U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks on Aug. 30 ruled that portions of the new ultrasound-before-abortion law are unconstitutionally vague, while other aspects violate the First Amendment. Sparks’ ruling enjoins the law from taking effect today, Thursday, Sept. 1, while the larger suit continues over whether the law should be thrown out entirely. In the process to grant the injunction, it was several arguments regarding compelled speech and the impermissible vagueness of the law that proved the winning arguments; another argument that the law violated the constitutional right of equal protection fell flat. Sparks ruled that a provision requiring doctors, as part of the procedure, to display a sonogram image and provide audible heartbeats conflicts with another provision allowing a woman to opt out, thus rendering this portion of the law unconstitutionally vague. Additionally, in ruling that the law violates free speech, Sparks noted that to opt out of seeing the image or hearing the heartbeat, a woman must aver in writing that she is eligible to do so because the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Not surprisingly, the state intends to appeal. See more at austinchronicle.com/newsdesk.
This article appears in 30th Anniversary.