Sonogram Lawsuit Looks Grim

by: Katherine Haenschen

Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 01:17 PM CST

The law took effect sooner than anticipated, since Attorney General Greg Abbott got permission for immediate enforcement after 5th Circuit Judge Edith Jones struck down Federal Judge Sam Sparks' temporary restraining order on the law. Usually there's a three-week waiting period before laws are enforced. Now the Department of Health Services is writing rules for enforcement of the new law.

Here's a run-down of what happened in the litigation and where anti-probers can go from here.

June 13, 2011: The initial lawsuit against the sonogram bill is filed in federal court, with plaintiffs seeking to prevent the law from going into effect on September 1, 2011. The lawsuit seeks a judgment that the mandatory sonogram law is unconstitutional and unenforceable in whole and/or in part.

August 30, 2011: Judge Sam Sparks issues a temporary restraining order, or TRO, blocking enforcement. Specifically, Sparks' ruling prohibits any enforcement of the provisions requiring the display of the ultrasound, the detailed description of the fetal image, and the audible heart auscultation of the fetus.

January 5, 2012: AG Greg Abbott appeals Sparks' injunction at the 5th Circuit court. The anti-sonogram side continued to argue that the sonograms and compelled speech by the doctors are not medically necessary, and that the State of Texas was trying to insert ideological speech into the doctor-patient relationship.

January 10, 2012: Chief Judge Edith Jones, noted anti-abortion zealot, reversed Spark's TRO and stated that there's precedent for the new Texas law. That gave pause to opponents of the law, since any appeal of Sparks' final decision would have to go back through the 5th Circuit.

January 13, 2012: Abbott gets permission to enforce the sonogram law immediately, rather than wait the usual 3 weeks for the provision to take effect. The 5th Circuit granted his request, thus denying the anti-sonogram side the opportunity to appeal Jones' decision to reverse Sparks' injunction. The Texas Department of State Health Services was instructed to issue rules for compliance with the law, as well as prosecute doctors who do not obey it.

January 20, 2012: At a hearing on the initial lawsuit, Judge Sparks says his "hands are tied" by the 5th Circuit's reversal of his original TRO. Essentially, if Sparks rules for the plaintiffs, Jones is likely to reverse him when the State appeals his decision.

Now What? The best chance for opponents of the invasive sonogram law is for Sparks to rule against the law on constitutional grounds, and then have the ensuing appeal by the state take place en banc, or to the entire 5th Circuit, not just a three-judge panel including the dreaded anti-choice Judge Jones. A majority of the 17 judges on the 5th Circuit would have to agree to rehear it, and then could potentially reverse Judge Jones. Not all 17 would have to hear the case. Or at least that's my understanding. Other Circuit courts have ruled against similar laws, so there's a solid chance that a wider group of judges ruling on our sonogram law at the 5th Circuit might produce a different outcome.

Conceivably if Sparks does rule, and then the losing side appeals to the 5th Circuit, the losing side there can appeal to the Supreme Court. It's not clear however if the SCOTUS would take up the case, and given the current ideological swing of the court to the right thanks to George W. Bush's appointments, how the anti-sonogram side would fare.

So that's where we are. We'll keep you updated on this issue as it continues.  

And Now for a Public Cervix Announcement

by: Katherine Haenschen

Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 11:41 AM CST

Why should you care? Because the cervix is yet another battlefield in the Republican Party's war on women. Positioned between the vagina and the uterus -- two body parts that aging white male Republicans always seem most eager to want to legislate control of -- the cervix is literally in the middle of the debate over women's health.

Thanks to the Republican Party and their draconian cuts to women's health and family planning services, next year's Cervical Awareness Month will celebrate a lot fewer healthy Texas cervixes.

And as the Republican Legislature's efforts continue to close Planned Parenthood clinics and curtail funding to health centers that perform pap smears, we should see the incidence of and death from cervical cancers rise, and watch our overall healthcare costs increase as well. So let's talk about cervical cancer, and why the Republican legislature's policies will increase the number of women who die from this thoroughly preventable, treatable disease.

Here in America, cervical cancer is the 8th most common cancer of women. Approximately 11,000 new cases are diagnosed each year, and an estimated 3,800 women are expected to die of the disease. Thankfully, here in the US our mortality rate is much less than the rest of the world, due in part to widespread Pap smear testing.

