CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Mandatory Ultrasound Laws are About Political Interference, Not Medical InformationChristine Vestal had a story on Stateline.org yesterday about legislative efforts to require doctors to perform ultrasounds before an abortion. The green light really came on for anti-abortion activists this past April, when Oklahoma legislators easily passed a first-in-the-nation law that forces health care providers to perform an ultrasound before a woman has an abortion regardless of medical necessity or benefit, and requires the woman to listen to a description of the fetal image against her will. Vestal notes that 17 states considered more than 30 ultrasound bills this year, "a record level of legislative activity on any abortion issue," and that we should expect to be seeing even more of them in the next legislative session. Trevor Lippman, State Strategies Fellow for the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, correctly nails the Oklahoma law's real intent, and the harm it poses to women's health: The Oklahoma law is about political interference, not about medical information. We think a woman should be able to trust that the advice she receives from her physician reflects what her physician really believes is in her best interest, not something that her physician has been forced to say.What the article fails to note, however, is that the Oklahoma law doesn't stop at mandatory ultrasounds. It also permits health care institutions and individual health care workers to refuse to provide certain health services without ensuring that patients can access the care they need elsewhere. And it restricts a woman's access to medication abortion (also known as mifepristone or the early abortion pill), despite the fact that it is a safe and effective non-surgical method of terminating early pregnancy, by limiting a doctor's ability to administer the drug and hampering a doctor's discretion to determine appropriate and necessary medical care. In the face of Oklahoma's law, and its copycats, the ACLU will continue working to ensure that every woman has medically accurate information, access to the medical care she needs, and is able to make the best decisions for her health and her individual circumstances without political interference.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 29 Responses to "Mandatory Ultrasound Laws are About Political Interference, Not Medical Information" |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Jun 26th, 2008 at 12:02pm
OK - I'm not really concerned with this issue - just wanted to write on the blog.
why aren't you talking about the DC gun ban ruling? In fact - why isn't gun control a prominent issue for the ACLU? That seems a little strange? What is your position on gun control?
Jun 26th, 2008 at 2:08pm
Hi Daniel. The ACLU's official position on the 2nd Amendment can be found here:
http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
Jun 26th, 2008 at 7:59pm
Sorry Suzanne, Daniel may not have been aware of the old ACLU gun policy but his larger point is dead on.
You shouldn't play the ostrich game when it comes to the D.C. v Heller decision. In fact, that case now makes the ACLU gun policy you cited obsolete since that policy is predicated on court hostility to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Well the Supreme Court has now clearly spoken and ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to handguns.
The ACLU needs to reassess it's dated 2002 gun policy if it is to maintain credibility with the public on non-gun issues. How will it look if the ACLU is more hostile to a constitutional right than the official position of the Supreme Court and 73% of the public?
Jun 27th, 2008 at 12:41am
The Oklahoma law is about political interference...
As opposed to judicial interference?
We 'hillbilly' Okies refer to that as representative government...you know...DEMOCRACY!
The people here like it far better than the ACLU's version, better known as judicial activism.
Jun 27th, 2008 at 6:16am
This is nuts, if these woman don't "feel" to be placed into this situation of getting these ultrasounds done, why did they lay down to begin with. Because it's all about their "feelings" in that moment never an afterthought of what might come of unprotected sex. So as we educate our teens and even younger children, for every action there is a reaction.
Suck it up and go do the right thing!
Thanks
Jun 27th, 2008 at 8:32am
Awwww, what's the matter? You afraid people will realize abortion is ending the life of a baby and be discouraged? Thus leading more white people to be born to scourge the planet?
Jun 27th, 2008 at 2:18pm
I agree with Brad and am a little apalled at the explanation of ACLU policy.
You guys really aren't a civil liberties union, then - you're just a "civil liberties that liberals agree with" group. I've thought this before, as well - I've kinda scratched my head when you've made moves to oppose the National Day of Prayer activities at schools as well. you claim to support civil liberties and personal freedoms, but you seek to put restrictions on what religious students can do in public areas? and now you're saying you don't support individual rights guaranteed by the second amendment?
I'm opposed to racial discrimination, I 100% support gay rights, I oppose guantanamo bay, I oppose drug criminalization, and I fully support reproductive rights.
I also support the right to bear arms, the right to practice your religion wherever you want, and a host of other rights you guys seem to squeemish to stand up for. You really could have taken a stand on DC vs. Heller - REALLY stood up for an important civil liberty... kinda shows what you're really made of.
Jun 27th, 2008 at 2:23pm
You really should do a blog post on the second amendment and see where people fall out on it. I think especially in light of this case, the ACLU needs to consider changing its policy.
