Ruling Hailed by Abortion Victims

Sonogram ruling hailed by abortion victims [Excerpts]

'A picture is worth a thousand words'

Hundreds of Texas women who were allowed to intervene in a court argument over requiring abortionists to provide sonograms to their patients are praising the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a decision that allows enforcement of the law.

“A picture is worth a thousand words, and the abortionists wanted to silence the voice of my child,” said Mayela Banks, one of the group known as the “317 Texas Women Hurt By Abortion.”

The group had been allowed by Judge Fortunato P. Benavides of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to join in the arguments in a lawsuit brought by abortion providers against the law, H.B. 15, which was signed May 19, 2011, by Gov. Rick Perry.

The Texas Medical Providers Performing Abortion Services brought a challenge to halt the enforcement of the law, and a trial court issued a preliminary injunction Aug. 15.

The court upheld the law, which supporters say was designed to ensure women are informed fully about the ramifications of abortion.

The three-judge panel found the law merely requires physicians to provide “truthful, non-misleading information.”

 “Now the woman can hear the sounds of her own baby’s heartbeat and see the picture of her own child, not a picture from a textbook or something else. This decision will result in a reduction in the number of abortions in Texas. The reason for this is that women will actually see what is in their womb at the time when most abortions occur – a child with arms, feet, and legs which must be described to the woman and a beating heart which she must be allowed to hear,” said Parker of The Justice Foundation. “This scientific evidence will refute the lies of abortionists which they have told to thousands of Texas women over the years that the contents of the uterus are ‘just a mass of tissue, just a blob, or not yet a baby.’”

The appeals court’s decisions said, “Provisions … requiring disclosures and written consent are sustainable” under the U.S. Constitution and “are within the state’s power to regulate the practice of medicine, and therefore do not violate the First Amendment.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/sonogram-ruling-hailed-by-abortion-victims/