Pap smear screening every 3-5 years with appropriate follow-up can reduce the rate of cervical cancer by up to 80%. Pap smears are recommended for women beginning at age 21, or three years after a woman becomes sexually active, whichever is earlier. In 2010, Planned Parenthood performed 769,769 pap smears nationwide. (They also provided 747,607 breast exams but hey, it's not breast cancer awareness month yet, now is it?!) They also provided over 44,000 treatment procedures for women with abnormal pap smear results. It's all part of the 14.5% of Planned Parenthood's national work that consists of cancer screening and cancer prevention. Here in Texas, PP screened 104,000 women for cervical cancer in 2010. Over 13,000 pap tests were abnormal.

Between 2 and 3 million women have an abnormal pap smear every year. It's very common, as is the human papilloma virus that causes it. Yes, HPV. More on that later. Ask around at your next ladies night and you should find a few women who admit to an abnormal pap smear. For 90% of women, the abnormalities clear up within a year, especially in younger (under 30) women. Meanwhile, if you want to read more about abnormal pap smears, The Hairpin has a really helpful guide with a very cute cartoon.

70% of cervical cancer is caused by HPV. HPV vaccines reduce the risk of cancerous or precancerous changes of the cervix by about 93%. The fact is, the HPV vaccine that's so often bandied about as a political football would go a long way to reduce this disease. While Rick Perry is routinely excoriated for his failed mandate that all girls in sixth grade and above be vaccinated against HPV, the policy would have gone a long way to lower the incidence of cervical cancer. Of course, a whiff of cronyism surrounds the decision since Perry's former Chief of Staff Mike Toomey was a lobbyist for Merck at the time Perry signed the executive order. The mandated vaccine would have generated millions in revenue for the pharmaceutical giant. The policy had flaws, but with some adjustments, such as parents having the choice to opt out, and male children being vaccinated as well, it could have been a great public policy initiative.

Hispanic women have a cervical cancer incidence that is 50% higher than that of the general population. African-American women also have a higher rate. Poor White people also have a higher incidence than non-poor White people. According to the National Cancer Institute, this statistical disproportionality is due to lack of access to health care and low socio-economic status.  So here in Texas, where we have a majority-minority population and some of the highest rates of poverty in the country, we're facing a greater risk of exploding cervical cancer rates if we slash family planning funds. Planned Parenthood and other clinics that the state has put on the chopping block serve an overwhelmingly low-income population.

In their attempts to slash funding from Planned Parenthood and women's health centers, Republicans are making sure that less women can access pap smears and get the early detection they need to avoid cervical cancer. Early diagnosis and treatment are vital to short- and long-term survival. The longer the cancer goes undetected and untreated, the worse the survival rates are. 80-90% of women with Stage I cancer survive five years after diagnosis; only 15% of those diagnosed with Stage IV cancer make it that long. It's worth repeating: the majority of cervical cancers in the US occur in women who haven't been screened in the last five years. That's why making sure these services are prevalent and affordable -- such that more women can get pap smears more frequently -- is so key to keeping the diagnosis and mortality rate down.

It's not just Planned Parenthood that is suffering -- Republicans slashed funding to most family planning clinics, including the federally qualified health centers they so love to prop up as an alternative to PP. Those FQHC's are already overburdened with patients, and in a state as big -- and as rapidly-growing -- as Texas, we need more outlets for low-cost women's healthcare, not less. Last biennium, 71 clinics received state funding. Now, that number is down to 41. Family planning funds used to serve 220,000 women a year. Now, that number is down to 60,000. The cuts in funding represent a drastic decrease in care, which in turn will mean more missed pap smears and more advanced diagnoses of cervical cancer.

In developing nations, cervical cancer is a leading killer of women, because these populations lack the early detection necessary to stop the disease in its tracks. Texas Republicans are enacting policies that threaten to bring our own women back to that same low level of detection, treatment, and survival. It's shameful!

For a political party that routinely abuses the phrase "pro-life," Republicans are doing everything in their power to systematically increase the number of women that die from or have their lives greatly shortened by cervical cancer.

But hey, on the upside, maybe during the next session Republicans can re-name January as "Systematic-Denial-of-Pap-Smears-to-Women,-Especially-Poor-Women,-Thus-Increasing-the-Odds-That-They-Die Awareness Month." It'd be more honest, right?  

Austin City Council Unanimously Passes Revised Crisis Pregnancy Center Notification Ordinance

by: Katherine Haenschen

Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 05:31 PM CST

With those words from Mayor Pro Tem Sheryl Cole, the Austin City Council voted unanimously today to repeal our old Crisis Pregnancy Center ordinance, and then unanimously passed a revised ordinance intended to survive scrutiny in ongoing legal battles.

