burden protected speech.

Essentially, Eagles has ruled that abortionists and their employees do not have to tell the truth to women seeking abortion if they are simply unwilling to tell the truth. The ramifications of this may cover far more than the use of ultrasounds even though this particular case dealt only with the ultrasound aspect of informed consent. If there is no provision whereby government may compel “statements of fact” in the context of an abortion procedure, then it follows that abortionists in North Carolina have been offered by Eagles’ ruling a certain legal basis for having license to lie outright from the moment a woman seeks abortion until the moment she leaves the facility.

Eagles ruled that in order to win their case, the state would have had to show there is a “compelling state interest” in requiring abortionists to reveal “statements of fact” in the context of the “speech-and-display” (ultrasound) provisions of the Act. Further, the “compelling state interest” would have to be “narrowly tailored”. The state had argued there were two compelling state interests:

“[P]rotecting abortion patients from psychological and emotional distress”, and;
“[P]reventing women from being coerced into having abortions.”
On the first point, Eagles claimed that the opposite is the case. Rather than protecting women from such distress, requiring women to view the ultrasound and hearing an explanation of what is on the screen would, she believes, damage “the psychological health of the very group the state purports to protect.”

In other words, the “statements of fact” in the context of a pregnant woman viewing an ultrasound image of her unborn child and having the baby’s features explained to her were deemed by Eagles to be oppressive acts against women seeking abortion. On the second point, Eagles claimed that it did not seem “apparent” that any coercion is involved when an abortionist opts to deny women access to ultrasound information.

Speaking as a woman, and as a mother of four, I cannot help but be appalled that a judge, particularly a female judge, would have any basis for a belief that seeing an ultrasound image of my unborn child might be an act of oppression, even if I were in a crisis situation.

Far apart from my own personal experience with pregnancy, as I read this decision from Judge Catherine Eagle, my heart was torn apart as I remembered an old and dear friend of mine, my best friend in fact, and her experience with ultrasound and abortion.

My friend, who I will call Angelica, was young, pregnant and unmarried. She wanted to keep her baby, but her boyfriend, the father of the child, protested. He pressured her to have an abortion. She was in her twentieth week before she finally bent to his will and agreed to have the procedure.

Angelica related to me that a technician performed an ultrasound and did not intend for her to see the screen, but that the screen was turned just enough for her to tilt her head and see it without the technician knowing it. Angelica saw the image of a baby on the screen and knew that this was a baby, but she did not have the courage to object to the procedure because she was afraid of her boyfriend and she was afraid to tell the technician that she had seen the image on the screen.

The abortion was performed and Angelica was traumatized by it. From that point on she essentially, in my view, lost her mind on some level. She used illegal drugs and drank liquor on a regular basis — daily, if she could have access to it. This went on for years. Eventually, one afternoon, Angelica simply could not live with it anymore. She took a gun and shot herself in the head. Suicide.

The issue of abortion is a difficult issue because news of pregnancy is not always welcome news. There is no easy answer to the abortion question. Either way, there is sacrifice involved. Either the parents sacrifice of themselves to help bring this new life into the world, or the new life is sacrificed to protect the parents. There is no avoiding sacrifice.

May God have mercy on Judge Catherine Eagles for imposing her belief on women and their unborn children that “statements of fact” are irrelevant because we must consider the “freedom” of the abortionist in these situations over and above the freedom of these women to know those “statements of fact” and the freedom of the child to be protected from being directly killed by an abortionist.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/28/judge-striking-down-nc-ultrasound-law-was-obama-appointee/


14 posted on 01/18/2014 3:42:35 PM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anton.Rutter

OK, after reading the comments after this article it’s shown that pro-death posters outnumber pro-life, so pro-death is right. Majority rules! But then, the majority of representatives, elected by the majority of voters passed a law requiring the professional baby exterminators to show the mother the human inside her womb before she consents to its murder is wrong per an appointed judge. It was appointed judges that made it “right” to kill the children that are the results of inconvenient conception. And pro-death baby killing godless people don’t see any political agenda behind the push to kill the most vulnerable, whether the elderly, the invalid, the mentally retarded, Downs syndrome babies, quadriplegics, you name your own “different”...Jews, Christians, Gypsies, 2nd Amendment supporters, Tea Party supporters, homosexuals, welfare recipients...


15 posted on 01/19/2014 7:45:45 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian (Vote Democrat. Once you're OK with killing babies the rest is easy. <BCC><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson