This is what happens when religious beliefs and influence seep into the legislative process. The state has no business inserting *laws* such as this into the private meetings between women and their doctors. Aside from the obvious attempt to discourage women from obtaining abortions as is our right in a *Free* country, what is there to be gained from this invasive nonsense?
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) – A federal appeals court cleared the way Friday for the immediate enforcement of a new abortion law in Texas requiring doctors to conduct a sonogram before the procedure.
The three-judge panel on Tuesday lifted a temporary stay issued by a district court judge who found the new law potentially unconstitutional, but did not issued a legal mandate. On Friday, the judges agreed to a request by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to cut short the typical three-week waiting period between a ruling and its implementation.
The new law requires doctors to conduct a sonogram before performing an abortion, to show the woman the image, to play the fetal heartbeat aloud and describe the features of the fetus at least 24 hours before the abortion. There are exceptions in the case of rape, incest, fetal deformities and for women who have to travel great distances to reach a doctor.
The most recent order does not give time for doctors fighting the law to appeal Jones’ decision, which under normal circumstances would not have gone into effect until Jan. 31. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which supports the doctors, did not have an immediate reaction to Friday’s order.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals order clears the way for the Texas Department of State Health Services to issue rules for complying with the law and to prosecute doctors who do not obey it…
As with most new regulations that are pushed through in the dark of night, there is no time for folks to fight or stop it. How ‘convenient’ that the judges agreed (on a special request from the AG, Greg Abbott*) to waive the standard waiting period before the new law is implemented. I’m sure there were no favors or golf-course deals that influenced this decision at all…
The article goes on to state -
One of the conservative supporters of the law, the Liberty Institute, welcomed the court’s decision not to delay the law any further.
“This court order means that the Texas sonogram law is to be enforced effective immediately, as it should be,” said Jonathan Saenz, the institute’s legislative director.
In case you’re not familiar with the Liberty Institute, here is a snippet from the “About” section of their website,
“Guided by principles that limit government and promote Judeo-Christian values, Liberty Institute was founded in 1972 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization to protect freedoms and strengthen families by impacting the legislature, media, grassroots, and the courts with the truth.”
How much influence do they wield? Well…to hear them tell, it – quite a damn bit…
“In 2008, we expanded our efforts and opened our first satellite office in Austin, Texas, to have more influence in helping pass bills that favor traditional values and to stop those which would harm those values. Although much of our legislative advocacy focuses on Texas, where we have our roots, our work often has national impact as other states use us as a model in drafting and passing family values legislation such the Texas Marriage Amendment.”
“We remain committed to fighting for pro-family, pro-life and pro-freedom values through the courts, legislature, grassroots and media.” <–Do they really not see the hypocrisy of this statement?? They want to retain freedom…by restricting people’s uh…freedom.
As to the topic of abortion, here is what Liberty Institute has to say about it,
“Liberty Institute believes that every life is valuable, and that life begins at conception.”
“Liberty Institute also has helped pass parent consent laws and has also worked in Texas to pass the an informed consent bill that would require that all pregnant women seeking an abortion are given the chance to see the ultrasound image and hear the heartbeat of their growing child. We also successfully helped pass the Woman’s Right To Know Act, putting major informed consent provisions into law. We have also worked to pass legislation to offer the Choose Life license plate as an optional license plate in the state of Texas, the proceeds of which would be given to groups advocating adoption.”
Now, about those golf-course favors, I mentioned? Well wouldn’t ya know that a few minutes of digging around led me to this little gem of information concerning Texas AG Greg Abbott and Liberty Institute’s President & CEO, Kelly Shackleford, Esq. -
As an expert in constitutional law, Mr. Shackelford has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and Texas Supreme Court in addition to serving as co-counsel in numerous other U.S. Supreme Court cases.
