Federal judge issues injunction blocking part of Walker’s anti-choice bill

At the end of last week, Republican Gov. Scott Walker signed his bill requiring women to undergo a state-forced transvaginal ultrasound before being able to obtain an abortion. It was clear when Gov. Walker signed the bill (done in private and on Friday of a holiday week) that he didn’t want a lot of fanfare or public scrutiny of the bill.

Shortly after Gov. Walker signed into law his bill requiring women to be forced to have state-mandated transvaginal ultrasounds, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU filed suit to stop enactment of the bill, and earlier today a federal judge issued an injunction preventing at least part of Walker’s law from being enacted. In issuing the injunction, U.S. District Judge William M. Conley cited a “troubling lack of justification” for the provision of the law which would mandate that any doctors who perform abortions must have hospital admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic at which they would be performing an abortion.

“There will almost certainly be irreparable harm to those women who will be foreclosed from having an abortion in the next week either because of the undue burden of travel or the late stage of pregnancy, as well as facing increasing health risks caused by delay,” the judge wrote. “Since the state has failed to date to demonstrate any benefit to maternal health of imposing this restriction, there is no meaningful counterweight recognized by the United States Supreme Court to justify the act’s immediate enforcement.”

While it’s certainly unfortunate that the entire bill wasn’t blocked by an injunction, today’s news is still good news.

4 comments to Federal judge issues injunction blocking part of Walker’s anti-choice bill

  • forgotmyscreenname

    “the late stage of pregnancy” ??? Are late term abortions allowed in Wisconsin?

    I also wonder if the state must always “demonstrate any benefit” when it imposes a law or is it just in the case of killing children?

       0 likes

  • Umm…yeah. I would think the state should always demonstrate the benefits of a new law. It’s obvious in this case the only benefit imposed is to satisfy the extreme views of conservatives, especially those with the purse strings.

    And, you’re making up shit now. It’s pretty obvious the judge was not referring to late term abortions, but to medically necessary procedures that might be delayed because of this infringement of a woman’s right to be healthy and safe. Yeah, but screw the women. They’re only vessels, right, for sperm.

       0 likes

    • forgotmyscreenname

      Other Side, I agree that the state should demonstrate the benefits of a new law. My question here though is do judges use that standard across the board when reviewing challenged laws? I’m not a lawyer so if anyone out there can weigh in, it would be much appreciated. I am unaware of that being a legal standard.

         0 likes

  • DairyQueen

    I have often wondered why God put unborn babies in the bodies of ignorant women rather than just handing them over to churches or the GOP who would obviously make much wiser decisions about their welfare.

       1 likes

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Blogging Blue’s “14 in ’14″

Goal Thermometer