Back in 2010, Council unanimously passed an ordinance requiring Crisis Pregnancy Centers to post a sign on their doors stating that the businesses don't provide abortions, refer for abortions, or provide FDA-licensed birth control, and that there is no licensed medical professional on site. Since the passing of the 2010 ordinance, other cities' CPC regulation efforts have come under increased scrutiny, and many have been struck down. Here in Austin, a group of plaintiffs that operate the centers and generally oppose abortions sued the City, claiming that the ordinance -- which simply requires CPCs to state what services they do not provide -- violated their First Amendment rights.

Today, Council considered a revised ordinance, sponsored by Council Members Bill Spelman and Mike Martinez, that removed language from the original that was not likely to stand muster in the courts. (Read a preview of this issue here.) Council repealed the old ordinance--we cannot have two contradictory ordinances on the books--and then considered a new ordinance. The new ordinance requires a sign that doesn't make reference to abortions or birth control. It is strictly a disclosure that there is no licensed healthcare professional on site. That's what was determined to be most likely to stand up in court.  

The absurdity of the situation is that CPC's don't have to be licensed. Taxi cabs, nail salons, food trailers, pedi-cabbers, even fishermen have to be licensed, but any anti-choice group can set up shop to intimidate and misinform women into carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. Many of them also receive tremendous amounts of funding from the state. That's right -- our tax dollars are being used to help these organizations intimidate women and provide incorrect information about abortion, pregnancy, and women's health.

Speakers were vastly in favor of the new ordinance requiring CPC signage, noting time and again that it's about informing women about what services the business provides. Genevieve van Cleve, Deputy Political Director of Annie's List, thanked the Council for supporting women, and reminded all present of the Texas Legislature's unrelenting assault on Texas women, children, and families. She emphasized the rights of consumers to know what services businesses provide, stating "not only can the government require truth in advertising for healthcare purposes, the government should do so."  Gen used the nail salon analogy to remind Council that most service providers must live up to a basic level of professionalism to keep operating. Not so for the deliberately misleading CPC's.

Other speakers included a volunteer attorney with Jane's Due Process who counsels pregnant women on their legal options and helps teenagers receive judicial bypass of parental notification laws when needed. She noted the time-sensitive nature of abortion, and that the longer women wait, the more costly or limited the services may be. (This especially true in Texas, where many providers won't perform an abortion after a certain number of weeks -- we're not talking third trimester here, we're talking early- to- mid-second trimester.) CPC's confuse teenagers who want abortions, which can cost them precious time and money.

Speakers against the ordinance were almost all male (of course), and as Martinez pointed out, most don't even live here in Austin. Some claimed that it was a First Amendment issue; others simply seemed to hate abortion. Several tried to intimidate the Council with threats of exorbitant legal fees, which apparently was the main reservation our staunchly pro-choice Council had with the new ordinance. An attorney from the Liberty Institute suggested that if the City loses in the courts, they'll need to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars -- possibly over $1 million -- to the anti-choice groups pursuing the lawsuits.

That's a valid concern -- if indeed our ordinance couldn't stand up in court and we lost, does Austin want to funnel large amounts of taxpayer money into anti-choice coffers? That's hardly in keeping with our community values. However, MPT Cole got to the heart of that issue during questioning of Sara Clark, the attorney for the City in this matter. Cole drove the point that if it looks like Austin won't prevail in the lawsuit, we can immediately repeal the ordinance before we lose in court.

The current ordinance is currently being litigated in Federal court. An appeal of the outcome of this first trial would land on the 5th Circuit Court, home of Chief Judge Edith Jones, the noted anti-abortion zealot who recently overturned Federal Judge Sparks' stay on the sonogram law. (Read more about Jones' extreme anti-choice views here.) The plaintiffs in the CPC case will likely revise their filings to sue the City over this new ordinance. However, speakers today were very confident that our new ordinance was carefully crafted to follow existing legal precedent from other Circuit courts, and has a very strong chance of winning if challenged.

As NARAL lobbyist Blake Rocap pointed out, we're simply asking the CPC's to post information that they themselves state is true -- there are no licensed medical professionals on site. If CPC's already admit what Council wants them to admit on their own front doors, how is that compelled speech? Ironically, the sonogram lawsuit may actually work in our favor here, since Judge Edith Jones doesn't think it's an undue burden for abortion providers to perform a mandatory sonogram and require doctors to read off a fact sheet about fetal development before performing the procedure.

Spelman made a motion that Martinez seconded to pass the revised ordinance on all three readings, which requires a supermajority. Today, that would have been a 5-1 vote, since the Mayor was off the dais on an official trip to London to study economic development in the high-tech sector. Passing on all three readings means it's a done deal -- no need to vote two more times on this issue.

