Judge blocks Texas sonogram law

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: Austin American Statesman

A federal judge Tuesday blocked Texas from enforcing a new law that will require women to receive a sonogram, and hear about its results, at least 24 hours before receiving an abortion.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks issued a preliminary injunction after finding that portions of the sonogram law, set to take effect Sept. 1, were unconstitutionally vague and violated the First Amendment by improperly requiring doctors and patients to engage in government-mandated speech.

“The act compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity, and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen,” Sparks wrote.

Read more: http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2011/08/30/judge_blocks_texas_sonogram_la.html

---

Great news!

Wonderful job Judge Sparks! :toast:

[tawadi]

1. Good. eom

[Demeter]

2. About time the Rational People had a voice

[midnight]

20. Yes. I agree. If it can happen in Texas there is a good chance it could happen in places like Wi.

[Tx4obama]

3. U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks

He was nominated by President George H.W. Bush on October 1, 1991, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089. He was confirmed by the Senate on November 21, 1991, and received his commission on November 25, 1991.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Sparks

[DeSwiss]

4. K&R n/t

[SoapBox]

5. K & R! n/t

[dogmoma56]

6. for every ray af light there is huge bag of cockroaches

[county worker]

7. Yeah but the wing nuts need big government for just this reason!

How you going to force everyone to be xian if you don't have big government?

[bertman]

13. A big 10-4 on that, county worker. All the anti-gummint screamers appear to really

want MORE gummint.

Ain't that interesting? More gummint when the gummint is doing what YOU want it to do.

[BNJMN]

16. What was that line I heard here? 'Nanny State' only applies to the laws you disagree with? [nt]

[kimmerspixelated]

8. Great! n/t

[LetTimmySmoke]

9. If she wants to get a sonogram, fine. If not, fine.

It's not the government's business to be making decisions like this.

[jmowreader]

18. That's not the point

They figure that if you force the woman to view the sonogram and hear the heartbeat, they will decide it's a baby and there's no way they could possibly kill it.

The problem I have with right-wing zealots on this issue is, every woman who is going in for an abortion knows what's in there. They know that if left in there to cook for nine months, it's going to be a baby.

"Oh, look...he has his father's eyes. Wouldn't it hurt the baby's father if he knew you were here to kill your baby?"
'I don't know; call Huntsville and ask him. He's doing ten-to-twenty there for kidnapping and raping me.'

[kestrel91316]

48. + 5 brazillion

[Scout]

52. thank you

we silly women just think there might be puppies in there, unless someone shows us a picture and gives us a lecture.

to put it very bluntly "Abortion stops a beating heart" is pretty much the point.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

61. I thought women had bologna sandwiches in their bellies

after getting pregnant.

I always thought that this is why I loved bologna sandwiches so much, because I actually started out as one.

Don't ruin that for me.

[muntrv]

10. There's a big gubmint program to get rid of.

[Swede Atlanta]

11. Great news but..........

If this goes up on appeal the Christo-Nazis will likely say this law is just fine and dandy, the trifecta of Alito, Roberts and that fucking pig Scalia

[harun]

14. Agree. I don't think this lasts long.

[valerief]

12. I'm glad they don't all have Cool Whip for brains in Texas!

:applause:

[PDittie]

15. Best Line:

Footnote, Page 20 ...

It is ironic that many of the same people who zealously defend the state’s righteous duty to become intimately involved in a woman’s decision to get an abortion are also positively scandalized at the government’s gross overreaching in the area of health care.

BURN, TeaBaggers.

[BrightKnight]

17. Forced vaginal penetration that serves no medical purpose

has another name. Forcing a woman to submit to that before she is permitted to exercise her right to have an abortion is absurd.

[Left Coast2020]

19. I just don't understand where in religious "wackodom" does it say.....

...that these people have a right to instill their beliefs on other peoples bodies? Where is it that says they can twist some kind of logic to tell a woman that she must have a baby--even if it's medically dangerous to her well being? This is one reason why I do not subscribe to any organized religion. If we didn't have this religious beliefs out there, women would be living peaceful lives. Maybe I'm answering my own question but it is twisted by people who want to serve their own personal ignorance of womens health. At least that freak that shot Dr. Tiller is where he belongs. Enough said before my blood pressure goes up.

