Reply #29: I agree with the result, but the grounds are troublesome.

[No Elephants]

Two kinds of constitutional rights are involved.

One constitutional right is the doctor's First Amendment right not to have government require him or her to say something he or she does not choose freely to say.

The other constitutional right involved is a pregnant woman's constitutional right to choose for herself if her body will grow a baby for nine months, even if so doing threatens her own emotional or physical health, perhpas even her own life. And maybe a First Amendment and choice right to choose for herself if she wants to subject her belly, heart, mind and ears to a sonogram and to hearing the results and the heartbeat--or lack of heartbeat. And she has to wait 24 hours, whether she wants to or not.

The Texas law would have placed a undue burden on her consitutional rights. We would never tolerate any burdens remotely like that for other Constitutional rights.

Ahd, according to the OP article, this case was decided on the first ground and only the first ground. To hell with the rights of the pregnant woman? That is so demeaning.

Then again, what do I expect from a Poppy Bush nominee? I guess I should just be grateful that the law was struck down? But, what if they find a way around making the doctor speak? How about a sonogram machine that "speaks" the results as it takes the sonogram?

Maybe they would strike that down on the ground that the machine is practicing medicine without a license, thereby depriiving doctors of their livelihoods?