Kentucky abortion law faces first legal challenge
“HB 2 requires doctors to perform an ultrasound and show their patients pictures, explaining the images in detail. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that it is unconstitutional”
The interesting thing here is that they’re objecting to the term “unborn child” in the law, but not to the requirement for ultrasound to be available. I would infer that many abortionists are using ultrasound to guide their work already, but simply object to showing clients what they see. That would explain why the objection of cost is not being used here.
The 1st Amendment objection is doubly curious given that Roe. V. Wade uses the term “unborn child” in this very context, and also because in California, Planned Parenthood Infanticide and NARAL have gotten laws enacted which compel something even more amazing; that crisis pregnancy centers must provide abortion referrals. You may as well compel rabbis to provide information about Aryan Nations affiliate clubs, or order blacks (or rabbis for that matter) to provide information on local Klan meetings.
My take here is that the Kentucky law is Constitutional, and the California law is not—because the California law is requiring an action that the plaintiffs have always felt to be a moral wrong. The Kentucky law does not, unless one believes that abortionists think that carrying a baby to term is sin.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion