North Carolina’s Ultrasound Law Struck Down

U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles has struck down as unconstitutional, North Carolina's ultrasound law that compelled women wanting abortions to undergo an ultrasound and then have the images described to them. The law required placing the images in the woman's line of sight and a detailed description of the fetus despite objections by the woman.

In her ruling the federal judge noted, "The Supreme Court has never held that a state has the power to compel a health care provider to speak, in his or her own voice, the state's ideological message in favor of carrying a pregnancy to term and this court declines to do so today."

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

Supporters of the law held that the measures would promote childbirth and allow the full consequences of an abortion to sink into the mind of the pregnant woman. However, the court ruled that the law violates the constitutional free speech of doctors.

Barbara Holt, president of the North Carolina Right to Life said, "North Carolina's ultrasound requirement is no different than requiring speech for airlines and cigarette manufacturers for safety reasons."

• Search Legal Jobs
• Search Articles
• Employer Listing

United States

Search jobs

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

Select In-House Law Firms Government Recruiters Public Interest

Search Employer

However, Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina said, "Today's court ruling protects the rights of women and their doctors from the ideological agenda of extremist lawmakers."

Judge Eagles observed that the law, "compels a health care provider to act as the state's courier and to disseminate the state's message discouraging abortion, in the provider's own voice, in the middle of a medical procedure, and under circumstances where it would seem the message is the provider's and not the state's."