- WND - http://www.wnd.com -

Sonogram ruling hailed by abortion victims

Hundreds of Texas women who were allowed to intervene in a court argument over requiring abortionists to provide sonograms to their patients are praising the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a decision that allows enforcement of the law.

“A picture is worth a thousand words, and the abortionists wanted to silence the voice of my child,” said Mayela Banks, one of the group known as the “317 Texas Women Hurt By Abortion.”

The group had been allowed by Judge Fortunato P. Benavides of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to join in the arguments in a lawsuit brought by abortion providers against the law, H.B. 15, which was signed May 19, 2011, by Gov. Rick Perry.

The Texas Medical Providers Performing Abortion Services brought a challenge to halt the enforcement of the law, and a trial court issued a preliminary injunction Aug. 15.

The court this week upheld the law, which supporters say was designed to ensure women are informed fully about the ramifications of abortion.

The three-judge panel found the law merely requires physicians to provide “truthful, non-misleading information.”

The filing submitted by the 317 women was was prepared by Nathaniel J. Oleson and Gary G. Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, Allan E. Parker Jr. of The Justice Foundation, Samuel B. Casey of the Jubilee Campaign Law of Life Project and Kathleen Cassidy Goodman of Helotes, Texas.

“Now the woman can hear the sounds of her own baby’s heartbeat and see the picture of her own child, not a picture from a textbook or something else. This decision will result in a reduction in the number of abortions in Texas. The reason for this is that women will actually see what is in their womb at the time when most abortions occur – a child with arms, feet, and legs which must be described to the woman and a beating heart which she must be allowed to hear,” said Parker of The Justice Foundation. “This scientific evidence will refute the lies of abortionists which they have told to thousands of Texas women over the years that the contents of the uterus are ‘just a mass of tissue, just a blob, or not yet a baby.'”

The appeals court’s decisions said, “Provisions … requiring disclosures and written consent are sustainable” under the U.S. Constitution and “are within the state’s power to regulate the practice of medicine, and therefore do not violate the First Amendment.”

Cecile Richards, who gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for managing Planned Parenthood, the abortion industry’s largest player in the U.S., called the decision to allow women to have the pertinent information “abhorrent.”

Sam Casey of the Jubilee Campaign’s Law of Life Project said his group is “pleased that the court over the abortion industry’s objections listened to the 317 Texas Women Injured By Abortion, and the thousands of other women they represent.”

“Out clients are glad the law can now go into immediate effect so that women, like themselves, who would otherwise not be fully informed by abortionists will at last, be given the information they need,” he said.

One of those women, Jenny Martinez, said, “I’m so pleased with the decision! I’m thanking God because now unborn babies will have a voice and many mothers will have the opportunity to choose life!”

The U.S. Justice Foundation’s president, Kreep, said. “We agree with [the] court’s unanimous opinion that ‘the point of informed consent laws is to allow the patient to evaluate her condition and render her best decision under difficult circumstances. Denying her up to date medical information is more of an abuse to her ability to decide than providing the information.'”

In the statement submitted to the court on behalf of the law, another of the 317 women, identified only as Cathy, wrote, “It’s hard to live with yourself after you murder someone so innocent.”

And Keri added, “I am no different than the murderers in prison right now, but I just paid someone $250 to keep it quiet and make it legal (by calling it a medical procedure).”

The friend-of-the-court brief also included statements:

The testimonies continued for 90 pages.