So, good job Council. It's great to see them uphold our community values and provide women with accurate information. And a special thanks to Council Members Spelman and Martinez -- both men, it's worth pointing out, who refused to let this issue drop and pushed this revised ordinance through. It's really great to see two males standing up for women's health, and something we'd all like to see a lot more of. Women's health is an issue that impacts our entire community, because it impacts our mothers, wives, sisters, friends, colleagues, and neighbors.

Hopefully our ordinance stands up in court, and can soon be enforced. If CPC's refuse to post the sign,  citizens can call code compliance and 311. Likely the CPC's would be given a warning, but if they still refused to post the sign, they'd start getting tickets for Class C misdemeanors, punishable by a fine of up to $450.

We will keep you posted as this issue works its way through the courts.  

Austin City Council Reconsiders Crisis Pregnancy Centers

by: Katherine Haenschen

Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 02:11 PM CST

Crisis Pregnancy Centers are essentially anti-choice entities that attempt to mislead, intimidate, and coerce young women into keeping their unwanted pregnancies. While many claim to be "clinics," in reality there are no medically licensed staff working at the centers, and many provide no health care services at all. Instead, the focus of these CPC's is to stop women from exercising their right to an abortion, and prevent them from avoiding unplanned pregnancies in the future.

NARAL Texas has more information about these insidious organizations:

CPCs not only fail to address the range of choices available to women; they often attempt to dissuade women from seeking abortion by presenting factually inaccurate and misleading information. Women seeking services are often told abortion leads to breast cancer and psychological distress, or "post-abortion syndrome"--despite no medical evidence backing either claim. Women may also be shown intentionally upsetting images or receive false information about their own pregnancies.

In 2009, the Texas Legislature shifted $4 million in family planning funds to these unlicensed, unregulated centers. CPC's are all over Texas.  Austin has a number of these centers, which claim to "minister" to women with unexpected, unplanned, or unwanted pregnancies. In reality, CPC's don't provide women with a comprehensive list of options, which includes abortion, and they don't provide scientifically accurate information about how women can prevent future unplanned pregnancies.

In 2010, Council Member Bill Spelman sponsored and passed an ordinance requiring CPCs to post signage indicating that they don't provide abortions or FDA-approved birth control. Last fall, several CPC operators sued the City, claiming that the lawsuit violated their First Amendment rights. The CPC plaintiffs -- the Roman Catholic Diocese of Austin, Catholic Charities of Central Texas, the Austin Pregnancy Resource Center, and the South Austin Pregnancy Resource Center -- say that the City's ordinance doesn't place such burdens on other providers. However, as The Austin Chronicle notes, abortion providers are required by the State of Texas to disclose that they provide abortions.

What's so ironic is that CPC's are arguing against compelling speech, yet at the same time anti-choice activists are in favor of compelling unnecessary speech through their beloved sonogram law. In the lawsuit against the CPC's, anti-choice organizations are arguing that compelling speech violates their First Amendment rights, even though the signage is accurate (unlike the information provided by CPC's). In the sonogram law, the State of Texas is arguing that it's all fine and dandy to require doctors to perform mandatory sonograms of women seeking abortions, even though the speech they're compelling is medically unnecessary. Compelling speech is fine for the anti-choice movement when it serves their aim of pressuring and intimidating women into not having abortions. But when the speech actually gives women useful, important information -- Whoa, Nelly!

This week, the Austin City Council is looking for a way to amend the ordinance such that the City can successfully defend the ordinance in court. Meanwhile, the city legal department has a competing agenda item calling for the repeal of the CPC signage ordinance. Ideally, the amended ordinance -- put forward by Council Members Spelman and Martinez -- would remove specific language that has failed in other legal tests, leaving a CPC ordinance that can successfully be defended in court.

City Legal's concern may include the amount of time and money spent defending the CPC ordinance. It raises a valuable question: how much taxpayer dollars should we spend defending ordinances that uphold our community values? Similarly, council could explore whether there are other ways to accomplish the same aim of giving women warning that CPC's do not provide comprehensive services or medically accurate information, nor are they under any obligation to do so.

The right wing and anti-choice organizations have an immense amount of funding available to fight these ordinances and drag every other pro-choice or anti-anti-choice effort through the courts. It's part of their strategy to chip away at abortion rights in America. However, if the ordinance stands, Austinites have the chance to give anti-choice organizations a taste of their own medicine. While the CPC ordinance is in court, it is not being enforced. Should the City prevail and the CPC become an enforceable ordinance, CPC's could be ticketed for failing to comply. It would be a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $450 in municipal court. Should the City prevail and the CPC's refuse to post their warning signs, an orchestrated effort to call code compliance on them could result in thousands of dollars in fines levied against the centers.

