Reference no: EM131743694

Case Scenario: INFORMED CONSENT FOR ABORTIONS CHALLENGED

The plaintiffs in this case sought to represent the class of all Texas medical providers performing abortions and the patients of such providers, by challenging the constitutionality of Texas House Bill Number 15, an act "relating to informed consent to an abortion" H.B. 15, 82nd Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2011) ("H.B. 15"). In part, the act amends Chapter 171 of the Texas Health and Safety Code to require the following as prerequisites for a woman's informed and voluntary consent to an abortion:

(1) the physician who is to perform the abortion, or a certified sonographer agent thereof, must perform a sonogram on the pregnant woman;

(2) the physician must display the sonogram images "in a quality consistent with current medical practice" such that the pregnant woman may view them;

(3) the physician must provide, "in a manner understandable to a layperson," a verbal explanation of the results of the sonogram images, including a variety of detailed descriptions of the fetus or embryo; and

(4) the physician or certified sonographer agent must "make audible the heart auscultation for the pregnant woman to hear, if present, in a quality consistent with current medical practice and provide, in a manner understandable to a layperson, a simultaneous verbal explanation of the heart auscultation," H.B. 15, Sec. 2 (amending TEX. HEALTH The U.S. District Court ordered, in part, that the defendants are enjoined from penalizing a physician, criminally or otherwise, under the act when multiple physicians perform an abortion, and any one of those physicians, or a combination of them, comply with the act's requirements; defendants are enjoined from penalizing either physician, criminally or otherwise, under the act when one physician is scheduled to perform an abortion and complies with the requirements of the act, but a different physician actually performs the abortion because the original doctor is unexpectedly unavailable on the procedure date; defendants are enjoined from enforcing the penalty provisions of the act against either a physician or a pregnant woman if the physician does not place the sonogram images where the pregnant woman may view them, or does not make audible the heart auscultation, if the pregnant woman elects not to view the images or hear the heart auscultation; and defendants are enjoined from penalizing a physician, criminally or otherwise, for the physician's failure to provide the materials required by section 171.0123 of the act, in cases where the physician does not know whether the woman has chosen to have an abortion.

1. Do you agree with the court's ruling? Discuss your answer.

2. Do you think a woman should have to look at the sonogram of a child she is about to abort? Discuss your answer.

3. What do you consider the pros and cons of this ruling?