June, 15 2015, 01:30pm EDT

North Carolina's Coercive Ultrasound Law Permanently Blocked as Supreme Court Refuses Review
Federal district court, appellate court both determined law violates First Amendment, interferes in doctor-patient relationship
WASHINGTON
The United States Supreme Court today declined to review a North Carolina law that would have forced a woman to undergo a narrated ultrasound before receiving an abortion--a measure that was blocked by both a district court and federal appeals court as unconstitutional.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found the law unconstitutional in December 2014, affirming that the law violates the First Amendment rights of physicians by forcing them to deliver politically motivated communications to a patient even over the patient's objection. The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel ruled that "transforming the physician into the mouthpiece of the state undermines the trust that is necessary for facilitating healthy doctor-patient relationships and, through them, successful treatment outcomes."
The law was preliminarily blocked in October 2011 following a lawsuit filed on behalf of several North Carolina physicians and medical practices by the Center for Reproductive Rights, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, Planned Parenthood, and the firm of O'Melveny & Myers. The measure was later permanently struck down as unconstitutional by a federal district court in January 2014. North Carolina asked the Supreme Court to review the measure in March 2015 after the Fourth Circuit found the law unconstitutional in December 2014.
"The Supreme Court has left standing major victories in the lower courts that will keep politicians out of the exam room and the personal decisions of North Carolina women seeking to safely and legally end a pregnancy," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "Women are fully capable of making thoughtful decisions about their families, future, and health without interference from politicians who presume to know better. And all doctors must be free to give patients their best medical judgment, free from talking points dictated by lawmakers advancing an agenda."
"We are pleased that the Supreme Court decided not to review the decision striking down this law. Doctors shouldn't be forced to humiliate a woman and disregard their best medical judgment in order to provide an abortion," said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. "The purpose of this law was crystal clear: to shame a woman who has decided to have an abortion out of getting one. In this country, its not ok to turn doctors into the mouthpieces of politicians in order to make a woman feel bad about her decision."
"This dangerous and misguided law should never have passed in the first place. Politicians across the country should take note -- these harmful and unconstitutional restrictions won't be tolerated by the courts or the public," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "This misguided law would have inserted politics and bad medicine into every exam room in North Carolina. We are pleased that the courts are recognizing that these unconstitutional laws hurt women and block access to safe medical care."
The North Carolina coercive ultrasound law, passed in 2011 by the General Assembly over the veto of then-Governor Bev Perdue, is one of the most extreme ultrasound laws in the country.
While the law would have allowed the woman to "avert her eyes" from the ultrasound screen and to "refuse to hear" the explanation of the images, the provider would still be required to place the images in front of her and describe them in detail over her objection. The North Carolina law applies even if a woman does not want to see the ultrasound, and makes no exception for rape, incest, serious health risks or severe fetal anomalies.
This law is one of hundreds of abortion restrictions that have been introduced by state legislatures with the goal of restricting access to abortion. In the past four years, state lawmakers enacted more than 230 abortion restrictions, and in the first quarter of 2015 alone, more than 330 abortion restrictions were introduced.
New polling shows that most Americans identify as pro-choice and that seven in 10 Americans want a woman who has decided to have an abortion to be able to get it without additional burdens.
The Center for Reproductive Rights is a global human rights organization of lawyers and advocates who ensure reproductive rights are protected in law as fundamental human rights for the dignity, equality, health, and well-being of every person.
(917) 637-3600LATEST NEWS
Trump Ripped for Multilevel Stupidity of Scrapping Automobile Efficiency Standards
"In one stroke, Trump is worsening three of our nation’s most vexing problems," said one critic.
Dec 03, 2025
President Donald Trump's administration drew criticism from climate advocates on Wednesday for taking a hatchet to fuel efficiency standards aimed at reducing US gas consumption and mitigating the damage done by human-made climate change.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has proposed slashing former President Joe Biden's fuel economy requirements for new cars down from 50.4 miles per gallon down to just 34.5 miles per gallon on average by 2031.
NHTSA claims that the change in fuel-efficiency standards would slash up-front costs to cars by roughly $900, although it acknowledges that this would also increase US gasoline consumption, which could mean higher prices at the gas pump.
The move has the support of America's major automobile manufacturers, who said the new rules would give them more flexibility. Ford CEO Jim Farley, for instance, told the Washington Post that the rule change means that the auto industry "can make real progress on carbon emissions and energy efficiency while still giving customers choice and affordability."
Many environmental advocates were quick to hammer Trump for making what they described as a shortsighted policy decision that cost Americans more over the long run in terms of both higher gas prices and carbon emissions.
Kathy Harris, director of clean vehicles at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that Trump is "sticking drivers with higher costs at the pump, all to benefit the oil industry" and predicted that "drivers will be paying hundreds of dollars more at the pump every year if these rules are put in place."
The rule change also drew a scathing review from Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Safe Climate Transport Campaign, who said that the Trump administration's actions were self-destructive on a number of levels.