NARAL has a handy one-click way to contact the entire Austin City Council in support of holding CPC's accountable. The anti-choicers are very well organized and will flood Council inboxes with blather against this effort. Make sure our side has its voice heard as well.

I'll have more coverage of the vote tomorrow.

Disclaimer: I'm on the board of NARAL Texas because I am super-duper pro-choice. If you want to support NARAL, we have a fundraiser this week. Click here for more information.  

More on the Mandatory Sonogram Law and Chief Judge Edith Jones

by: Katherine Haenschen

Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:12 PM CST

When does the law take effect?

The 5th Circuit ruled that the law can be enforced as of January 31. Doctors who do not comply with the law risk losing their medical license. That's right--doctors who don't want to be an ideological stooge of Texas Republicans' anti-women agenda can lose their medical license if they refuse to provide unnecessary information to women seeking abortions.

What about the original trial?

Sparks has a summary judgment hearing scheduled for January 20. When he will make his ruling is unknown, though Sparks is expected to indicate when that ruling might occur on the 20th. The trial considers a wider range of issues than just whether the bill is indeed unconstitutional by denying doctors their free speech rights. If he rules that HB15, the Sonogram bill, is indeed no bueno before the date it is slated to be enforced, then it won't go into effect.

Can the State appeal?

Yes, and if they do, the case goes back to the 5th Circuit, where Chief Judge Edith Jones smacked down Sparks' temporary restraining order against the law. That's bad news, since arch conservative Jones seems to have a personal vendetta against Roe v. Wade. She has written in opinions that she hopes SCOTUS revisits Roe soon, stating that the Court "might conclude that the woman's 'choice' is far more risky and less beneficial."

Wow, that's nuts. Who is this this Edith person, anyways?

Glad you asked! Chief Judge Edith Jones was appointed by Reagan to the 5th Circuit in 1985. Prior to that, Jones was General Counsel for the Republican Party of Texas, as well as a lawyer in private practice in Houston. She has been described as the "Susan Lucci" of SCOTUS nominations. Her name is always bandied about by conservative activists and Presidential administrations when a vacancy opens up, but she never gets the nod. Republicans from Reagan to Bush I to Bush II have floated her name, but the far-right ideologue never gets to the point of an upperdown in the Senate, let alone the robes and frilly white collar of the highest court in the land. However, as this case shows, that doesn't prevent her from trying to chip away at Roe.

Jones is the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which hears cases from Lousiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The 5th Circuit considered to be the most conservative federal appeals court in the country. Per Think Progress, this is the court that sanctioned a cheerleader for suing her school district after she was forced to cheer for her rapist. On the court, Jones has written a variety of heinous anti-woman dissents. One denied overt claims of sexual harassment, suggesting that a woman needed to be raped to claim actual harassment. In another, she told a molestation victim that there is no benefit in recognizing "a constitutional right not to have her bodily integrity compromised by a teacher's sexual abuse." Want more? Read this run-down of her visit to Harvard Law's Federalist Society posted on conservative blog Red State.

It is worth reminding everyone that virulently anti-women justices like this get appointed by Republican administrations. You like choice? You like women making their own medical decisions? You want to avoid going back to the days of back-alley abortions and septic wards? If you have women in your lives who you think actually have the right to choose for themselves, you probably want to vote for a Democrat. There's just no room in the other party for pro-choice Republicans. Heck, even Mitt Romney isn't pro-choice anymore.

What's the deal with Edith Jones? Does she, like, hate women or something?

Well, she certainly has some patronizing attitudes towards our ability to decide what we do with our own bodies. Patrick Michels over at the Texas Observer writes as follows:



Jones follows the same logic that drove Perry, Patrick, and the law's House author, Rep. Sid Miller: A woman going in for an abortion doesn't really know what she wants. During the session, Patrick said the bill "empowers" women.


Jones also points out that it's important to mandate that the sonogram's performed, precisely because the woman might change her mind.


OMG you gals! We are really incapable of making important choices. It's amazing we're even allowed to vote, own property, and take out credit cards in our names. Next thing you know we'll be running for office! Clutch those pearls.

It just floors me, absolutely floors me, when women adopt this patronizing misogyny. Hey Edith, I am sure there are plenty of menfolk out there who didn't want you appointed to the 5th Circuit bench for life because the monthly fluctuations of your womb might cause you to rule erratically on matters of utmost importance. You know, Edith, you were the first female partner at Andrews Kurth, a major law firm in Texas. I bet a few of those good old boys didn't want you sharing in the firm profits, since obviously by your own logic women aren't fit to make major decisions.

