By Dave Andrusko
The law was passed in 2010, the Oklahoma Supreme Court struck it down in 2012, and this past March the state Attorney General filed a petition asking the United States Supreme Court to review that decision which struck down a law requiring that an ultrasound be performed before a woman has an abortion.
Now D-Day is approaching. The state’s petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court will be considered at the Court’s June 20 Conference, the last scheduled Conference before the Court recesses for the summer.
“If the Supreme Court grants the petition, briefing on the merits of the Oklahoma Ultrasound Act (HB 2780) will take place during the summer and the case will probably be set for oral argument shortly after the Court begins its new term in October,” NRLC Director of State Legislation Mary Spaulding Balch told NRL News Today.
When Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed his petition he said he was filing a writ of certiorari because the state has “an obligation to protect our citizens and to make sure a life-altering abortion is held to the highest medical standards.”
The trailblazing HB 2780 requires that the abortionist position the ultrasound screen at an angle so that the mother can view the images, if she chooses, and that as part of the informed-consent process the abortionist “provide[s] a medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, if present and viewable, and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable.”
That law was struck down in March 2012 by District Judge Bryan Dixon, a decision the state Supreme Court upheld last December.
In under a hundred words, Dixon threw out a law supported overwhelmingly by the Oklahoma legislature, which overrode a veto by then-Gov. Brad Henry (D).The effect of Dixon’s two-page decision is confined to the state of Oklahoma. A very similar ultrasound law passed by Texas was upheld by a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That affirmative ruling affects the entire circuit.
“The state Supreme Court is simply wrong about HB 2780, Balch told NRL News Today. Balch noted the irony of the Court’s invoking the 1992 Casey decision to justify its decision.
“The 2010 Oklahoma Ultrasound Act goes hand in glove with Casey,” she said. “Casey was about informed consent—and what better information could a woman get than a picture of her own living unborn child?”
Balch added, “The state is well within its rights to ensure that mothers are fully informed prior to making this life or death decision.” Moreover, “Contrary to the implication of Judge Dixon’s opinion, abortion is not some ordinary ‘medical procedure.’ It is a procedure that takes the life of an innocent, unborn child,” Balch said.
The question remains whether the United States Supreme Court will hear the appeal (grant certiorari). “We have a state supreme court in one circuit striking down an ultrasound law and an appeals court in another circuit upholding the ultrasound requirement,” Balch said. “We would very much like this issue to reach the High Court because we are convinced the justices will uphold such laws.”
Tony Lauinger, state chairman of Oklahomans For Life, told NRL News Today that the abortionists who sued already do an ultrasound before every abortion. “It’s asking very little to require them to position the screen where the mother can see her baby if she wishes,” he said.