Recently, LLI has been involved in numerous cases, including Van Orden v. Perry, where Mr. Shackelford assisted in heading Amici and oral argument preparation for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in his Ten Commandments Case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Source
I found article after article linking the two men together on common causes like banning gay marriage and pro-life (re: anti-abortion) advocacy work. I particularly enjoyed this story about a group of pseudo-religious zealots sharing a cozy afternoon on stage together -
“Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO and chief counsel of Liberty Institute in Plano, shared the stage in downtown Dallas Nov. 10 with former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The two, along with Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, appeared before an audience gathered to support Heroic Media, a Dallas faith-based group supporting alternatives to abortions.” Source
But hey, like I said, I’m sure the connections are all simply coincidental and that this law was passed solely on its constitutional merits…right?
Nothing to see here at all folks…just ignore that stench of cronyism floating on the breeze of hypocrisy…and don’t worry at all about more restrictive and invasive legislation that only serves to ‘protect & defend’ our freedom and individual rights…
Er, well…’freedom’ as defined by those who think that Judeo-Christian conservative values are the only freedoms deserving of protection…and to hell with the rest of us heathens…literally…who are we to demand to have rights, too?
*Abbott’s political career began in Houston, where he served as a state trial judge in the 129th District Court for three years. Bush appointed Abbott to the Texas Supreme Court, and he was then twice elected to the state’s highest civil court—in 1996 (two-year term) and 1998 (six-year term). Abbott resigned from the Supreme Court in 2001 to seek the open attorney general’s position in 2002.———-Note———
I am not in any way advocating for abortions or ‘the murder of unborn innocents’. I believe abortion is a deeply private matter that should concern only 3 entities – the woman, her doctor…and if she is a believer, her God or Goddess(es) of preference. The point of this article is simply that another dose of restrictive legislation was forced through and passed in the murky waters of questionable connections with cronyism and backroom favors likely playing a big role in events. We are not a free country so long as special interest groups – religious or otherwise – get to use legislative connections to further their own agendas and THAT is the real point. That the law involves abortion rights is merely a side note to never-ending corruption and underhanded deals that slowly erode the foundations of freedom…
While I do understand your concern this is a medical procedure. I am having a cardiac angiogram on Monday morning. The law requires that I be fully informed about that procedure and it’s implications. In my case that will mean watching a video of the what happens during the procedure and, depending on the outcome, how they will proceed from there.
Asking that a woman be fully informed as to exactly what is happening seems to me a rational argument to make. You can tell me that most women know but sorry, most women do not.
A 30 year old yeah probably, an 18-25 year old college kid unless she is a science major NOT. I talk to young people all of the time. When it comes to their own bodies and health they are, excuse the expression, dumb as door nails. I am sorry to disagree here but they need to be FULLY informed about Exactly what they are doing and then decide. They have every right to decide whatever they will. That is the law. But they need to know that there really is a baby in there and they are deciding to dispose of it.
They may have very good reason to do so in their mind but they do need to realize what it is they are truly doing and have the time to consider it. I can tell you if my Doctors on Monday find something serious that is a non-emergency we will not be doing it that day. I will be going home and thinking about it first.
Having my chest cracked open is just as potentially life changing (risk of stroke, embolism, death) as a young woman carrying a child to term. I think one day is worth the risk. I suspect the clinics are less concerned about the women’s feelings than their bottom line anyway.
Interesting way of looking at the issue and I do see where you are coming from in regards to the necessity of patients having enough information to make well informed decisions. My question(s) still remain about where the money will come from to enforce this and the out of the ordinary way the law was passed but you have brought up excellent examples as to why people might think this new regulation was/is necessary; people are not as knowledgeable about their bodies as they always should be. After I, there is a television show called, “I didn’t know I was pregnant” and except in extraordinary cases the idea of not knowing your body is pregnant is mind boggling to me.
