Chief Judge Edith H. Jones used her opinion to systematically dismantle the argument that the Texas law infringes on the free speech rights of doctors and patients, the key argument against the law.
"The required disclosures of a sonogram, the fetal heartbeat, and their medical descriptions are the epitome of truthful, non-misleading information," Jones wrote. "The appellees failed to demonstrate constitutional flaws" with the law.
Sparks had ruled in August that several provisions of the state law violated the free-speech rights of doctors who perform abortions by requiring that they show and describe the sonogram images and describe the fetal heartbeat, all of which doctors have said is not necessary for good treatment.
In response to this opinion, Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights hilariously goes all libertarian. Just don't let them know you favor tax funds being directly inserted into that private decision!
"This law, and this decision, inserts government directly into a private decision that must be protected from the intrusion of political ideologues," Northrup said. "Anyone concerned with the erosion of the constitutional protection of our individual rights as Americans should be profoundly concerned and disappointed by today's events."
A Michigan judge has ruled Planned Parenthood can open a clinic at a property with a disputed deed restriction. Planned Parenthood deceived the property owners of a nearby hotel which held the deed restriction and have repeatedly lied about their intentions for the clinic. Prolifers have promised to appeal.
At the hearing, Circuit Judge James Alexander said lawyers representing those opposed to Planned Parenthood failed to show how the clinic, set for a business-zoned area of Opdyke Road, would violate restrictions set forth when the land was split for sale more than a decade ago.
He scolded lawyers representing the opponents for arguing on the assumption that the clinic would provide abortion services, when local Planned Parenthood officials have said repeatedly that they may not.
"Let me stop this right now," said Alexander, as attorney James Carey referred to the clinic as "an abortion clinic" in the beginning of his arguments. "This is not an abortion case. This is a property case."
It shows you something about how abortion clinics don't really care about "choice" when there is supposedly only one abortion clinic in the entire country that is also an adoption agency. No statistics are given comparing the number of adoptions with the number of abortions. The story of this clinic in Ohio also disputes one popular pro-choice assertion.
One of the myths surrounding abortion is that a woman walks into an abortion clinic, says get rid of it, climbs on the table and walks out baby-free. But abortion providers know that the greatest problems with abortions can come in the aftermath, if a woman goes into a deep depression over her decision.....
Nature profiles Robert Lanza and ACT, the only company currently running a clinical trial using cells created from human embryonic stem cells, and there various troubles.
Now, the company's future hinges on the outcome of the trials. Final results won't be out until 2013, and they will show mainly whether the cell transplants are safe. The patients enrolled in the trial are in the late stages of vision loss, so the chances of dramatic improvement are remote, experts say.....
But even if the trial results are positive, ACT will face enormous challenges in commercializing the technology. The company will have to show the FDA that its RPE cells can slow vision loss in bigger and more expensive clinical trials.
And even if the treatment works, storing and distributing the cells, which often have short shelf-lives, is expensive and logistically difficult, says Chris Mason, head of the Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine Bioprocess Group at University College London.