[defendandprotect]

31. From highest perspective this is simply an effort by males to regain control over reproduction ....

abortion is an eraser -- and an affront to patriarchy!

Procreation = labor --

Keeping women unwillingly pregnant increases opportunity to exploit them --

discrimination pays off handsomely! Remember women used to make only 50% of

what males made for the same jobs!

[No Elephants]

38. A sonogram involves vaginal penetration?

[booksenkatz]

44. At early stages, yes

In early weeks, the vaginal scanner is the only way to see the fetus. And it can be extremely painful (it was for me).

In later weeks, the belly scan can be used. But even so, why should a woman be required to undergo, and to pay for, an unnecessary procedure prior to receiving a perfectly legal abortion? She knows what is in her uterus. She wants it OUT of her uterus.

I like the earlier DU post -- there is a name for medically-unnecessary vaginal penetration with an object.

[No Elephants]

50. OMG I never knew that!

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

40. It's the largest daily newspaper in Austin, Texas, which is the 15th largest city in the US. n/t

[DissedByBush]

23. Glad for the victory -- not trying to hijack, but...

The similarity here just struck me as absolutely amazing. On another story I was discussing how those who are against the right to keep and bear arms like to use what they call "sensible regulation" to try to ban guns under the guise of just trying to protect people.

This is so exactly the same. Any idiot can see the purpose is to try to infringe on -- and eventually end -- a woman's right over her body, but they'll still state their transparent cover story as if any rational person would actually believe it.

I am so glad to see another of these lying types getting smacked down in any area concerning our rights.

[defendandprotect]

32. You're missing the point ....

that it's the same right wingers who give you guns who also want to reestablish

oppression of women and minorities!

Or do you think RW are simply confused about what they're doing?

There is only one way that the RW can rise and that's via political violence --

including creating more violent societies -- guns are the way to do that.

[DissedByBush]

49. They don't give me any guns

I buy them.

The RW, for all their talk, doesn't really care about the 2nd Amendment either.

The 2nd Amendment means freedom, and they are opposed. George Bush was willing to extend the Assault Weapons Ban.

People forget the Brady Bunch are Republicans!

It's simply about rights.

And those who want to take them away lie to get you to let them.

[defendandprotect]

53. GOPs/NRA gave you the guns ... by TARGETING not only liberals and moderates in Dem party....

but liberals and moderates in their own party!

The "second amendment" farce -- as it has been called even by former SC justices --

is a RW landmine to create a violent America -- that's all.

Violence is never about freedom anymore than wars are about peace!

[DissedByBush]

54. The NRA supported Democrats in the last election

If you support the right, you get supported.

"The "second amendment" farce -- as it has been called even by former SC justices -- "

Evidence, please. But I do notice the gall to call any one of our Bill of Rights a farce. It shows a disturbingly anti-rights attitude.

"Violence is never about freedom"

So, tell me, how did this country achieve its freedom?

By saying "pretty please" to King George?

[defendandprotect]

55. GOP/NRA first trargeted liberal and moderate Democrats ... then they supported RW Dems --!!

And same in their own party --

How did you miss knowing that?


The rightwing only supports rightwing agenda -- unless you're fooling yourself?

The second amendment "farce" concerns the interpretation of it as "guns for everyone."

The rightwing effort to return to a "Wild West America" --


THIS nation achieved a partial freedom, based on mainly freedom for elites via violence --

Other nations were able to do it without violence --

But, tell me ... is this more of the idea that if you have a gun/guns that you'll be safe

from a MIC/government that might want to torture you?

How many drones do you have -- ? Think Obama might sell you a few -- ?


:rofl:

[DissedByBush]

56. The NRA supports rights, period.

Regardless of party, they will support the candidate with the better record on rights. All else being equal, they will support the incumbent over a challenger.

"The second amendment "face" concerns the interpretation of it as "guns for everyone.""

You are correct. The original interpretation wasn't "guns for everyone."

It was "guns for whites." Blacks weren't allowed.

But unless you'd like to retain that old racist attitude, you should agree it has changed to "guns for everyone" due to equal rights for blacks.

"But, tell me ... is this more of the idea that if you have a gun/guns that you'll be safe"

One government.

Over a hundred million gun owners.

Shrub found out just how bad a small number of armed opponents among a populace can screw up our military.

But that isn't the only historical reason for the 2nd Amendment.

There's also personal protection.

