Sonogram Bill Goes to Court

Medical providers already have enough to worry about these days as far as liability goes. In the post titled The Sonogram Lawsuit Hearing written July 7th on Paul Burka’s blog, details are given about the class action lawsuit on behalf of medical providers of abortions in the Western District of Texas, a lawsuit that hopes to give medical providers one less thing to worry about: administering abortions under the scrutiny of the state. After examining the trial, Burka comes to the conclusion that problems for the plaintiff lie in absence of claims of undue hardship, while problems for the state’s case lie in the vagueness of the statute. Burka further concludes that the lawsuit's claim about violation of the First Amendment is most intriguing. He questions whether or not the legislature has the ability to invade doctor-patient relationships “to the point that it can mandate speech.”

I agree with Burka on multiple fronts. First, the Center for Reproductive Rights (the New York Agency representing the Western District medical providers) should have brought up the undue burden claim. Forcing a woman to view a sonogram prior to an abortion is rather cruel. If the state government is supposed to protect its citizens, why then issue a statute that places someone in an emotionally draining situation? That seems like a violation of why government exists to begin with and suggests something amiss with this statute. Surely the judge would have seen that as well.

Second, Burka’s feelings of intrigue at the claim of the First Amendment violation is just. Hopefully by intriguing he also meant powerful. The state has no right to mandate speech by a doctor any further than medical risks. The patient-doctor relationship is private, why else would there be such lengths taken to ensure patient confidentiality. Moreover, the patient has every right to refuse hearing information, especially visual information such as a sonogram. Once the risks of the procedure are detailed, the doctor should let the patient dictate whatever else comes out of the mouth of the doctor. This statute is in every way a violation of the First Amendment. Doctors should be free to decide what is to be said once risks are detailed, and the patient has every right to not hear any of it. Burka recognizes this too and says so by describing the requirement of the doctor “to describe images to a patient that does not wish to see them” as a “different matter" than revealing procedural risks.

The lawsuit only mandates an injunction on the statute, an injunction that hopefully leads to repealing this law. The sonogram bill is whack; please abort!