[Hank Berrien | The DAILYWIRE] In a tremendous victory for the pro-life movement and unborn children, on Thursday judges in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Kentucky law that requires doctors to play the sound of the fetal heartbeat and show and describe the ultrasound of the unborn child for the prospective mother before she undergoes an abortion. The Court ruled that Kentucky’s “Ultrasound Informed Consent Act” doesn’t violate the Constitution by compelling doctors to play the sound of the heartbeat and the ultrasound before their patients.
The ruling came in a split decision; Judge John Bush, writing for the majority, statedof the bill, H.B. 2:
H.B. 2 provides relevant information. The information conveyed by an ultrasound image, its description, and the audible beating fetal heart gives a patient greater knowledge of the unborn life inside her. This also inherently provides the patient with more knowledge about the effect of an abortion procedure: it shows her what, or whom, she is consenting to terminate. That this information might persuade a woman to change her mind does not render it suspect under the First Amendment. It just means that it is pertinent to her decision-making.
The bill had been challenged by EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C. and its associated physicians under the First Amendment; EMW won its suit against the defendants, Kentucky Attorney General Andrew G Beshear and Kentucky Secretary of the Cabinet of Health and Family Services Adam Meier, in the district court, which, as Bush wrote, “applied heightened scrutiny to invalidate the statute and permanently enjoin enforcement of H.B. 2.” Bush continued, “Our court then denied the motion of then-Defendant-Appellant Vickie Glisson, who was Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, to stay the injunction pending appeal.”
Bush explained, “In NIFLA the Court clarified that no heightened First Amendment scrutiny should apply to informed-consent statutes like the abortion-informed-consent statute at issue in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey … Thus, even though an abortion-informed-consent law compels a doctor’s disclosure of certain information, it should be upheld so long as the disclosure is truthful, non-misleading, and relevant to an abortion … Because H.B. 2, like the statute in Casey, requires the disclosure of truthful, non- misleading, and relevant information about an abortion, we hold that it does not violate a doctor’s right to free speech under the First Amendment. We also hold that the Attorney General, Defendant-Appellant Andrew Beshear, is not a proper party to this case.”
Continue reading here.
[Editor’s Note: This article was written by Hank Berrien and originally published at The DAILYWIRE]
A CALL TO ACTION
Bringing you discernment news and commentary from a biblical, polemical perspective means it is tough out there on social media. We’re constantly getting kneecapped and constrained by tech companies who find our fidelity to the scripture and pursuit of truth to be intolerable, resulting in our reach being severely throttled.
For this reason, we ask you please consider supporting us a few different ways. The first, by liking and following our new Facebook page, our home where we share new posts and interact with our members. The second, by following and retweeting our Twitter page. The third, by signing up for our newsletter below.
And last, through direct support. You can catch our free weekly episodes of the Polemics Report by subscribing at BTWN. If you like what you hear and desire to hear more, you can get the VIP full-length version for only $5.95 per month on Patreon. Also, you get other freebies for additional monthly pledges.
Subscribe to us on Patreon here and support our ministry.
Stay informed. Subscribe Today.
When you subscribe, please add firstname.lastname@example.org to your contacts to ensure that your newsletter doesn’t go into your spam folder.
Enter your email address below…