The profoundly wrongheaded decision by US District Court Judge Catherine Eagles on North Carolina's "Woman's Right to Know Act" is an apt illustration of the forces that seek to take innocent human life in our culture.
Recall that Judge Eagles used to be a practicing attorney right here in Greensboro. And recall that she was recommended for her federal judgeship by none other than Greensboro's own Senator Kay Hagan. Of course, Hagan is adamantly pro-abortion, and has historically been the beneficiary of financial largesse lavished upon her campaigns by various pro-abortion forces on the left. I suspect that she would not have recommended Catherine Eagles to Barack Obama unless she knew that Eagles also is pro-abortion.
This is a very ugly picture.
In any event, the North Carolina right-to-know law requires that the abortionist provide the pregnant woman with an opportunity to view her ultrasound image; and describe the image in detail to her. In my opinion, this is an eminently reasonable requirement in view of the fact that the abortionist is proposing to take a human life unjustifiably. This is the least that should be expected of him.
What did Judge Eagles say? That the law compels the abortionist to "speak, in his or own voice, the state's ideological message in favor of carrying the pregnancy to term". She referred to the ultrasound requirement as a "straightjacket". She further stated that the requirement "is an effort by the State to require health care providers to deliver information in support of the state's philosophical and social position discouraging abortion and encouraging child birth."
Ah, yes, Judge Eagles surely warms Kay Hagan's heart.
But there is only one problem. The state law merely requires the abortionist to provide the biological and medical facts about the image on the screen. There is no ideological message required-- just the scientific truth.
The ridiculous nature of Eagles' ruling is illustrated by the fact that the federal government routinely tells businesses that they must transmit certain information to other parties. This is a form of compelled speech that is routinely required for various reasons. We have certain right-to-know laws. The government requires various warning labels and signs and messages. We have labor law posters that employers must hang. There are probably countless other examples. The state of North Carolina has every right to regulate the delivery of abortion services within its jurisdiction.
Nothing in the Constitution elevates the abortionist to an exalted position that is exempt from being required to transmit certain truthful messages. Again, he is proposing to take a human life unjustifiably.
This district court decision needs to be appealed by the state of North Carolina. The leaders of the General Assembly ought to take this case away from Roy Cooper and hire outside attorneys to handle it for the state-- if this is within their powers.
The judiciary is so thoroughly contaminated with liberal activism that there is a good chance Judge Eagles' decision might be upheld. But that does not mean it has true constitutional merit.
Unfortunately, Greensboro's ultraliberal political and legal culture is being exported far beyond the city, to the entire nation, by virtue of the activist judge Senator Hagan recommended.
This is a matter that speaks to our community's utter disregard for ethics and for justice. Our community's political culture celebrates and stridently advocates the taking of innocent human life.
An interesting article was recently published over at Public Discourse that features the words of Gerald Bradley, a Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School.. Here are some of his words:
The argument about abortion from this point forward is about ethics, not status. It is about justice, not about “personhood.” It is about establishing that, even if an abortion would be advantageous (up to a point) for a woman—and even if abortion rights are a boon to women’s general social prospects—abortion is always gravely unjust. For that reason, it is not to be done. A just society must prohibit it.
The pro-life movement will have to speak in starkly moral terms. We will have to press the issue of justification, even at the risk of discomfiting some allies and listeners and bringing out the worst in our adversaries.
Comments