The Heller and McDonald decisions laid it out perfectly. The dissent was pathetically anti-rights.

[defendandprotect]

57. GOPs/NRA supports rightwing interpretations of rights --- such as privacy vs Roe vs Wade ...

States rights conveniently thrown aside when necessary -- as we saw in 2000!

And as we see with various States legalizing Medical Marijuana -- !!


Regardless of party, they will support the candidate with the better record on rights. All else being equal, they will support the incumbent over a challenger.

GOP will support the candidate with the more rightwing record -- that's all.

And they TARGETED all of the liberals and moderates in the Dem Party who might have truly

protected your rights from destruction by corporations --

and those who would have protected progressive taxation on the rich --

and those who would have passed MEDICARE FOR ALL --

but, hey -- YOU got GUNS ... why worry!


And, no the race card isn't going to work on 2nd amendment -- though nice try!

GOPs/NRA is for minority rights -- of course!!

:rofl:



And .. .

Over a hundred million gun owners.

Shrub found out just how bad a small number of armed opponents among a populace can screw up our military.

It does look like the RW delusion is still in place -- a million gun owners will beat our

MIC -- !! Of course!

Take a lesson from the Libyans -- it took NATO to dislodge Kadaffi who had been armed to the hilt

by government-gun-running nations from UK to US -- though we hadn't fulfilled our contract with

Kadaffi at the time of the uprising --

Fortunately, he didn't have nuclear weapons!


:rofl:



Maybe you also missed KATRINA -- ?

The first thing they did was confiscate guns -- !!

[DissedByBush]

60. States have no rights

That's a right-wing statement they like to throw around.

States have powers. The only thing in this country with rights are people.

"GOP will support the candidate with the more rightwing record -- that's all."

True, but we're talking about the NRA. The NRA is single-issue. Any other positions are irrelevant to them. Republicans were PISSED when they supported Democrats over Republicans.

"And, no the race card isn't going to work on 2nd amendment -- though nice try!"

Except for the fact race is deeply ingrained in the issue.

The first successful gun-bans in the post-formation United States were against blacks. Black gun bans were passed and upheld extensively after Nat Turner's rebellion. The few early blanket attempts to infringe on the right were ruled to violate the rights of the (white) citizen.

The Dred Scott case showed how afraid they were of armed blacks, " would give to persons of the negro race ... the right to ... keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Note this also means that back in 1857 the Supreme Court considered the 2nd Amendment as meaning a citizen has a right to "keep and carry arms wherever."

Can't blame this on the Republicans. At this time they had barely been founded as an abolitionist party.

And the NRA didn't even exist yet, to be founded 14 years later by Union officers to remedy the poor marksmanship they saw of Civil War union soldiers.

"GOPs/NRA is for minority rights -- of course!!"

Well, the GOP was founded as the abolitionist party. The Democratic Party used to be pro-slavery, and the KKK was mainly Democrats. Things have changed quite a bit over the years.

Learn about Robert F. Williams. With the help of the NRA he founded an NRA-chartered rifle club and armed the members. This was the famous Black Armed Guard formed to protect blacks against KKK violence. It seriously pissed off the white powers that be, and violated numerous local "gun control" laws designed to prevent blacks from owning guns.

North Carolina still has one on the books today. When a state of emergency is declared nobody is to have guns in their possession outside of their property. This was meant to quell any black uprisings or demonstrations, as with such a declaration they could have a pretext to disarm blacks. It was never meant to apply to whites.

[defendandprotect]

63. "Powers" vs "Rights" ... ROFL ....

Look -- if you have a debate, spill it --

If you want to play games with semantics, you'll be on ignore --

GOPs/NRA is Rightwing --

are you denying that?

Guns are the GOP issue -- the rightwing issue -- are you somehow missing that?

The only way that "race" is involved in this issue is that the GOP is ... SEXIST, RACIST

AND HOMOPHOBIC -- !! and, therefore, so is the GOPs/NRA --


And during Katrina they didn't confiscate guns -- except those held by "blacks" ????

:rofl: --


The original NRA and the GOPs/NRA are two different things -- the latter was radicalized by

the NRA to do RW bidding -- to create a more violent America -- to target liberals and

moderates in both parties.



And you think that the GOP is no longer racist -- ????

:rofl: --


Anyone would be barely able to connect the GOP with the days of abolition and Lincoln!

