SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a Kentucky law requiring doctors to show patients an ultrasound and play audio of the fetal heartbeat before the patient can obtain abortion care. (Photo: ProgressOhio/Flickr/cc)
Supreme Court Won't Hear Appeal of Kentucky's Forced Ultrasound Law, Allowing Law Intended to 'Shame' Patients Stand
"The goal is to shame and intimidate people ending pregnancies. It's scary when laws are used for that and scarier that the Supreme Court let it stand."
Dec 08, 2019
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday chose not to hear an appeal on a Kentucky law reproductive rights groups say is intended only to "shame and intimidate" patients, effectively upholding the statute.
The justices did not offer a comment on their reasoning for declining to hear the ACLU's arguments against H.B. 2, which requires doctors at the state's only remaining clinic that provides abortions to perform an ultrasound before giving a patient abortion care.
" Healthcare should be free from shame, stigma, and medically unnecessary mandates."
--Physicians for Reproductive HealthUnder the law, doctors are required to describe the ultrasound images to the patient in detail while audio of the fetal heartbeat plays, leading the ACLU to describe H.B. 2 as a "forced narrated ultrasound law."
The ACLU said Monday that the Supreme Court "has rubber-stamped extreme political interference in the doctor-patient relationship."
"We are extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court will allow this blatant violation of the First Amendment and fundamental medical ethics to stand," said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, in a statement.
H.B. 2 was previously upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in April, and that ruling will now stand unless it is challenged again.
Dr. Ashlee Bergin, a physician at EMW Women's Surgical Center in Louisville, wrote in September that the law forces her to "harm and humiliate" her patients, describing ultrasound images to them "even when the patient shuts her eyes and covers her ears":
Take a moment to imagine what this must be like. To tell your doctor, "thank you, but I don't want to hear you describe the ultrasound," and to have your doctor tell you that you have no say in the matter--that you must lie there, undressed, with an ultrasound probe inside of you, and have the images described to you in government-mandated detail over your objection. Even if the patient has already had one or more ultrasounds performed. Even if the fetus has been diagnosed with a condition incompatible with survival. Or even if the patient is pregnant as a result of sexual assault, and having to watch and listen to the ultrasound over their objection forces them to relive that trauma.
The law has been condemned by reproductive rights groups, the American Medical Association (AMA), and more that 130 biomedical ethicists.
"There is no medical requirement for this on every abortion procedure," wrote public health researcher Dr. Daniel Grossman.
Rather, a number of critics on social media wrote, the goal of the law is to "shame" patients who seek abortions.
"Mandating transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortion care is not only medically unnecessary--it's violently invasive," tweeted NARAL Pro-Choice America. "This law shames women for accessing basic care. But that's the entire point."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday chose not to hear an appeal on a Kentucky law reproductive rights groups say is intended only to "shame and intimidate" patients, effectively upholding the statute.
The justices did not offer a comment on their reasoning for declining to hear the ACLU's arguments against H.B. 2, which requires doctors at the state's only remaining clinic that provides abortions to perform an ultrasound before giving a patient abortion care.
" Healthcare should be free from shame, stigma, and medically unnecessary mandates."
--Physicians for Reproductive HealthUnder the law, doctors are required to describe the ultrasound images to the patient in detail while audio of the fetal heartbeat plays, leading the ACLU to describe H.B. 2 as a "forced narrated ultrasound law."
The ACLU said Monday that the Supreme Court "has rubber-stamped extreme political interference in the doctor-patient relationship."
"We are extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court will allow this blatant violation of the First Amendment and fundamental medical ethics to stand," said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, in a statement.
H.B. 2 was previously upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in April, and that ruling will now stand unless it is challenged again.
Dr. Ashlee Bergin, a physician at EMW Women's Surgical Center in Louisville, wrote in September that the law forces her to "harm and humiliate" her patients, describing ultrasound images to them "even when the patient shuts her eyes and covers her ears":
Take a moment to imagine what this must be like. To tell your doctor, "thank you, but I don't want to hear you describe the ultrasound," and to have your doctor tell you that you have no say in the matter--that you must lie there, undressed, with an ultrasound probe inside of you, and have the images described to you in government-mandated detail over your objection. Even if the patient has already had one or more ultrasounds performed. Even if the fetus has been diagnosed with a condition incompatible with survival. Or even if the patient is pregnant as a result of sexual assault, and having to watch and listen to the ultrasound over their objection forces them to relive that trauma.
The law has been condemned by reproductive rights groups, the American Medical Association (AMA), and more that 130 biomedical ethicists.
"There is no medical requirement for this on every abortion procedure," wrote public health researcher Dr. Daniel Grossman.
Rather, a number of critics on social media wrote, the goal of the law is to "shame" patients who seek abortions.
"Mandating transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortion care is not only medically unnecessary--it's violently invasive," tweeted NARAL Pro-Choice America. "This law shames women for accessing basic care. But that's the entire point."
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday chose not to hear an appeal on a Kentucky law reproductive rights groups say is intended only to "shame and intimidate" patients, effectively upholding the statute.
The justices did not offer a comment on their reasoning for declining to hear the ACLU's arguments against H.B. 2, which requires doctors at the state's only remaining clinic that provides abortions to perform an ultrasound before giving a patient abortion care.
" Healthcare should be free from shame, stigma, and medically unnecessary mandates."
--Physicians for Reproductive HealthUnder the law, doctors are required to describe the ultrasound images to the patient in detail while audio of the fetal heartbeat plays, leading the ACLU to describe H.B. 2 as a "forced narrated ultrasound law."
The ACLU said Monday that the Supreme Court "has rubber-stamped extreme political interference in the doctor-patient relationship."
"We are extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court will allow this blatant violation of the First Amendment and fundamental medical ethics to stand," said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, in a statement.
H.B. 2 was previously upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in April, and that ruling will now stand unless it is challenged again.
Dr. Ashlee Bergin, a physician at EMW Women's Surgical Center in Louisville, wrote in September that the law forces her to "harm and humiliate" her patients, describing ultrasound images to them "even when the patient shuts her eyes and covers her ears":
Take a moment to imagine what this must be like. To tell your doctor, "thank you, but I don't want to hear you describe the ultrasound," and to have your doctor tell you that you have no say in the matter--that you must lie there, undressed, with an ultrasound probe inside of you, and have the images described to you in government-mandated detail over your objection. Even if the patient has already had one or more ultrasounds performed. Even if the fetus has been diagnosed with a condition incompatible with survival. Or even if the patient is pregnant as a result of sexual assault, and having to watch and listen to the ultrasound over their objection forces them to relive that trauma.
The law has been condemned by reproductive rights groups, the American Medical Association (AMA), and more that 130 biomedical ethicists.
"There is no medical requirement for this on every abortion procedure," wrote public health researcher Dr. Daniel Grossman.
Rather, a number of critics on social media wrote, the goal of the law is to "shame" patients who seek abortions.
"Mandating transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortion care is not only medically unnecessary--it's violently invasive," tweeted NARAL Pro-Choice America. "This law shames women for accessing basic care. But that's the entire point."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.