From the article:
Abortion opponents said the bill by Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, which would force doctors to perform the sonograms and check a heartbeat monitor at least two hours before the abortion, will remind women that they’re considering terminating a human life. They say it still gives women a choice: the bill, as it’s currently written, lets them to decide whether to see the image or listen to the heartbeat.
Pre-abortion sonogram requirements have never been challenged at the Supreme Court. Prior to 1992, they almost certainly would have been held unconstitutional under “strict scrutiny.” However, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court held that as a compromise under the “undue burden” standard,
To promote the State’s profound interest in potential life, throughout pregnancy the State may take measures to ensure that the woman’s choice is informed, and measures designed to advance this interest will not be invalidated as long as their purpose is to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion. These measures must not be an undue burden on the right.
So, a requirement to perform a sonogram that is at the same time optional for the mother to view should be a valid state measure “to ensure that the woman’s choice is informed.” Criticisms that the measure is just an attempt to persuade women to choose childbirth over abortion are similarly unproblematic, as such a purpose is perfectly permissible (provided it does not constitute an “undue burden”).
Love this:
In the last month, flocks of women who back abortion rights roamed the halls, carrying pink Planned Parenthood bags.
And women opposed to abortion held their own news conference, where a woman who was eight weeks pregnant was hooked up to a sonogram and a video of her fetus was projected onto a screen.