[DissedByBush]

65. Yes, powers

People have rights. Governments have powers. It is not semantics. It is a very important distinction that the totalitarians love to confuse.

"GOPs/NRA is Rightwing -- "

NRA is not right wing. NRA is single-issue regardless of "wing."

"Guns are the GOP issue -- the rightwing issue -- are you somehow missing that?"

Guns are the GOP issue recently only because some power-hungry, anti-rights, city-based Democrats made it an issue they can grab. They suckered many Democrats nationwide to suddenly believe in the "Bill of Rights Minus One."

We are slowly taking it back. Democrats supporting this right are eradicating it as an issue, and it's why the NRA had to support Democrats the last couple elections.

"The only way that "race" is involved in this issue is that the GOP is ... SEXIST, RACIST"

Racism is very clearly historically intertwined with the gun rights issue. I have shown you the facts.

It is as drug prohibition, a right infringed initially only for the minorities (blacks and Chinese), eventually spread to the rest of the population.

[defendandprotect]

66. Within the range of our discussion, it is game-playing ...

Repeating my post --

GOPs/NRA supports rightwing interpretations of rights --- such as privacy vs Roe vs Wade ...

States rights conveniently thrown aside when necessary -- as we saw in 2000!

And as we see with various States legalizing Medical Marijuana -- !!


You're missing the point that no matter what you choose to call it, the GOP will

distort it for their own benefit -



"GOPs/NRA is Rightwing -- "

NRA is not right wing. NRA is single-issue regardless of "wing."

NRA has been radicalized by GOP to move government to the right -- it is a political tool --

using "guns" as a front, but simply as a method to rid Congress -- on both sides of the aisle --

of liberals and moderates.


"Guns are the GOP issue -- the rightwing issue -- are you somehow missing that?"

Guns are the GOP issue recently only because some power-hungry, anti-rights, city-based Democrats made it an issue they can grab. They suckered many Democrats nationwide to suddenly believe in the "Bill of Rights Minus One."

We are slowly taking it back. Democrats supporting this right are eradicating it as an issue, and it's why the NRA had to support Democrats the last couple elections.

All of these RW issues gradually lose steam -- that's all that's happened as Americans and

police officers decide they don't want the GOP/NRA "Wild West America."

"City-based Democrats" -- ? Are you in denial of violence in the cities caused by guns?

And that we are all paying the costs for treating the wounded?


The second amendment is simply about a militia -- we all know that.

And all original drafts of the amendment make that clear --


Again, you have but to look at Katrina to see how inane the idea is that anyone -- white or

"black" -- in any emergency will be permitted to have guns.

[DissedByBush]

67. What is GOP/NRA?

They are two separate organizations, sometimes in opposition to each other on the common issue.

"You're missing the point that no matter what you choose to call it, the GOP will distort it for their own benefit -"

The only thing about this the GOP distorts is the truth about its supposed support for 2nd Amendment rights.

"NRA has been radicalized by GOP to move government to the right "

Absolutely idiotic. The NRA retains one issue, and has gone AGAINST the GOP on it often.

"Are you in denial of violence in the cities caused by guns?"

I think you are in denial of violence in the cities caused by criminals and blame a tool. Get back to me when guns start roaming the city killing people on their own.

"The second amendment is simply about a militia -- we all know that."

The militia in this sense is every man armed for his own defense and that of the free state (not necessarily the established government). It is not the Army. The militia (all men armed) was supposed to the the last defense against an oppressive government using the standing army for despotism. From James Madison, father of the Constitution:

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from amongst themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by government possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops

"And all original drafts of the amendment make that clear"

Really?

New Hampshire wanted

"Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion."

Pennsylvania wanted

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed disarming the people or any of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."

North Carolina and Rhode Island had similar requests. North Carolina wouldn't even ratify until this was in the Constitution.

About drafts, the first draft read

"A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

As I said, all people. The security of a free state means free, as opposed to non-free that an oppressive government can obtain against an unarmed populace. It's clear all the way through that this was always considered an individual right. I can go back to the further historical basis of this, Blackstone.

A liberal person who cares about rights will generally read the Bill of Rights in the most rights-expansive interpretation possible. We all do it. We see separation of church and state. We see privacy for the right to choose. We see freedom to ingest the substances you choose. None of those are explicitly in the Constitution, but we know the intent, we know it's meant to support the rights of the PEOPLE utmost over attempts of an oppressive government to control them.

