Oklahoma ruling on abortions to stand

Share with others:


Print Email Read Later

WASHINGTON -- For the second week in a row, the Supreme Court let stand a ruling that strikes down a major abortion regulation from Oklahoma, disappointing abortion foes who had hoped that the conservative justices would impose new limits on a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

The justices on Tuesday turned down Oklahoma's appeal seeking to revive a law that would have required pregnant women to undergo an ultrasound and hear about the fetus' size and possible heartbeat.

Last week, the court dismissed the state's appeal of a second law that would have prohibited doctors from prescribing a combination of two drugs commonly used to induce abortion in the early weeks of pregnancy.

Although the justices made no comment on either appeal, the pair of decisions suggests that they are not anxious to revisit the abortion controversy in cases that severely limit availability of the procedure or mandate overly invasive measures.

Two other abortion cases are pending. The Planned Parenthood Federation has asked the justices to block a Texas law that could force one-third of the state's abortion clinics to stop performing the procedure. The court is likely to act on that request within days.

And Arizona has appealed a ruling that struck down a new 20-week limit on legal abortions. The Roe v. Wade ruling has been understood to make abortion legal through 24 weeks of pregnancy. Besides Arizona, 11 other states have adopted the 20-week limit, so the justices may feel obliged to take up that issue early next year.

Lawyers for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented the Oklahoma doctor who challenged the ultrasound law, called the state's measure extreme and demeaning to women.

"It compels women to undergo an invasive medical examination and listen to a state-scripted narrative," center lawyer Stephanie Toti wrote in urging the court to reject the appeal. Among the four states with a mandatory ultrasound law, only Oklahoma requires use of a vaginal probe, she argued.

The law said that one hour prior to an abortion, a doctor must perform an ultrasound test, using either a vaginal or an abdominal device, "whichever would display an embryo or fetus more clearly." Foes of the law argue that language would require the vaginal probe. The doctor was required to display the ultrasound images so the pregnant patient could view them, as well as describe the dimension of the fetus, any cardiac activity and the presence of internal organs.

Last year, the Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down the law on the grounds that it put an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion.

State Attorney General Scott Pruitt appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and said lawmakers wanted to be sure that women were "fully informed" before they opted to go ahead with an abortion. He also noted that a similar Texas law had been upheld by a federal appeals court.

The justices had held the appeal since late June, but announced Tuesday that they would not hear the case of Pruitt v. Nova Health Systems.

"This decision is another victory for women and reproductive health care providers and another clear message to lawmakers across the U.S. that attacks on women's health, rights and dignity are patently unconstitutional and will not be allowed to stand," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Oklahoma's Mr. Pruitt said he was "disappointed in the court's decision not to review the case, particularly given that Texas' similar ultrasound law was upheld by the 5th [U.S.] Circuit Court of Appeals."

Besides Texas, Louisiana is also enforcing a mandatory ultrasound law for women who seek abortions. A similar North Carolina was blocked from taking effect.


Join the conversation:

Commenting policy | How to report abuse
To report inappropriate comments, abuse and/or repeat offenders, please send an email to socialmedia@post-gazette.com and include a link to the article and a copy of the comment. Your report will be reviewed in a timely manner. Thank you.
Commenting policy | How to report abuse

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

You have 2 remaining free articles this month

Try unlimited digital access

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here

You’ve reached the limit of free articles this month.

To continue unlimited reading

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here