Jun 27th, 2008 at 6:19pm
While ultrasound can be a great tool, repeated ultrasounds increase the danger of congenital defects and infant death somewhat. No one has check for the effect on the mother. It is just assumed not to have an effect. Requiring women to get an unessesary procedure adds to everyone's expense, since more equipment and rooms will be needed. Having needed an emergency ultrasound before an emergency D&C (I was bleeding so as to soak through blankets) and then at a separate time had a dead "fetus" removed (a month after it died), I am aware of having to "prove" that it was not an elective abortion, and getting lectured about birth control, during a period of extreme grief.
I can only imagine the senerio of red tape if this law had been in force.
My parents and I and my grown children all believe that it should be a right of every child to be wanted. Medical providers should object to this as opposing their oath.
Jun 29th, 2008 at 8:42pm
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
Jun 29th, 2008 at 9:18pm
"The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller."
Oh ho! So the mask finally drops.
Does that mean the next time 2nd amendment rights come up before the court, the ACLU will actively fight against the right? It would not surprise me.
The pathetic excuse the ACLU has cleaved to in the past was that the courts found the second amendment was some so-called 'collective right' therefore the ACLU wasn't interested. When in truth, as we always suspected, is that the ACLU is just hostile to the right regardless of what the courts rule!
Civil liberties union my @ss!
Jun 30th, 2008 at 7:17am
Say what you will - you guys could care less about liberties and rights. you're just a libertarian-leaning partisan group. A real civil liberties group wouldn't prance around things like this.
Jun 30th, 2008 at 10:22am
I cannot begin to express my disgust at the ACLU's continued policy in regard to the Second Amendment in light of the recent Heller ruling.
So much for the ACLUs stated purpose being "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." In spite of the ACLU's past interpretation, Heller afforded the ACLU a prime opportunity to mend it's ways and come back over to the righteous "individual liberties" side of the fence.
Instead you've chosen to further travel the path of partisan political hackhood, and have sided with the over-reaching arm of government, against the individual citizens of the United States and their court-recognized civil rights.
Might I suggest a new name? "The AMERICAN we'll pick and choose your CIVIL LIBERTIES for you UNION"? A little truth in advertizing would be in order.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 7:01am
the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation
well duh --- what else have we been doing around the first amendment all these decades? now the second gets to be taken equally as seriously, that's all.
yes, there's a lot of lost time to catch up on; there's decades of litigation and precedent that's established a culture of judicial debate around the first amendment's various clauses that the second has yet to get. but now, it can and hopefully will. is the ACLU going to help or hinder this process? or is it going to play ostrich and pretend it isn't happening?
The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right.
ostrich it is, i see. news flash: the ACLU is not the supreme court of this country. i'm disappointed in you.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 8:29am
I guess I do find the ACLU's stance confusing. I can accept that you read the Miller verdict as a defense of a collective right, I think you're dead wrong, but I can accept that you read it that way.
But in light of the Heller verdict, there is now a clearly stated civil right. It is something of a world turned upside down moment to hear the ACLU say, we disagree and would like to have that civil right elmiminated.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 9:10am
I've supported almost all of the arguments made by the ACLU during my lifetime. This organization has done remarkable things in the name of freedom, and I hope it continues to do so. In the past, I have been a little put off by the Union's stance on the Second Amendment, because it seems to take on the position that the rights protected by it are reserved to the States as a collective right. At the time, this position was mildly troubling, because the Union didn't seem willing to fight for a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution to be applicable to all citizens. It was understandable, however, as the courts had made several decisions that favored the collective rights theory- understandable, but still troubling. Now that the Court has decided that the collective rights theory is invalid and that it is the People who are the beneficiaries of individual rights, it is truly appaling that the Union seems unwilling to correct its stance and support the rights of the People. Shame on you, ACLU. When have you ever taken a stance against the rights of the People before?
Jul 1st, 2008 at 9:16am
From the ACLU position on gun control:
"The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns."
We have no right to own or drive cars. We do have a right to keep and bear arms. I think there is a distinct difference here and it is a sad state of affairs that it is easier to practice the privilige of driving, than it is to practice the right to carry a gun. It is also a sad state of affairs that posts like this, my previous one, and several others on this blog have to be made on a hijacked thread. You would think that an organization such as the ACLU would have an appropriate place for discussion of such a monumentous civil rights decision as the one that came out over five days ago.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 9:26am
That is why I would never support this organazation. I can not freely give money to a group that defends all individual rights in the "Bill of Rights" except the second?
It sounds like "we don't like the ruling so we believe an individual right doesn't exist" regardless of the facts other wise.
It makes alot of sense that the Founding Fathers would stick a "State or Collective" amendment right in the middle of all these other "individual" amendments. WOW
Then the Miller case. Miller had no representation and was dead at the time. If you read it, you come to the conclusion that all the "arms" protected by the 2nd are "In common use by the military" SO, if you are going to stand on the Miller case maybe you should step up and fight for our right to own M16/M4 fully automatic rifles.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 6:58pm
I actually agree with the ACLU on the great majority of its policy positions. However, I consider the right of armed self-defense against private violence and official oppression to be by far the most important of all our civil rights, so I have never joined them nor sent a penny to them.
