The sonogram lawsuit hearing

In a blog post from BURKABLOG, Paul Burka discusses the recent sonogram lawsuit hearing that states that the ultrasound requirement violates the First Amendment rights of both the patient and the doctor.

Burka is senior executive editor for the Texas Monthly and is pretty well known in the blogging industry. Having such a high status in the Texas Monthly (an acclaimed Texas magazine), it demonstrates that he has expertise and that it is likely that what he says will be credible. In this article in particular, he has inside information about the sonogram lawsuit hearing, in which he attended. Whether you agree or not, this inside information is intriguing to readers and blog followers (his audience).

Burka believes that the lead counsel in this hearing did not do a very good job. One of these reasons being that the Center made no “undue burden” argument. This, along with more discussion of law, led to the law appearing more and more vague which resulted in confusion. Burka maintains that the lack of an “undue burden” claim was a direct cause of the judge thinking that the law was vague. Upon reading this blog entry, it was unclear to me what an undue burden argument is. After doing extensive research, I understand that an undue burden argument is used to determine constitutionality and is defined as indicating significant difficulty or expense. So, in this case it would be a statement about why the statute is so difficult and why a woman should be forced to listen to a sonogram prior to an abortion. This personally clears up some confusion for me, and I now feel that Burka’s argument is valid. Had the Center made such an argument, some of the vagueness could have been cleared up.

Burka’s main claim refers to the First Amendment argument in the lawsuit, and whether the Legislature has the “power to invade the doctor-patient relationship to the point that it can mandate speech”. While I think that this is a legitimate argument that people cannot be forced to hear the fetus’ heartbeat and description, I tend to disagree. I feel that this is no different than an oral surgeon telling their patient the risks of getting their wisdom teeth taken out. A doctor would be giving the heartbeat and description in order to make sure that their decision is sound and that they are trying to prevent any regretful decisions. Doctors are fully demonstrating the severity of the patient’s decision.

Although I am in favor of the law, overall I think that Burka did make a valid argument and I do agree that some points of the law are vague.  I respect his opinion and thoughts because he is such a credible and convincing source.  His full blog post can be read here.