Women like Edith Jones are tools of the patriarchy, appointed by men to promote an anti-woman agenda so that those same men can say "See? Even this woman agrees that women are incapable of exercising their rights." I bet she and Dan Patrick get along really well. Hey Edith, what should I have for lunch today? I'm not fit to decide what to do with my own body.

Did you have any other points you wanted to make about Circuit Court judges?

Actually, I did! Washington Monthly has a must-read article in their current issue about how Conservatives have almost completely taken over the American judiciary. If a Republican is elected in 2012, the transformation will be complete, as Justices Ginsberg and Kennedy could both retire or need to be replaced in the next four years.

But what's happening on the Circuit Court level is just as important. From the Washington Monthly article, emphasis mine:



But it's not just the Supreme Court that would tilt further right. The high court only hears seventy-some cases each year. The vast majority of disputes are resolved by the federal appellate courts, which are the last stop for almost every federal litigant in the country. And the one legacy of which George W. Bush can be most proud is his fundamental transformation of the lower federal judiciary-a change that happened almost completely undetected by the left. At a Federalist Society meeting in 2008, Bush boasted that he had seated more than a third of the federal judges expected to be serving when he left office, most of them younger and more conservative than their colleagues, all tenured for life and in control of the majority of the federal circuit courts of appeals. The consequences of that change at the appeals court level were as profound as they were unnoticed. As Charlie Savage of the New York Times put it at the time, the Bush judges "have been more likely than their colleagues to favor corporations over regulators and people alleging discrimination, and to favor government over people who claim rights violations. They have also been more likely to throw out cases on technical grounds, like rejecting plaintiffs' standing to sue." In short, they have copied and amplified the larger trends at the Roberts Court: a jurisprudence that skews pro-business, pro-life, anti-environment, and toward entangling the church with the state. Under the rhetorical banners of "modesty" and "humility" and "strict construction," the rightward shift has done more to restore a pre-New Deal legal landscape than any legislative or policy change might have done.


Obama hasn't been able to fill most of the vacancies in Circuit Courts because Republicans have used every trick in the book to block nominees from coming up to a vote. Several qualified applicants have even withdrawn from the process. Meanwhile, litigants are waiting years for their cases to be heard. Go read the rest here. Yowza.

Wow. this is all really bringing me down. Thanks a lot.

Too many women--and men who have sex with women--think that the right to a legal abortion is totally safe. Ladies and gents, think again. Women, Republicans are trying to literally shove a wand into your body without your consent, and force you to listen to a bunch of medically unnecessary claptrap while your feet are in the stirrups. They don't think you're fit to make your own decisions about your body. Your rights are under assault--and not just your ability to get an abortion, but also your ability to get birth control, emergency contraception. Republicans are even trying to make it so that insurance doesn't have to pay for all or part of any of these procedures and medical services.

There are a few good ways to stop this assault on womens' basic reproductive rights.


• Support the pro-choice organization of your choosing. (Get it? Choosing?) Here in Texas, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and Lilith Fund all do amazing work to help women exercise their right to choose. Give your time or your funds. Disclaimer: I am on the board of NARAL-TX and donate vigorously to all three organizations.
• Don't vote for anti-choice zealots--the vast majority whom are Republicans, but there are certainly a few stinkers in the Democratic party too--who want to take away women's rights. Instead, support candidates who run against these anti-choicers.
• Tell your friends. Share this post and the other stories about the sonogram lawsuit. Tell your friends, whether they're women or men who have sex with women or people who care about female human beings in general.

Look, I don't meant to be hyperbolic, but abortion rights are under attack. 24 states enacted 92 abortion restrictions in 2011. From sonograms to waiting periods to insurance denials, Republican legislatures are working hard to make sure a woman can't actually get an abortion, or be able to pay for it. Republicans are doing everything they can to erect procedural barriers to a woman actually getting the abortion she has chosen.

It is pretty scary stuff, and will have the most drastically negative impact on women who are lower income, younger, in abusive relationships, or otherwise disadvantaged. But as these restrictions keep getting more and more, well, restrictive, even wealthy SMU sorority girls will start to feel their rights getting clamped down on. Maybe then we'll finally see some bipartisan outrage on this issue.

Sure, I aim to please. Here you go:

Previously on BOR:

• Rep. Carol Alvarado Issues Statement on Sonogram Ruling
• Breaking: Federal Court Reinstates Texas Sonogram Law
• Sonogram Update
• A Closer Look at the Sonogram Lawsuit
• Judge Issues Temporary Stay in Sonogram Lawsuit
• HB15: A Transvaginal Ultrasound Wand in Every Woman

Rep. Carol Alvarado Issues Statement on Sonogram Ruling

by: Katherine Haenschen

Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 02:00 PM CST

State Representative Carol Alvarado Statement on 5th Circuit Court's Decision on Sonogram Bill Enforcement

"The 5th Circuit Court's decision demeans nearly 40 years of progress by joining the Texas Legislature in telling women they are not smart enough to make the big decisions about their lives and their bodies.  