"In one stroke, Trump is worsening three of our nation’s most vexing problems: the thirst for oil, high gas pump costs, and global warming," he said. "Trump’s action will feed America’s destructive use of oil, while hamstringing us in the green tech race against Chinese and other foreign carmakers. The auto industry will use this rule to drive itself back into a familiar ditch, failing to compete."
The move on fuel-efficiency standards wasn't the only climate-related policy move the administration made this week, as Bloomberg reported on Tuesday that the US Department of Energy also began unwinding a Biden-era program aimed at decarbonizing the building sector by allowing for the certification of "zero emissions" buildings.
Amneh Minkara, deputy director of Sierra Club's Clean Heat Campaign, said that repealing this program was particularly nonsensical since it was a voluntary standard that "did not place any additional burden on builders or owners," and instead represented "a clear way to meet consumer demand for pollution-free buildings."
"Defining what makes a building ‘zero emissions’ gives consumers certainty that when builders or sellers say a building is clean that it actually meets a specific set of criteria," Minkara emphasized. "It also would reduce energy waste, at a time when energy demand is at an all-time high, and lead to lower utility bills."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Face of GOP Healthcare Fix Is Senator Linked to Largest Medicare Fraud Scheme in US History
Sen. Rick Scott is warning fellow Republicans of a "slow creep" toward single-payer healthcare if they don't craft an alternative to the Affordable Care Act.
Dec 03, 2025
US Sen. Rick Scott, former CEO of the company that was at the center of the biggest Medicare fraud scheme in American history, has emerged as the most vocal Republican proponent of healthcare reform, warning his fellow GOP lawmakers that continued refusal to engage with the issue risks a "slow creep" toward single-payer healthcare.
On Thursday, according to Axios, Scott (R-Fla.) is "convening a group of House and Senate conservatives on Capitol Hill to pore over fresh polling to develop GOP alternatives to the Affordable Care Act."
Late last month, Scott unveiled his own proposal titled the More Affordable Care Act, which would keep ACA exchanges intact while creating "Trump Health Freedom Accounts" that enrollees could use to pay for out-of-pocket costs. Scott's plan, as the health policy group KFF explained, would allow enhanced ACA tax credits to expire and let states replace subsidies in the original ACA with contributions to the newly created health savings accounts.
"Unlike ACA premium tax credits, which can only be used for ACA Marketplace plans, the accounts in the Scott proposal could be used for any type of health insurance plan, including short-term plans that can exclude people based on preexisting conditions," KFF noted. "States could also waive certain provisions of the ACA, including the requirement to cover certain benefits."
"While ACA plans would still be required to cover people with preexisting conditions under the Scott proposal," the group added, "it is likely that the ACA marketplace would collapse in states that seek a waiver under his approach."
Last month, amid the longest government shutdown in US history, Scott leapt at the opportunity to champion possible Republican alternatives to the healthcare status quo, despite his ignominious record.
In 2003, the US Justice Department announced that the hospital chain HCA Inc.—formerly known as Columbia/HCA—had agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and damages to settle what the DOJ characterized as the "largest healthcare fraud case in US history."
Scott resigned as CEO of Columbia/HCA in 1997, days after federal agents raided company facilities as part of the sweeping fraud probe. The federal government and company whistleblowers said the hospital giant "systematically defrauded" Medicare, Medicaid, and other healthcare programs through unlawful billing and other ploys.
"In 2000, Scott invoked the Fifth Amendment 75 times in a deposition as part of a civil case involving his time leading the company," Florida Phoenix reported last year. A former HCA accountant accused Scott, who was never directly charged in the case, of leading "a criminal enterprise."
Scott later served two terms as governor of Florida and is now one of the wealthiest members of Congress, and he maintains he was the victim of a politically motivated DOJ investigation.
"The Clinton Justice Department went after me," Scott complained during his 2024 Senate reelection campaign.
It's unclear whether Scott's healthcare ideas will gain sufficient traction with President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers, who have seemed content to bash the existing system without proposing anything concrete or viable to replace it. Trump was supposed to unveil his own healthcare proposal last month, but the White House pulled the plug amid GOP pushback.
Some members of the Democratic caucus, meanwhile, are making the case for the very system Scott is warning his colleagues about.
"Let’s finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said earlier this week. "We need Medicare for All."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Political Stunt Wrapped in Badges’: New Orleans Readies Resistance as Trump Operation Begins
“Our city is not a stage for political theater," said the Democratic congressman representing New Orleans. "Our people are not props."
Dec 03, 2025
The Trump administration on Wednesday launched a major operation against what it said are "criminal illegal aliens" in New Orleans but that critics contend is political theater targeting what the Louisiana city's mayor-elect called people “just trying to survive and do the right thing."
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement that it launched Operation Catahoula Crunch—which some Trump administration officials are also calling "Swamp Sweep"—because New Orleans is a sanctuary city that refuses to cooperate with the anti-immigrant crackdown ordered by President Donald Trump.
The blitz—which began on the same day as a similar operation in Minneapolis and follows federal invasions of cities including Charlotte; Chicago; Los Angeles; Memphis; Portland, Oregon; and Washington, DC—is expected to involve at least hundreds of federal agents and National Guard troops and reportedly aims for 5,000 arrests in Louisiana and Mississippi.
