At press time Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks was hearing from plaintiff doctors urging him to issue an injunction that would stop the state from enacting a new ultrasound-before-abortion bill pending a decision in a civil lawsuit seeking to invalidate the law. A group of doctors, represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, is suing to stop the law, arguing, among other things, that it is vague, creates a "profound" intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship – compelling doctors to deliver "government-mandated speech" – and treats women as incapable of making personal medical decisions. Bill supporters claim the new law simply ensures that women exercise "informed consent" to abortion. In the recent filing asking for an injunction, the plaintiff doctors argue that they are likely to win their case on its merits, that there is a substantial threat of "irreparable injury" if the injunction is not issued, and that there is no public disservice in stopping the law from taking effect, at least for the time being. The CRR filed a similar lawsuit in 2010 in Oklahoma in response to an ultrasound bill, and in that case the law has been enjoined; that lawsuit is still pending.