The intent of this law, as described by the authors of the legislation themselves, is to reduce the occurrence of a legal medical procedure.  To accomplish their politically-motivated goals, this bill forces doctors to serve as the mouthpiece of conservative politicians who want to coerce women into doubting themselves after they have made the most difficult decision of their lives."

State Representative Carol Alvarado is in her second term in the Texas House of Representatives, where she serves on the Public Health Committee.

You may recall Alvarado brandishing a trans-vaginal ultrasound probe on the floor of the Legislature last session. Alvarado explained in graphic detail how the procedure works. Trans-vaginal sonograms are the only way to perform a sonogram on a woman who is less than eight to 10 weeks pregnant. Many women seeking abortions will fall into this category.

As Alvarado said at the time, "This is not the jelly on the belly that most of you think," she said as she held up a vaginal probe. "This is government intrusion at its best."

Republicans sure talk a good game about opposing "governmental intrusion" into our private lives. 'Government should stop at our doorstep! they cry. Unless it's the doorstep of a woman, I suppose. Do Republicans seriously want their wives, sisters, and daughters to undergo this invasive procedure, should they chose to terminate a pregnancy? (Because if you think nice Conservative white ladies don't have abortions, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.)

But hey, at least Republicans are doing everything they can to provide for the children who are the by-products of their policies of forced birth, right? They're funding schools, hiring teachers, expanding healthcare options? Right? Right?

The answer, quite obviously, is no. It's bitterly ironic that the Republican Party cares so much about preventing abortion, but does so little to provide for wanted children once they're born. While this law may still be struck down in the ongoing trial, in the meantime this decision by the 5th Circuit is terrible news for Texas women and the doctors they trust.  

Breaking: Federal Court Reinstates Texas Sonogram Law

by: Katherine Haenschen

Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM CST

From Austin's CBS affiliate KEYE:

The federal appeals court in New Orleans says Texas can enforce an abortion law passed last year while opponents challenge it in court.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday overturned a district judge's temporary order against enforcing the law. The measure requires that doctors who perform abortions show sonograms to patients, describe the images and describe the fetal heartbeat.

The panel says U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks in Austin was incorrect to rule that doctors had a substantial chance to win their case.

So that's some bad news for Texas women and Texas doctors right there. The federal court is basically saying that doctors' free speech concerns in this regard don't matter. Through this bill, the Legislature is forcing doctors to say things that aren't medically necessary and thus turning doctors into ideological agents of the state's anti-woman agenda.

Sparks' injunction blocked the worst parts of the bill: enforcement of provisions requiring the display of the ultrasound, detailed description of the fetus, and intrusive disclosure requirements for women who were already victims of violent crimes. He did so under the assumption that the plaintiffs had a reasonable chance of winning their case. The 5th Circuit in turn said that Sparks had no right to assume that the plaintiffs would win against the State. The federal court linked the bogus sonogram law with other legislation requiring doctors to give "truthful, nonmisleading and relevant" information. You can read the 5th Circuit's order here (warning, opens PDF.) In the decision, Chief Judge Edith H. Jones wrote:

"'Relevant' informed consent may entail not only the physical and psychological risks to the expectant mother facing this 'difficult moral decision,' but also the state's legitimate interests in 'protecting the potential life within her.'"

By the way, is the Legislature going to pass something similar for men seeking vasectomies? I mean, the procedure consigns the little swimmers to a short, brutish existence in the newly truncated vas deferens. They won't ever have the chance to impregnate a woman or defile a sock! The horror, the horror! Someone, please think of the sperms!

Remember, we're not talking about the jelly-on-the-belly kind of sonogram. We're talking about an intrusive, transvaginal sonogram with a probe, per the slightly altered medical textbook illustration below:

By the by, apparently this graphic ruffled a few feathers amongst the anti-choice haterz, who had it pulled down from Imageshack. You can now download it here.

No word yet on how soon the sonogram law takes effect, or how it will be enforced. Remember, if doctors refuse to show the sonogram and do as this law entails, they could lose their license. The consequences of Texas Republicans' anti-woman agenda is dire.

Let's hope the plaintiffs prevail in their lawsuit seeking to block this law for good.


