General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsConservative Supreme Court justices prove they don't really care about free speech
( piece from yesterday)
By Lisa Needham -January 16, 2020 7:00 PM
The court's refusal to review an invasive Kentucky abortion restriction says a lot about conservative's purported support of free speech.
Last month, the United States Supreme Court refused to review a case, EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier, that challenged Kentucky's transvaginal ultrasound law. That means the law, one of the most invasive anti-abortion laws on the books, is now in effect. And while the law itself is repugnant, the court's failure to take it up flies in the face of their ostensible concerns about free speech.
At first glance, this doesn't look much like a free speech case. Rather, it looks like yet another extreme anti-abortion law was enacted, one that will severely restrict reproductive health choices. Doctors performing abortions in Kentucky must perform ultrasounds and describe, in detail, what they see, including the development of the organs. They also have to play sounds of what the bill calls the "fetal heartbeat," but that's misleading. At the early stage of pregnancy, there is no heart. There's simply a group of cells that are pulsing and beginning to display cardiac activity.
Even worse, the ultrasound will, in most instances, be transvaginal. That's because a transvaginal ultrasound an incredibly invasive procedure where a person is forced to have a probe inserted into their vagina and then moved around inside is the only way to get accurate fetal development images in the first trimester. The far less invasive transabdominal ultrasound, which does not involve penetrating the patient, is used in the second and third trimester. is the only way to get fetal images prior to 12 weeks.
People can't say no to the procedure, and doctors can't refuse to perform them. In the smallest of mercies, people are allowed to turn their head away and cover their ears, but they can't make it stop. It's all in the name of a twisted form of "informed consent." Informed consent is a sound medical idea. The American Medical Association defines it as patients having "the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so they can make well-considered decisions." The AMA goes on to say that "successful communication in the patient-physician relationship fosters trust and supports shared decision making."
https://americanindependent.com/supreme-court-kentucky-abortion-restriction-free-speech-emw-womens-surgical-center-v-meier/
-snip-
This isn't the only case where this ultra-conservative court has expressed consternation about speech far more minimal than what is now required of Kentucky doctors and their patients. In Janus v. AFSCME, also decided in 2018, the conservative majority held that public-sector unions run afoul of the First Amendment if they charge a "fair share" fee to non-union members.
Unions negotiate on behalf of all employees, and prior to Janus, people who opted out of union membership still had to pay a fee to cover that. They weren't required to pay the portion of membership that dealt with union lobbying, precisely so none of their money went to political stances a union might take. However, the Court decided that the mere act of having to pay any money to a union compelled Janus to engage in speech to which he was opposed.
Put another way, the court was willing to say that paying money to a union to negotiate working conditions when you opposed the union's political speech which you were not paying for was compelled speech.
I am really tired of courts double standard, its either the conservative way of the highway...................
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You only get free speech if you are foisting your religious views on someone else.
AJT
(5,240 posts)turbinetree
(24,720 posts)ProfessorGAC
(65,227 posts)Hermit-The-Prog
(33,467 posts)OneGrassRoot
(22,920 posts)Even if the woman isn't intending to have an abortion, I'm sure the right-wingers feel women can't be trusted, so they'll impose this on all pregnancies.
sboatcar
(415 posts)a bunch of men?
I wonder how many people's minds it changed to hear these things.
Also, what business to lawmakers have in directing communications between a doctor and a patient?
It baffles me.