An ultrasound dispatch: Oklahoma law struck down in court

One day after an Idaho bill was tabled for the session, a judge has struck down an Oklahoma law requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before getting an abortion.

According to the Associated Press, District Judge Brian Dixon ruled the law is unconstitutional and unenforceable. "(Dixon's) order says the statute passed in 2010 is an unconstitutional special law because it relates only to patients and physicians dealing with abortions and not other medical care."

More from the AP article.

Get Twitter updates on my blog and column and Statesman editorials. Become a follower. You can also get updates on Facebook's Idaho Statesman Opinion Page.

not surprised

Wow this nationally organized attack on women by the Republicans has legal problems too. Vote them out

I'm shocked to discover that

I'm shocked to discover that there's gambling in this casino.

women on women

No, not that kind!

Please, everyone, notice this Oklahoma bill was sponsored by a woman. The Idaho bill has women supporters including Janice McGeachin.

It is NOT a white Republican MALE thing.


no, it pretty much is

I bet you could find a black, lesbian, Republican if you looked long enough. That wouldn't change the prevailing demographics.

Blogs - Commentary: Kevin Richert....

and the commentary here is........?


I thought it was interesting, given the timing here in Idaho. I post links to other articles here from time to time. The only commenter who seems troubled by this is you.

Kevin Richert
editorial page editor

When hard news is presented as.....

Commentary, I can only assume you also present commentary as hard news. Maybe I am the only one troubled by that.

You might be.

It didn't bother me at all. Then again, I think most people know how to distinguish between news clips and commentary.

What about Texas, Kevin?

While we were in the heat of the debate over Idaho's legislation, a 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ultrasound requirement of a Texas law. I guess you didn't find that interesting or relevant, but a county district judge in Oklahoma carry's a lot more weight for your purposes.

As for Judge Dixon claiming the Oklahoma law was unconstitutional (that would be the Oklahoma State Constitution he was talking about) because it was a "special" law that doesn't apply to other doctors and health care professionals, I guess it never occured to him that abortion medicine has very different goals than those other fields of medicine. It seems likely his decision will be challenged in a higher court at the state or national level.


Good stuff bTw.

Some good points here KR. Most importantly you throw out 'unconstitutional' like the OK decision would some how affect Idaho. KR, you certainly left out IMPORTANT details in your post. Bad on you.

I was thinking how great if would be if the Statesman had the luxury of allowing their writers to have the freedom to really dive into the issues at hand and deliver comprehensive, accurate and informative writing. Instead it seems like the daily deadlines and little snippets here and there have robbed the readers of the importance of real journalism.

And the one time in recent years when that 'that freedom' was excercised Popkey writes about gay bathroom antics.

Maybe someday, things will get better.


But the Idaho legislature will have no problem passing our version of it, and establishing a legal defense fund (at the expense of health and education).

the legal defense fund is already set up

and got, what was it, an additional $500,000? plus $200,000 to hire outside counsel if they don't like the Attorney General's opinion.

Idea: Send Brandi Swindle

Idea: Send Brandi Swindle to Oklahoma! (1 way ticket of course)