Previously on BOR:

• Sonogram Update
• A Closer Look at the Sonogram Lawsuit
• Judge Issues Temporary Stay in Sonogram Lawsuit
• HB15: A Transvaginal Ultrasound Wand in Every Woman

Conversion of Convenience: The Revealing Truth Behind the Planned Parenthood Director Conversion

by: liberaltexan

Fri Nov 06, 2009 at 08:27 AM CST

The story that Johnson has repeated is that she had a "change of heart" after witnessing an abortion through an ultrasound. According to an interview with ABC News, Johnson held the probe on the patient's abdomen during the procedure, and according to that interview Johnson was unclear as to the reason why she was there during this procedure because it was not a normal part of her duties. According to an interview with World Net Daily, Johnson said that for "whatever reason, the physician had called me back to assist with the procedure."

However, Johnson did not just happen to witness the procedure, and the procedure did not actually even take place at the Planned Parenthood that Johnson was the director of in Bryan, Texas. Johnson was visiting another clinic in the Houston area; she was there visiting a doctor that Bryan clinic was considering utilizing for abortion procedures. Johnson was specifically interested in the doctor because of the very fact that the doctor used the ultrasound, which makes the abortion safer, more efficient, and many believe more humane for the fetus. Confidential sources also confirmed that Johnson was pleased by the visit to the doctor and impressed with the procedure.

More Below the Fold...

Pro-Choice to Pro-Life: An Insider's Look Into the Conversion of a Planned Parenthood Employee

by: liberaltexan

Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:59 AM CST

Early on Saturday mornings, the days during which surgical abortions are performed; I arrive at Planned Parenthood and walk through the double doors and sign-in on the volunteer check-in sheet. I put on the yellow and orange volunteer vest, and check out a security badge. Over the next several hours I spend my morning escorting clients into the facility. Volunteer escorts meet clients at their cars and welcome them to Planned Parenthood, and as soon as the clients open their car doors the protesters being shouting through the fence. Escorts simply walk clients from their automobiles to the front door of the facility, and this demonstrates to the clients that we are there to support them. After clients leave the facility escorts walk the clients back to their automobiles, and then ensure that they have a clear path out of the driveway.

The protesters outside of the facility will shout through the fence at the clients the entire time they are arriving and leaving. Also, the protesters will stand along the driveway holding brochures and pamphlets while attempting to get the clients attention. The brochures and pamphlets include factually inaccurate information and intellectually dishonest claims. Often the false link between abortion and breast cancer is claimed in the literature, despite the fact that according to the American Cancer Society "the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer." Also, the claim is made that women who have abortions will suffer "post-abortion syndrome," however, "post-abortion syndrome" is not recognized as a legitimate medical condition by either the American Psychological Association (APA) or the American Psychiatric Association.

It was during these mornings that I met Abby Johnson, the director of the Planned Parenthood in Bryan. Johnson was always open to talk about the issues dealing with reproductive rights, and I have always known her to be an outspoken and an opinionated advocate of reproductive rights. Sometimes Johnson would visit with the volunteer escorts in front of the facility, and complaints about the protesters seemed to always be one of the topics of conversation. When it comes to the protesters Abby had plenty to complain about. As a volunteer and then later as an employ of Planned Parenthood, she had seen times when the protesters were much more aggressive and much more hostile towards the clients, volunteers, and employees. In fact Johnson herself has been the victim of harassment, and even death threats. While Coalition for Life does not claim responsibility for the actions of all of the protesters, the Coalition for Life facilitates an atmosphere that contributes to those actions.

More Below the Fold...

Getting Up Early on Saturday Mornings: Why I Escort at Planned Parenthood

by: liberaltexan

Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 06:57 PM CDT

Every day women walk through the doors of reproductive health facilities, and in many of these facilities women must deal with harassment for what is a very private and personal choice. The protesters that line up in front of these facilities claim that they are there because they care about women, and that they want to see an end to abortion. However, it is difficult to believe that the protest care about women when they participate in a culture that is patriarchal in nature and decidedly anti-woman. It is also difficult to believe that they want to see an end to abortion when they oppose every policy that actually reduces the number of abortions.

Early on Saturday mornings I arrive at the Planned Parenthood clinic, a facility that has been routinely targeted over the years but has enjoyed loyal support from community members. Sometimes if you arrive at the clinic in the early morning there are not protesters, but this week marked the first week of the anti-choice protest 40 Days for Life. As I came through the gate I noticed about half a dozen protesters in front of the fence that surrounds Planned Parenthood, and I parked my bicycle near the front door. The Planned Parenthood I volunteer at is surrounded by a fence, and staff and patients park inside the fence that provides a barrier between them and the protesters. Some reproductive health facilities are not as fortunate.

More Below the Fold...