Judge Hears Arguments Over NC's New Abortion Law

A judge is considering whether to prevent portions of North Carolina's new abortion restrictions from taking effect while a lawsuit challenging them goes through the federal courts.

Lawyers for the state and abortion rights groups argued their cases before U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles for 2 1/2 hours Monday in a Greensboro courtroom.

Abortion providers sued last month, saying the new law requiring ultrasounds be performed so that women are shown the images is unconstitutional.

Bebe Anderson with the Center for Reproductive Rights told Eagles the law is too vague and could subject doctors to penalties. Senior Deputy Attorney General Faison Hicks said the information doctors provide patients is truthful and advances the state's interest for a woman to carry the fetus to term.

You must be logged in to post comments.

Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Choose on Oct 18, 2011 at 05:20 AM
    Women do have a choice. To have sex or not! And if they choose to have sex they(the mother and father) should be held accountable for the pregnancy that occurs. We talk about choice but fail to think about the CHOICE that gets you pregnant. I know there are certian cases where a womens choice is taken from her and that is a terrible act of violence, but 9/10 time abortion is the choice of someone who got caught and doesn't want to be pregnant. I think having an ultrasound is a great idea before having an abortion. If those CELLS have a hearbeat then it is a living being in my book and should be treated as such!
  • by hmm on Oct 18, 2011 at 04:53 AM
    People say that they're against abortion except for in extreme situations, but what if the situation is that two (likely) low SES teenagers didn't wrap it up. Now she will drop out of HS and try to raise her baby in poverty. This is the likely scenario for those in Eastern NC and I believe it is extreme. That child is not going to get appropriate education from their parents, leading to low academic skills in school, in turn leading to low self esteem, and finally to having sex before they are ready: Circle of poverty. I'm not saying abort poor children, I'm just saying give people another chance to do good by their FUTURE children.
  • by Barlow Location: Winterville on Oct 18, 2011 at 03:05 AM
    Jobs anybody? Anybody care about that? We have abortion laws, we need jobs. The poor kid will be born and his parents won't have a what? That's right a J--O--B.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Oct 18, 2011 at 05:16 AM in reply to Barlow
      Don't worry Barlow, the jobs will come as soon as Obama is out of office. 2012 and 2013 cannot come soon enough!!
  • by What about the father? on Oct 17, 2011 at 08:20 PM
    I am also against abortion unless it is extreme circumstances (rape, health issues, that sort of thing). My question is what about the father's rights? Why don't they have to agree if the sex was consentual and he wants the baby. They both took the chance, the father should have a say!! I lost my grandchild to abortion 8 years ago and to this day my son is devestated by it, I don't think he will ever compeletely put it aside. He and the mother had been together for quite some time and he was given no choice. I understand that it is the women's body but she took the chance and it is the father's baby too.
    • reply
      by say what? on Oct 18, 2011 at 04:04 AM in reply to What about the father?
      first of all, let me say that i am against abortion, however, until the day the father can carry the baby, and assume all the health risks that go with it........ no he has no say. i had 2 extremly complicated pregnancies, that resulted in bed rest, and worry if the baby would be ok. if i were to learn i was pregnant again, i'm not sure if i would be able to safely have another baby. and no man should have the right to insist i do, because he wants the child.
      • reply
        by What about the father? on Oct 18, 2011 at 05:15 AM in reply to say what?
        The largest majority of the time there are no health risks involved, simply someone who wanted to have sex and doesn't want to face the consequences. My son should have had just as much say in the termination of that pregnancy, there were no known health risks and no reason to believe any would arise. Sounds to me like you are bitter for reasons other than health risk.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Oct 18, 2011 at 05:42 AM in reply to What about the father?
          Wait...you sir, are telling me that you think a woman should be forced to carry a baby because the father wants her to? Forced?
        • reply
          by What about the father? on Oct 18, 2011 at 06:54 AM in reply to What about the father?
          To anonymous @ 8:42: First, I am the would be grandmother, not a sir. Secondly, yes, abortion should not be an option, it is murder!! However, since this country made abortion legal and has lost just about every moral value it had, if the father wants the child why shouldn't he have the right to have that child and raise it on his own? Either way you slice it, abortion is MURDER and this would be a way to try to stop the murder of precious children, if the father had to agree to the procedure as well. Being pregnant might be an inconvenience to the mother, TO BAD, it was her choice to take the chance of becoming pregnant, now give the unborn, LIVING, child a chance. Unless medical reasons prevail the father should be just as involved in the decision as the mother!!!!
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Oct 18, 2011 at 05:43 PM in reply to What about the father?
          Early term abortion isn't murder. No rational person thinks so. I suppose if it's late term, you could make that argument. If it's third trimester, I suppose it could be murder, even then depending on the circumstances it's a strech. And sorry, it's the mother carrying the child, if she doesn't want to, end of story, it's her body, nobody elses.
  • by why not? on Oct 17, 2011 at 07:09 PM
    i have mixed feelings on this. i am entirely against abortion, but what about those women who know what they are doing and are doing it anyways because of a health issue? i think women who are having abortions because they have been irresponsible about birth control should certainly be made to face what it is they are about to do--i call this making an informed decision. you can never make a pregnancy not happen or that life not exist, even if you have an abortion, that existence will always have been there. i think women have the right to choose and that the choice should be one with heavy consideration. you cant even get your own mortgage funded without a three day recission period to be able to think about your financial decision, how is the abortion law any more intrusive than that? think things through, see the little person inside you for what they are--a living being, not just 'a stupid mistake'.
  • by G on Oct 17, 2011 at 06:52 PM
    Please explain how it's in the state's interest for a woman who doesn't want a child to carry it to full term. The only interest I can think of is more jobs for social workers, the child support system and eventually the court system.
    • reply
      by yeah on Oct 17, 2011 at 07:17 PM in reply to G
      i agree, im completely against abortion, mind you, but i dont understand why they would say its in the states interest..seems that the systems you named are busting at the seams at maximum capacity. not that you should or could put a price on a human beings life.

275 E. Arlington Blvd. Greenville, NC 27858 252-439-7777
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 132020248 - witn.com/a?a=132020248
Gray Television, Inc.