I am wealthy and influential, and support my causes to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars annually. The ACLU is forgoing millions of dollars and many tens of thousands of committed, savvy, politically-connected members when it continues to spit in the eye of those of us who love the entire Bill of Rights.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 8:43pm
I have a more fundamental question for the ACLU: does the ACLU support self-defense as an inherent individual right?
Forget the use of a firearm, I want to know if the ACLU supports or opposes the idea that I can defend myself from an attacker at home or at work or in public. Their stance on the 2nd Amendment seems to indicate they do not support an individual's right to self defense.
Self defense is a human right.
Jul 1st, 2008 at 11:54pm
Finally..I can rejoice in seeing the ACLU as it really is. Just a bunch of leftist cryptic communist still dreaming of destroying this country. I guess they will stick with the collective right for as long as they can get away with it because they are the ACLU, if you don't like it, they might sue you too!
Jul 2nd, 2008 at 12:40am
Some people can't seem to read or comprehend the Second Amendment. The part about "Militias" is double edged. The government (Federal) can't stop the states from having Militias but to protect the states THEY can control large groups of armed men they can regulate them. Simple as that.
The second part is clear that that "regulation" shouldn't interfere with the individual right to Keep and Bear Arms.
The part that everyone discusses but isn't in the Amendment is the right of self defense. It's clear from the writings of the Founders that the right to defend yourself is so clear that they didn't think it needed to be spelled out.
It's also that the "regulation" of Militias shows they mean to protect the "public" in general from uncontrolled threats so unfettered access to SCUD rockets, Stinger antiaircraft missiles or hand grenades isn't in the public interest. That can be regulated.
Isn't it amazing who smart those old dead white guys who wrote the Constitution were?
Jul 2nd, 2008 at 1:20pm
I find ACLU's stated position on the case very humorous. Nothing like possessing a belief of collectivisms when the core principle of the organization are stated as "to ensure individual rights".
Get with the program ACLU and defend this civil right as well.
Jul 4th, 2008 at 10:11am
Especially in view of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Heller, the ACLU position that the Second Amendment confers only a collective right to own a firearm is pretty silly and offensive to anyone who can read.
Aug 16th, 2008 at 7:48pm
My thought exactly:
Jon Zieg Says:
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I find ACLU’s stated position on the case very humorous. Nothing like possessing a belief of collectivisms when the core principle of the organization are stated as “to ensure individual rights”.
Get with the program ACLU and defend this civil right as well."
As someone stated previously ...the ACLU is not about civil liberties exactly but more about a group that Liberals can buy into completely
Hell the ACLU supports the rights of people who are not American over Americans that simply have the unfortunate status of not being born yet. Again...a group that Liberals will love.
Feb 15th, 2009 at 12:26pm
I came to this site to learn about the GOVERNMENT mandate FORCING a medically unnecessary prcedure on woman and was utterly DISGUSTED to find more of this space devoted to bickering about the right to bear arms. If those people who fully believe in the right to bear arms and NOT have GOVERNMENT FORCE them to do something--like forcibly give up those rights/"arms", then they should be paying more attention to this so called "women's issue." A GOVERNMENT that can turn around and FORCE A MEDICAL PROCEDURE on anyone is closer to taking your arms away,NO? Just think about it,sir!!?
I find this NOT an issue of PRO LIFE VS. PRO CHOICE but of the government forcing the MEDICAL COMMUNITY and the PATIENT. It is a matter of OUR RIGHTS AS FREE AMERICANS BEING CAST ASIDE PERIOD!!!
Sep 3rd, 2009 at 9:18am
WOW, it amazes me with all these rights what about the rights of the most innocent of all, the little unborn baby?OPS should have said fetis.
Sep 3rd, 2009 at 9:46am
If you want to talk about gun controll so be it. If you want to find out what the ACLU is really about then you wont have long to wait. There is now in our congress a pending change to IRS rulings that will tax all of us fifty dollars per gun thats owned. This tax will be implimented by the IRS and you know that its just the tip of the ice burg. It will be fifty today and five hundred and fifty before its over, just wait and see.
Oct 5th, 2009 at 3:31pm
Wow. I'm shocked like may others here about the ACLU's stance on the 2nd Amendment. I came here today looking for some guidance on McDonald v. City of Chicago which is before the Supreme Court this session. This case involves not only the 2nd Amendment but also the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment which describe how the Bill of Rights is applied in individual states. As a Chicago resident, I am confronted with the infringement of 2nd Amendment rights everyday, so I'm extremely disappointed that not only is there no guidance provided on McDonald v. City of Chicago, there's not even a discussion of District of Columbia v. Heller. I can only conclude that the ACLU doesn't want to offend their liberal donor base. Funny thing is, I'm a liberal myself and appreciate the work of the ACLU on a range of other issues I believe in. However, rather than joining the ACLU today as I had intended, I've learned an unfortunate lesson about their politics and the limits of their support for my rights as an individual.