Is the Abortion Sonogram Law Unconstitutional?

If you aren't already aware, Texas has created a new abortion sonogram law. This is a law that requires all women considering abortion to have a sonogram and listen to a description of the fetus before aborting it. This law was deemed unconstitutional by some, saying that it affects the women's reproductive rights. Because the law was granted unconstitutional, the law was appealed. The Supreme Court is now refusing Texas the permission to enforce the new sonogram law while under appeal. The real question is, is the new abortion sonogram law unconstitutional? Although I believe the law is a tad deviant, I don't believe it is unconstitutional. Even though the reason behind this law may be of biased opinion (people not believing in abortion) it can be argued that the law was created for medical purposes. It can be argued that the law was created by concerns for the health of the mother. It doesn't seem unconstitutional to me because it is just another required "medical test." Pregnant women have sonograms all the time, the only thing that could seem unconstitutional is that the mothers do not have an option to say no to the sonogram. The doctor giving a description of the fetus to the patient is not unconstitutional because that is a Doctor's job. I believe people are upset with the fact that they do not have an option to say no to all of this, which is interesting to me because there has never really been a reason to before. In my opinion, I like the law. It allows women to understand what exactly is happening to their bodies when they're pregnant and I believe that is something they need to be informed of. I believe it is necessary that before women get an abortion they truly understand what the procedure is. So in my opinion, the law is not unconstitutional, it just comes from biased opinions.

A Little Perry Humor

I chose the blog entry Do You Want a Revolution by Eileen Smith, editor of In the Pink. This critique of the  ABC news article was very entertaining to me. The author's intended audience was obviously for someone who enjoys the sight of Rick Perry making a fool of himself in the recent debates. If you are informed at all about how these debates are going, you will know that debates aren't Perry's strong point. The author bluntly points that out and makes her opinion clear to all that she agrees with that statement.

The author states that Perry discussed some American history with the Beta Theta Pi fraternity from Dartmouth university and slipped up on his dates. Actually, Perry was off by two whole centuries! Perry was making a point about the intentions of our founding fathers, and their intentions on where the wisdom and power should be held in this country. During this "informative" speech Perry made the mistake of saying the American Revolution happened in the 16th century, when it actually was held during the 18th century. This didn't look too good for Perry.

According to the author, Perry is in the danger zone and is not safe. According to her, Perry's debate performance was at its best "coma-inducing." Although I enjoy the authors humor and sarcasm in this editorial, i feel like its a little too biased for my taste. I agree with the author about Perry making a fool out of himself but it seems to me like the author is bashing on Perry. Although Perry's dates were pretty far off, everyone makes mistakes when they're under pressure. The question is, is it okay for a future leader of our country to make those kind of mistakes under pressure? I certainly don't believe so.