JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Saturday, February 11, 2012

Federal appeals court refuses to reconsider Texas sonogram law
Jamie Davis at 9:44 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] on Friday denied a request [press release] filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) [advocacy website] to hold an en banc hearing to reconsider a challenge to a Texas law that requires doctors to perform a sonogram on women before an abortion [JURIST news archive]. The court's refusal means that the appeals court's original decision [opinion, PDF] that the law is enforceable will stand. The Texas law [HB 15, PDF] has been controversial because it requires doctors to describe the details of the sonogram to the woman and also let her hear the fetal heartbeat, regardless of whether she refuses. The CRR originally filed suit [press release] in June 2011 on the basis that the law violates women's basic reproductive rights and doctors' First Amendment [text] right against compelled speech.

A District Court judge ruled last week that Texas can begin to enforce the law [JURIST report] immediately, while criticizing the Appeals Court's decision on the grounds that it infringed upon First Amendment rights of doctors. Texas Governor Rick Perry signed the measure into law in May, but it was blocked in August after a challenge [JURIST reports] from the CRR. Laws similar to the Texas law have also been considered in other states. Early this month, the Virginia Senate approved a bill [JURIST report] that would require women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound before the procedure. In October, a judge for the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina issued a preliminary injunction [JURIST report], blocking part of the state's abortion law that required a physician to perform an ultrasound and describe the images to the patient. In March 2010, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled [JURIST report] that a state law imposing broad restrictions on abortion, including the requirement of an ultrasound prior to the procedure, violated that state's constitution.




Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 UK judge upholds request to withhold evidence in Russian spy death investigation
5:26 PM ET, May 19

 Afghanistan parliament blocks women's rights legislation
4:06 PM ET, May 19

 Cameroon authorities urged to drop charges against transgender youths
11:45 AM ET, May 19

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LATEST FORUM

In Alabama, "Back Door" Restrictions on Abortion and Roe
DOMESTIC
LaJuana Davis
Cumberland School of Law

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org