SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Monday's Supreme Court decision was applauded by public health and reproductive justice advocates.
(Photo: Daderot/Wikimedia/public domain)
US Supreme Court Refuses to Consider 'Coercive' and 'Humiliating' Law Against Women
Public health and reproductive justice advocates expressed relief at ruling
Jun 15, 2015
Reproductive justice advocates expressed relief after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider an extreme North Carolina anti-choice law that would force doctors to provide coercive "narrated ultrasounds" before performing an abortion.
In this country, its not ok to turn doctors into the mouthpieces of politicians in order to make a woman feel bad about her decision."
--Jennifer Dalven, ACLU
The top court issued a one-sentence order declining to hear an attempt to revive the law, thereby leaving in place the December 2014 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which found that the law is unconstitutional because "transforming the physician into the mouthpiece of the state undermines the trust that is necessary for facilitating healthy doctor-patient relationships and, through them, successful treatment outcomes."
The legislation would require the doctor to show the ultrasound and describe the fetus in detail, even over the patient's objection. It was passed in 2011 despite a veto by then-Governor Bev Perdue (D). However, it has never gone into effect, as its constitutionality has been challenged in the courts.
Monday's ruling was immediately applauded by public health and reproductive justice advocates. "This dangerous and misguided law should never have passed in the first place," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Politicians across the country should take note--these harmful and unconstitutional restrictions won't be tolerated by the courts or the public."
"Doctors shouldn't be forced to humiliate a woman and disregard their best medical judgment in order to provide an abortion," said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. "The purpose of this law was crystal clear: to shame a woman who has decided to have an abortion out of getting one. In this country, its not ok to turn doctors into the mouthpieces of politicians in order to make a woman feel bad about her decision."
On January 20th, it begins...
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. Our Year-End campaign is our most important fundraiser of the year. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
Reproductive justice advocates expressed relief after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider an extreme North Carolina anti-choice law that would force doctors to provide coercive "narrated ultrasounds" before performing an abortion.
In this country, its not ok to turn doctors into the mouthpieces of politicians in order to make a woman feel bad about her decision."
--Jennifer Dalven, ACLU
The top court issued a one-sentence order declining to hear an attempt to revive the law, thereby leaving in place the December 2014 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which found that the law is unconstitutional because "transforming the physician into the mouthpiece of the state undermines the trust that is necessary for facilitating healthy doctor-patient relationships and, through them, successful treatment outcomes."
The legislation would require the doctor to show the ultrasound and describe the fetus in detail, even over the patient's objection. It was passed in 2011 despite a veto by then-Governor Bev Perdue (D). However, it has never gone into effect, as its constitutionality has been challenged in the courts.
Monday's ruling was immediately applauded by public health and reproductive justice advocates. "This dangerous and misguided law should never have passed in the first place," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Politicians across the country should take note--these harmful and unconstitutional restrictions won't be tolerated by the courts or the public."
"Doctors shouldn't be forced to humiliate a woman and disregard their best medical judgment in order to provide an abortion," said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. "The purpose of this law was crystal clear: to shame a woman who has decided to have an abortion out of getting one. In this country, its not ok to turn doctors into the mouthpieces of politicians in order to make a woman feel bad about her decision."
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
Reproductive justice advocates expressed relief after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider an extreme North Carolina anti-choice law that would force doctors to provide coercive "narrated ultrasounds" before performing an abortion.
In this country, its not ok to turn doctors into the mouthpieces of politicians in order to make a woman feel bad about her decision."
--Jennifer Dalven, ACLU
The top court issued a one-sentence order declining to hear an attempt to revive the law, thereby leaving in place the December 2014 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which found that the law is unconstitutional because "transforming the physician into the mouthpiece of the state undermines the trust that is necessary for facilitating healthy doctor-patient relationships and, through them, successful treatment outcomes."
The legislation would require the doctor to show the ultrasound and describe the fetus in detail, even over the patient's objection. It was passed in 2011 despite a veto by then-Governor Bev Perdue (D). However, it has never gone into effect, as its constitutionality has been challenged in the courts.
Monday's ruling was immediately applauded by public health and reproductive justice advocates. "This dangerous and misguided law should never have passed in the first place," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Politicians across the country should take note--these harmful and unconstitutional restrictions won't be tolerated by the courts or the public."
"Doctors shouldn't be forced to humiliate a woman and disregard their best medical judgment in order to provide an abortion," said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. "The purpose of this law was crystal clear: to shame a woman who has decided to have an abortion out of getting one. In this country, its not ok to turn doctors into the mouthpieces of politicians in order to make a woman feel bad about her decision."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.