Then it's strange that those who claim to be so liberal use the most rights-restricting reading of only that ONE amendment.

You don't care about protecting rights. You only care about protecting rights YOU like.

[defendandprotect]

68. What's Koch Bros./DLC ... or GOP/"pro-lifers murders" ... or GOP/T-baggers ...?

It's all part of RW/GOP Kabuki -- all bought and paid for --

Again, the GOP radicalized the NRA for their own political purposes --

completely changing the character of the NRA --

GOP used the NRA to TARGET not only liberals and moderates in the Democratic Party, but

liberals and moderates in the Republican Party -- thereby moving BOTH parties and the

Congress to the far right.

Same as they have used their other creations -- Christian Coalition, for one.

GOP gave start-up funding for the Christian Coalition --

Richard Scaife funded Dobson's organization -- other rw wealthy funded Bauer's group --


GOP/"pro-life" groups were financed by White Christian Militia groups, but Supreme Court

wouldn't permit the RICO laws to be applied against them. Granted they had to depend on

people like Randall Terry to raise a few really fanatical religious freaks to do the

murdering of doctors --


The only thing about this the GOP distorts is the truth about its supposed support for 2nd Amendment rights.

You want to try that one again? Huh?


The GOP obviously has family arguments with the T-baggers -- and presume with all of their groups?


We have problems with guns in all our major cities -- problems they have tried to limit by

banning guns but that is largely impossible as long as surround states don't have equivalent laws.

The woundings are more than $35,000 per shooting -- and we have many innocents on the streets

being harmed.

If you chose to be disingenuous about this, you'll be on ignore --


Here you go ... from your own quote --

"A well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free

state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person

religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

And, that would now be our national guard --


Having the "freedom" to kill others in our society is not freedom anymore than war is peace!


The only reason the NRA and rightwingers have prevailed on the 2nd amendment issue is due to the

takeover of our people's government by the RW which put the Gang of 5 in place --

If we someday end that reign of the right so will the GOP's/NRA reign end --



Bye --

[DissedByBush]

71. The Democratic party made itself a target

By fighting against the 2nd Amendment. Now that many Democrats are realizing the party's position is anti-rights, they are also getting support from the NRA, even in opposition to Republicans.

It's as simple as that, you can remove the tin foil hat.

"You want to try that one again? Huh?"

I've already told you. Even Bush was going to extend the idiotic Assault Weapons Ban. The GOP doesn't care about our rights, we know that. They only pay lip service to the 2nd Amendment enough to stay ahead of the Democrats and get the support of the people and of the NRA.

It's pure politics. The Democratic Party made it a differentiating issue several decades ago, and the Republicans grabbed at the chance to look like the good guys. Now that Democrats are realizing the mistake, the Republicans are losing the support.

"We have problems with guns in all our major cities"

We have a lot of problems in all our major cities, and guns isn't one of them. It's what criminals do with guns that's the problem. Maybe if we changed things so the desperate thought they had a chance. Maybe if we improved conditions. Maybe if we didn't have a revolving door justice system that thinks it's more important to jail a pothead than an armed robber.

"And, that would now be our national guard -- "

The body of the people is every single person, quite clear in the context. It's not the organized National Guard, nor the reserve. It is the body of the people who can rise up to protect the "free state" either from foreign enemies, or from a government turned oppressive. I noticed you ignored the ones that specifically declared the INDIVIDUAL right, and failed to produce a more restrictive draft as you said existed.

You really do not know your history in this. You're probably just regurgitating the lies of the Republican Brady Bunch.

"Having the "freedom" to kill others in our society is not freedom anymore than war is peace!"

You have no more freedom to kill with a gun than with a knife, car or Dewar flask of liquid nitrogen.

What you do have is the right life and liberty, and to protect those with guns if necessary.

[defendandprotect]

73. Hogwash .... the Dems are the rightwingers and the Repugs are the liberals ...!!???

:rofl: -- :rofl: -- :rofl: --

bye --

[DissedByBush]

75. Bye

You don't know your history, and apparently can't be taught, so it's pretty much useless.

[boppers]

76. Okay, I want an amendment to establish my right to keep and bear nitrogen.

That was hilarious.

