In August, a federal judge issued a partial injunction against Texas' law that requires that women seeking abortion "look at a sonogram, hear a description of it from her doctor, and listen to a fetal heartbeat" before getting the abortion.
Unfortunately, a circuit court overturned that injunction.
Edith H. Jones, the chief judge on the three-judge panel who made the ruling, wrote that the law does not interfere with either the patient's or the doctor's First Amendment Rights, as the Center For Reproductive Rights, which brought the suit, had claimed. Jones wrote that the sonogram law and other "informed consent laws" don't put an "undue burden" on a woman's right to have an abortion "if they require truthful, nonmisleading, and relevant disclosures." Jones also rejected the argument that portions of the law are "unconstitutionally vague."
I'm not sure which is worse: that the judges found this "truthful, nonmisleading, and relevant," or that the judge writing this is a woman.
Of course, Rick Perry is crowing about it:
Today's ruling is a victory for all who stand in defense of life. Every life lost to abortion is a tragedy, and this important sonogram legislation ensures that every Texas woman seeking an abortion has all the facts about the life she is carrying, and understands the devastating impact of such a life-ending decision. We will continue to fight any attempt to limit our state's laws that value and protect the unborn.
The irony of his fighting for the lives of the unborn while executing innocent men is obviously completely lost on him.
* * *
Just to conclude with one note of optimism: all the circuit court did was overturn the injunction. There are court challenges to the law on the docket, although overturning the injunction is obviously not a great sign.