"Sanctuary policies endanger American communities by releasing illegal criminal aliens and forcing DHS law enforcement to risk their lives to remove criminal illegal aliens that should have never been put back on the streets," Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said Wednesday.
While McClaughlin claimed the targets of the operation will be "monsters" that "include violent criminals who were released after arrest for home invasion, armed robbery, grand theft auto, and rape," examination of detention statistics of similar operations in other communities has shown that a large percentage of those swept up have no criminal record.
Academic studies and analyses by both left- and right-wing groups and have repeatedly affirmed that undocumented immigrants commit crime at a dramatically lower rate than native-born US citizens. The libertarian Cato Institute last week published data showing that nearly three-quarters of the 44,882 people booked into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody since October had no criminal conviction and just 5% had been convicted of violent crimes.
Detention data published last month by the Department of Justice revealed that just 16 out of 614 people arrested in the Chicago area during DHS's Operation Midway Blitz had criminal histories that present a “high public safety risk.”
Elected officials representing New Orleans called the DHS operation an unnecessary and unwelcome stunt.
“It’s one thing if you would have a real strategic approach on going after people... who have criminal felonies or are being accused of some very serious and violent crimes. But that’s not what the public is seeing,” Democratic New Orleans Mayor-elect Helena Morena told the Washington Post on Wednesday.
“They’re seeing people who are just trying to survive and do the right thing—and many of them now have American children who are not causing problems in our community—treated like they are violent, violent criminals," she added.
Moreno's website published a "know your rights" resource page with tips from the National Immigrant Justice Center—a move that could possibly run afoul of a state law cited by Republican Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill to threaten felony prosecution of people who nonviolently resist Trump's crackdown. On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the law is a violation of the right to free speech.
Congressman Troy Carter (D-La.) said in a statement Tuesday that “if the administration truly wants to support public safety in New Orleans, they can help us recruit and retain well-trained local officers, invest in modern policing tools, and build transparent partnerships with city and parish leaders."
New Orleans welcomes partnership. We do not welcome occupation.What we are seeing unfold in our community is not public safety; it is a political stunt wrapped in badges, armored vehicles, and military uniforms.
[image or embed]
— Congressman Troy A. Carter, Sr. (@reptroycarter.bsky.social) December 3, 2025 at 6:35 AM
"Dropping armed federal agents and National Guard troops into our communities without coordination is not cooperation—it is chaos," Carter continued. “As Congressman for New Orleans, I want to be clear: We will always stand for the rule of law. We will always stand for safe communities. And we will always stand against tactics that terrorize families and undermine public trust."
“Our city is not a stage for political theater," he added. "Our people are not props. If the administration wants to be a partner, then act like one; share the plan, respect local law, and work with us, not around us.”
Hundreds of New Orleans residents took to the streets Monday night despite cold, heavy rain to protest the impending DHS operation. Demonstrators shared umbrellas and held signs showing support for immigrants. They chanted messages, including "No ICE! No fear! Immigrants are welcome here!" and "Chinga la Migra"—roughly translated as "Fuck the Border Patrol."
“We have to fight for the rights of everyone. I’m out here to support the immigrant community because it’s an integral part of New Orleans. New Orleans was built by immigrants," protester Jamie Segura told Gambit.
Addressing the crowd at Monday's rally, resident Mitch Gonzalez said: “This is my home. My trans sister was kidnapped and taken from me. Now she has to fight from Mexico, not even her home country, because they’re snatching people.”
Last night, hundreds marched through the streets of New Orleans, in the pouring rain, chanting “No ICE.”
If people are willing to storm the streets after dark in a downpour, it tells you everything about how fed up this country is with state-sanctioned cruelty. pic.twitter.com/kF5KjpU2SX
— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) December 2, 2025
As New Orleans residents anticipated the impending operation, mutual aid groups kicked into action in defense of immigrant communities, citing effective rapid response efforts in Chicago.
“What we’ve learned is that even a street witness who is not recording makes these interactions less traumatic and less violent,” Beth Davis, press liaison officer at Indivisible NOLA, told the Washington Post on Wednesday. “So we need to get eyes on these people.”
The New Orleans branch of Democratic Socialists of America—which is hosting training sessions—said ahead of the federal blitz: "We call upon all of New Orleans to get organized and resist this fascist occupation. Protect your neighbors and make these troops and federal agents feel unwelcome in every part of our city."
Other Orleanians prepared by closing or displaying signs telling the federal invaders that they are not welcome.
“We’re going to make sure that any hotel that they stay at, any neighborhood that they try to terrorize, we’re going to bring as many people there to stop them in their tracks, whether it’s in New Orleans, Los Angeles, Chicago—anywhere in this country,” Antonia Mar of Freedom Road Socialist Organization told Verite News during Monday's protest.
Suggesting that the crackdown could backfire, Mar added that "if there’s one thing Trump does well, he gets people organized against him."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


