On Putting Government Between You and Your Doctor
In terms of inserting the goverment forcibly between patient and doctor, Republicans have had an odd outlook. To the one, the idea of insuring the previously uninsurable seems to incense them. To the other, they really, really want to get into the OB/GYN's office.
And they just lost:
Other parts of the "Woman's Right to Know Act" remain in effect, including the specific empowerment not only of a woman's spouse, but also parents and siblings, to sue the doctor on her behalf. It really is a bizarre legislative package, but the central fixture of the law, the reason for stapling all these things together and ramming them through the legislature, just fell apart.
Of course, there is always this question: Who didn't know this was coming?
Actually, it turns out there's an answer for that:
And what is it with Corbett argument? How can the supporters of these forced-insertion bills not understand the problem with ... oh.
Right. Anyway. The next question, of course, is what kind of show Justice Scalia will put on in defense of the forced-insertion laws.
____________________
Notes:
Blythe, Anne and Craig Jarvis. "Federal judge strikes down NC's ultrasound abortion law, citing free speech". News & Observer. January 17, 2014. NewsObserver.com. January 20, 2014. http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/17/3542149/federal-judge-strikes-down-ncs.html
Peterson Beadle, Amanda. "Gov. Corbett Defends Pennsylvania Ultrasound Bill Because 'It's Not Invasive'". ThinkProgress. March 16, 2012. ThinkProgress.org. January 20, 2014. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/16/445966/corbett-defends-ultrasound-bill/
In terms of inserting the goverment forcibly between patient and doctor, Republicans have had an odd outlook. To the one, the idea of insuring the previously uninsurable seems to incense them. To the other, they really, really want to get into the OB/GYN's office.
And they just lost:
Doctors in North Carolina cannot be forced to show women ultrasound images and describe them in detail before performing an abortion, a federal judge ruled Friday. The decision was lauded by civil rights advocates and criticized by supporters of the law.
U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles ruled Friday that the provision of a 2011 North Carolina law requiring abortion providers to display ultrasound images so women can see them and then describe the dimensions of an embryo or fetus and other particulars is overly broad and a free-speech violation.
Eagles, who was nominated to the court by President Barack Obama, described the clause as a “one-size-fits-all provision” that is “an impermissible attempt to compel these providers to deliver the state’s message in favor of childbirth and against abortion.”
“The Supreme Court has never held that a state has 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, and this Court declines to do so today,” Eagles wrote in her ruling.
(Blythe and Jarvis)
U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles ruled Friday that the provision of a 2011 North Carolina law requiring abortion providers to display ultrasound images so women can see them and then describe the dimensions of an embryo or fetus and other particulars is overly broad and a free-speech violation.
Eagles, who was nominated to the court by President Barack Obama, described the clause as a “one-size-fits-all provision” that is “an impermissible attempt to compel these providers to deliver the state’s message in favor of childbirth and against abortion.”
“The Supreme Court has never held that a state has 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, and this Court declines to do so today,” Eagles wrote in her ruling.
(Blythe and Jarvis)
Other parts of the "Woman's Right to Know Act" remain in effect, including the specific empowerment not only of a woman's spouse, but also parents and siblings, to sue the doctor on her behalf. It really is a bizarre legislative package, but the central fixture of the law, the reason for stapling all these things together and ramming them through the legislature, just fell apart.
Of course, there is always this question: Who didn't know this was coming?
Actually, it turns out there's an answer for that:
Advocates of the 2011 law requiring the narrated and detailed ultrasound at least four hours before an abortion noted that it included a provision that allowed women not to watch or listen to the presentation.
But challengers of the provision focused on free speech issues and argued that the law directed the speech of health care providers
Paige Johnson with Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina said opponents of the law weren't sure what to expect from the court, since recent rulings in other abortion lawsuits have been mixed.
“This is a terrific victory for women in North Carolina,” Johnson said. “What was struck down was forcing a doctor to describe to a woman what she sees. I think anyone who hears that the government is encroaching on that level in a patient-doctor relationship is appalled.”
But challengers of the provision focused on free speech issues and argued that the law directed the speech of health care providers
Paige Johnson with Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina said opponents of the law weren't sure what to expect from the court, since recent rulings in other abortion lawsuits have been mixed.
“This is a terrific victory for women in North Carolina,” Johnson said. “What was struck down was forcing a doctor to describe to a woman what she sees. I think anyone who hears that the government is encroaching on that level in a patient-doctor relationship is appalled.”
And what is it with Corbett argument? How can the supporters of these forced-insertion bills not understand the problem with ... oh.
Right. Anyway. The next question, of course, is what kind of show Justice Scalia will put on in defense of the forced-insertion laws.
____________________
Notes:
Blythe, Anne and Craig Jarvis. "Federal judge strikes down NC's ultrasound abortion law, citing free speech". News & Observer. January 17, 2014. NewsObserver.com. January 20, 2014. http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/17/3542149/federal-judge-strikes-down-ncs.html
Peterson Beadle, Amanda. "Gov. Corbett Defends Pennsylvania Ultrasound Bill Because 'It's Not Invasive'". ThinkProgress. March 16, 2012. ThinkProgress.org. January 20, 2014. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/16/445966/corbett-defends-ultrasound-bill/
