Thursday, June 14, 2012
In Part One of this two-part series of columns, I began my analysis of amendments to a Texas law, the so-called “Texas Woman’s Right to Know Act,” that require abortion providers to do the following at least 24 hours prior to an abortion procedure: (1) perform an ultrasound on the patient seeking an abortion; (2) expose the patient to the resulting visual ultrasound image, as well as any extant fetal heart sounds; and (3) provide an explanation of the embryo or fetus as pictured on the screen. I have been referring to these amendments as “the Sonogram Law.” In this column, the second in this two-part series, I will continue my analysis of that law and of how it compares to abortion regulations that the Supreme Court has previously considered. . . .
Dorf on Law: "Inherently Truthful and Non-Misleading": Ultrasound Images Before An Abortion, by Sherry F. Colb:
In my Verdict column for this week, part 2 of a two-part series, I continue an analysis that I began last week of amendments to the Texas law that require abortion providers to perform an ultrasound on their patients twenty-four hours prior to an abortion, during which the provider must show the patient the embryo or fetus, play any fetal heart sounds audibly, and give a description to the patient of what is on the screen and what she is hearing. In my column, I consider the burden of such "informed consent" procedures on a woman who will undergo an abortion. In my blog post last week on the subject, I examine the potentially devastating impact of the procedure on the woman who decides against an abortion because of what she has seen and/or heard. . . .