Dave Boucher

dboucher@tennessean.com

A proposed Tennessee abortion regulation is similar to a North Carolina law deemed unconstitutional by a federal appeals court this week.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled in part Monday that North Carolina could not require a doctor to describe the images of an ultrasound because it would violate First Amendment rights to free speech, according to the 37-page opinion released Monday.

“While it is true that the words the state puts into the doctor’s mouth are factual, that does not divorce the speech from its moral or ideological implications,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote on behalf of the three-judge panel.

“Of course we need not go so far as to say that every required description of a typical fetus is in every context ideological. But this Display of Real-Time View Requirement explicitly promotes a pro-life message by demanding the provision of facts that all fall on one side of the abortion debate — and does so shortly before the time of decision when the intended recipient is most vulnerable,” the opinion continues.

Earlier this year Tennessee voters passed an amendment to the state constitution that opened the door to new regulations on abortions. The first proposed regulation would require doctors to perform an ultrasound before an abortion. They also would need to offer women the chance to view the image; if the woman declines, the doctors would be required to describe the image and provide audio of any heartbeat that might exist at the time.

Rep. Rick Womick, R-Rockvale, introduced the bill. The conservative lawmaker said Tuesday the 4th Circuit’s opinion in no way changed his desire to see his bill become law in Tennessee.

“A patient that goes to the doctor in Tennessee, whether it’s for an appendectomy or a heart transplant or an abortion, should be given the full information about the procedure,” Womick said.

“It’s not forced speech to tell somebody about the risk involved about the heart transplant, (but it is for an abortion)? The courts can’t have it both ways,” he continued.

He also noted the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled a similar proposal in Texas was constitutional, arguing a decision could be needed from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 4th Circuit acknowledges other federal appeals courts made different decisions on similar cases, but Wilkinson argues the other appeals courts “read too much into” the laws they cited to make their own decisions.

Proposals like Womick’s offer no health benefit for women and are meant to shame and coerce, said Allison Glass, state director for the Healthy and Free Tennessee coalition. Glass, whose coalition campaigned against the change to Tennessee’s constitution, said bills like Womick’s are clearly unconstitutional.

“Research show that forcing someone to undergo an ultrasound when they do not need to or to hear about the image does not change their decision, but it does contradict the principles of informed consent and interferes with the doctor and patient relationship,” Glass said in a statement.

“We do not want to see this kind of out-of-touch attack on health, safety and personal decision making in our state.”

Other lawmakers have discussed different abortion proposals. House Speaker Beth Harwell, R-Nashville, discussed proposing a mandatory waiting period before an abortion, new inspection requirements on abortion clinics and requiring mandatory counseling known as “informed consent” before a woman can go through with the procedure. Asked recently about requiring ultrasounds before an abortion, Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey, R-Blountville, said, “I don’t want to do that.”

Gov. Bill Haslam told The Tennessean on multiple occasions he hasn’t looked at Womick’s bill but questioned the wisdom of pushing proposals found unconstitutional in other states.

“I think my point would be Tennessee is at a place where other states have actually proposed laws, some of which have been struck down. I wouldn’t want to spend a whole lot of time on some issue that they know is going to get struck down,” the Knoxville Republican recently told The Tennessean editorial board.

A recent Vanderbilt University poll of registered voters in Tennessee showed a slight majority favored a mandatory waiting period, but only 25 percent supported prohibiting health insurance plans from covering abortions.

Reach Dave Boucher at 615-259-8892 and on Twitter @Dave_Boucher1.