If the clinics are truly operating for profit and to protect their bottom line, wouldn’t it behoove them to provide the best patient care possible in order to successfully compete in a free market? And doesn’t adding on the extra cost of a sonogram as mandatory also then place and extra burden on the patient – or on tax payers if the clinic is receiving public funding? It seems there must be a more cost efficient way to handle the issue without throwing another set of laws on the books; why not a comprehensive video explaining the procedure and risks and at most, a 24 hour waiting period? I know that big pharma industry puts a lot of effort (re:money) into influencing politics and that Texas legislators are more than happy to play tit-for-tat politics with the corporations…like the ones who would be supplying the sonogram machines. Add conservative religious politicians and lawyers to the mix and I still smell a rotten deal with more behind it than just good intentions and a desire to protect patients…
The Texas Sonogram law was passed in 2011 by the Texas Legislature with the voting support of over 2/3rds of House and Senate members, elected by the people, both Republican and Democrat. It was signed into law in May of 2011. Abortion groups sued to stop the law in June of 2011. Now 8 months later, it can finally be enforced. There’s no dark of night issue. The facts matter.
Oh yes and we all know that no law has ever been passed by calling in favors, right? Never once in history has a shadowy group written the model legislation which was then implemented by legislative ‘helpers’ who wheel and deal to get it passed…
*Snort*
Nice that you showed up to defend your organization but pardon me if I give you as much credit as I would someone who showed up to represent ALEC.
“a comprehensive video explaining the procedure and risks and at most, a 24 hour waiting period”
Sounds like the perfect solution to me. Patient watches video signs statement to the fact witnessed by nurse just like in hospital and has 24 hrs or so to think about it then can return or call and cancel as they see fit.
I guess the only thing I might want to stipulate is that clinics could not charge for viewing the vid so patient would not feel obligated to come back if they decided against the procedure.
They might even offer it on their website and have some way of doing an identity check prior to video and then at check in to verify and sign consents.Use of Drivers license numbers or some similar identity that could be visually identified upon clinic visit would eliminate two trips for those who are poor. Most people have a DL or State issued ID to avoid using Social Security numbers online to protect the users.
For those of us who are more Liberatarian I would prefer they make the trips but I understand some are too poor to afford it especially if it was more than a city bus ride away. I remember what is was like when I had next to nothing and lived in a shelter. It was very difficult to get around so while there need to be safeguards at the same time we need to not overly inconvenience either.
So if you and I could come up with something so practical just in the course of internet conversing, isn’t it amazing that lawmakers could only come up with another costly and burdensome law/regulation as a solution? Internet solutions are definitely a viable alternative and could help in the case of poor women having to travel for repeated appointments. I’ve lived on the streets myself, even getting treatment for strep was a challenge so I completely understand the concern of not adding more obstacles for folks who can’t just hop in a car and go – the use of internet verification would be a help in the cases where face-to-face appointments are difficult or impossible.
When my husband and I were discussing this article, the first point he brought up was that requiring the women to pay for the sonogram could be an unfair burden – especially in the case of low-income women. Asking (forcing) taxpayers to cover the cost doesn’t seem right and it sure shouldn’t fall to the doctors to provide the service for free…so where do lawmakers propose the $$ comes from to pay for the sonograms (not to mention the cost of investigating, prosecuting and possibly jailing doctors who break the law)? My guess is they (legislators) don’t really care where the money comes from because they know they can always squeeze the taxpayers for more and more…
Yuck.
@Jonatha. In total agreement. I consider myself a Constitutionalist first and a Libertarian second, more precisely a Jefferson Republican. The problem most Libertarians have is they don’t understand that the founding principals of this nation were that of Self-Government, which our founders called Liberty. Liberty is not a minarchy just a hair shy of total anarchy. Representative government is based on the idea that the People determine their own laws that they wish to live under, based upon their culture and mannerisms. Federalism grants very few and specific laws to the Federal government, defense being primary issue, that are without exception national issues. The States were left to make their own laws. A culture has the right to determine the conditions of its own existence, right or wrong. An outside people who are not part of the community have no moral right in telling people how their community must behave, provided that community is not harming others outside of it through its direct actions. Once this country understands this, and understands how this nation was REALLY intended, its a total mental shift and a big picture emerges. The Federal government has no say so in this manner. The only way this would be unconstitutional was if it violated the Texas State Constitution, but Texas has a really bad habit of managing their administration and their Constitution closer to what the Founders intended than anyone else. In otherwords, they actually make Amendments to their Constitution, not just over-reaches.