Since I saw you arguing with somebody I have ignored, and you seem to know your stuff, what's your perspective on the sawed-off shotgun, personal RPG carry, personal nuke... the kind of arms that currently require registration/regulation, per Miller?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

[DissedByBush]

72. Did you notice the Pennsylvania text?

Those guys were smart. Long ago when I read that I wondered why they would ever need to add a protection for hunting in there at the time, since it would understood hunting was a way of life.

Then I found out: They knew the backdoor, insidious nature of gun grabbers. They wanted that text because they thought hunting legislation might be used to backdoor a violation of the right to keep and bear arms.

[defendandprotect]

69. Here's GOPs/NRA at work ....Pima County GOP raffles off Glock in Gabrielle Giffords' district

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20100611-503544.html

[DissedByBush]

70. I've seen that

They normally raffle pistols. In fact, pistol raffles are quite common for fundraising.

It wasn't even the same model Glock, it wasn't even with a high-cap magazine.

Would you consider it shameful if she'd gotten run over by a car and someone didn't cancel his yearly raffle of a Chevy?

BTW, Gabrielle Giffords herself OWNS A GLOCK and considers herself to be a pretty good shot with it.

I myself don't like Glocks, but I wish her the best with whatever works for her.

[defendandprotect]

74. Pitiful --- !! Bye .... !!!

[Shining Jack]

24. That's disgusting.

And the freaks who are pushing for crazy laws like this are making me nauseated.

[cstanleytech]

25. Good, that clearly was going to far as would a law requiring someone to

have to speak to a therapist or a anyone before going through with an abortion.

[Judi Lynn]

26. Melissa Harris-Perry: ‘Rick Perry wants to get all up in your uterus and take a picture’

Melissa Harris-Perry: ‘Rick Perry wants to get all up in your uterus and take a picture’
Posted on 08.31.11
By Roxanne Cooper

Filling in on the Rachel Maddow Show on Tuesday night, Tulane professor and MSNBC commentator Melissa Harris-Perry took Texas Governor and GOP Presidential candidate Rick Perry to task for supporting “government so small that you don’t even notice it” on the one hand and the inconsistency of supporting the Texas sonogram law on the other.

Harris-Perry said that Gov. Perry “wants the government to be so small that it doesn’t provide a social safety net, that it doesn’t support you when you grow old and retire and need health care. That’s big government and he wants to set us free from those shackles …So, Rick Perry’s version of small government conservativism means government so small it’s not there to help you.”

“Rick Perry wants to make the government so small you don’t event notice it …unless you’re a lady. In which case, Rick Perry wants to make the government so big that it can control the pregnancy of any given woman in Texas. On nearly every other issue, Rick Perry wants government to be practically non-existent. He wants government to be nowhere near you as a citizen. Not even if you want it or need it. But on this one issue, on the issue of abortion, he wants government to be right there with you. Handing your doctor a script, whispering in your ear, that you should be ashamed of yourself. Rick Perry wants to get all up in your uterus and take a picture.”

The Texas sonogram bill requires women to get a sonogram at least 24 hours before getting an abortion. It also requires doctors to describe the fetus to the woman. Critics of the Texas sonogram law, as Raw Story reported in March, say “the bill is really about shaming women into deciding against terminating a pregnancy.”

More:
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/melissa-harris-perry-rick-perry-wants-to-get-all-up-in-your-uterus-and-take-a-picture/

[jtrockville]

37. She's absolutely brilliant.

Not many people could fill in for Rachel (also brilliant), but Harris-Perry does quite a fine job.

[defendandprotect]

58. "Handmaid's Tale" by Atwood --

Amazon.com: The Handmaid's Tale (9780385490818): Margaret ...
(685 Reviews) - $15.00 $8.44 as of Aug 30, 2011
In a startling departure from her previous novels ( Lady Oracle , Surfacing ), respected Canadian poet and novelist Atwood presents here a fable of the near future ...

www.amazon.com/Handmaids-Tale-Margaret-Atwood/dp/038549081X - Cached.More results from amazon.com »



Is Harris-Perry related in any way to Perry?

[tavalon]

27. Good call

[Kerrytravelers]

28. Judge Sparks understands that reproductive rights is a medical discussion between a doctor & patient

Not a doctor and the mass voting populace who are not medically qualified to vote on private medical decisions that don't concern their body.

[No Elephants]

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

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?

[defendandprotect]

33. +1000% -- K/R -- excellent points --!!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

41. We all agree with what you say down here.

This is one step in the fight, but it was an important one since the law was about to be enacted on Sep. 1st. Technically it doesn't have to be honored until October 1st, but we needed something to give us some leverage ASAP.

[No Elephants]

51. IIt's better than nothing, I agree. But, jeez, Louise.

[defendandprotect]

30. Good -- of course this is nonsense intended to control women and childbearing ....

It also suggests that there is something wrong with women making their own

decisions about their own bodies!

[spicegal]

34. Good news for now, but this war continues, and will

never stop. Watched Melissa Harris Perry covering for RM last night. She showed a video clip of two good ole boy older Texas "gentlemen" discussing this bill. They were so proud of themselves. Their incredibly demeaning condescending attitude toward women made me want to retch and reach through the TV and choke the life out of them. Why are women across this country tolerating this kind of crap, being treated like they're some kind of ignorant little tarts who blithely go about seeking abortions because it's such a fun thing to do?? It just infuriates me. I'm old enough to remember the days of back allies and coat hangers. Is that what women want? It that what parents want for their daughters? Since these a-holes haven't been able to overturn Roe v Wade, they're resorting to other strategies such as making abortions increasingly inaccessible, hassling women, demeaning women by forcing them to have sonograms, making them jump through umpteen other hoops, threatening/killing providers, etc. etc.

[livetohike]

36. Wish I could rec your post

and I agree completely.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

42. You so right. The war isn't near over. I don't know if it ever will be.

This is actually only one battle in a series of battles we're fighting here in Texas. Our fight is a part of the greater war, but none of us should ever give up, nor give one inch. If we do you can rest assured there's some RW conservative christian zealot waiting to take advantage of our lapse.

I'm a woman, and I have a daughter. I refuse to ever give them one inch without a fight. And if they take an inch, I'm going to fight like hell and take back two inches. That's how determined we should be, or so I believe.

[defendandprotect]

59. Like the UNIONS, Women's rights have also suffered under Dem Party protection--!!

Where's the ERA -- where is Obama on Roe vs Wade -- ?

OBAMA IS AWOL on women's rights as far as I can see --

And we have a Dem Party that has been SILENT on most of these liberal issues for

decades now!

Corporate $$$$$$$$ buys a lot of silence!!

Women's groups should also move out from this corporate-Democratic Party which

is betraying them in every way possible!

[Enthusiast]

35. Common sense!

Incredible. :fistbump:

[madmom]

39. Ok since they think pharmacist can NOT supply drugs they don't agree with..

morning after pill, birth control, do they think doctors & nurses who don't agree with their abortion stance can refuse to do it?:shrug:

[DirkGently]

43. Good. Waiting for Reps. to require doctors to preach an hour of fundie scripture before treatment.

[catbyte]

45. YAY! Time to focus on actual children instead of zygotes

[CatholicEdHead]

46. All part of the GOP plan

They expected it to be struck down on the local level to be appealed a few times up to the US Supreme Court. They want a case before them so they can then redecide Roe vs Wade.

[katty]

47. thank you judge for applying SANITY where insanity abounds

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

62. MORE ANTI-CHOICE, PRO-FETUS but only till BIRTH bullshit

Fetus worshippers are very disappointed today. I don't use that term, fetus worshipper, to mean disrespectful, but it is accurate. Most Republican politicians couldn't give a shit about the poor. They have become masters at manipulating the idiotic evangelical vote, which is largely poor itself, but way dumber. These idiotic evangelicals actually think that Republicans care about the issue. I'm sure some of the dumber ones, but the smarter ones just use it as a wedge, to convince the poor, stupid evangelicals to vote against their own economic interests by voting Republican. I wonder when they'll get tired of being fucked by the upper 1%, to paraphase George Carlin.

I don't think the drafters of Roe v. Wade had stupid laws like this in mind when they wrote it. They should have gone further. They said that the state can place no restrictions on abortion in the first trimester-- well, what does this do? Anyway, they also said that the state CAN place restrictions on abortion in the second trimester. That was stupid. States shouldn't be allowed to place restrictions on abortion in the second trimesters either. Fetuses are not viable in the fifth month.

More anti-choice BULLSHIT is what this is. More telling women that they don't own their bodies, but Republican politicians do.

[MissMillie]

64. Amazing that "small government"

I always just big enough to invade a doctor's office.