.

So, Ethel, Verdelia, and Betty Mae hauled their uterus to court yesterday to see if big conservative government has any business in there.  They went to watch two women argue to a male judge over the state’s new sonogram bill.  There are serious doubts that it’s constitutional.

Judge Sam Sparks: He's got your whole uterus in his hands

The judge, Sam Sparks, was appointed by Daddy Bush so I would not expect him to be any great civil libertarian.  However, he did have a hanging point over what doctors are required to tell women about the fetus.

The Austin-based judge appeared uncomfortable with language in House Bill 15 suggesting that doctors provide explanations “understandable to a lay person.” He scoffed at the “everybody knows that” response to questions about the definition of a lay person’s understanding.

Sparks noted he spent 30 years defending doctors and hospitals while practicing law in El Paso before President George H.W. Bush appointed him to the federal court. He said it seemed obvious that the purpose of the bill was to limit abortions.

That State of Texas, who seems overly anxious to get into my uterus, then argued to the judge that if one part of the law is unconstitutional, he shouldn’t throw out the whole law.

“Ain’t that kinda like saying, ‘tear off the part of the sandwich that is rancid and eat the rest?'” Verdelia asked.

So, I was thinking, if the law says a woman cannot be forced to look at the trans-vaginal sonogram and if you throw out the part where the doctor must force a woman to listen to a description of the fetus, then the information obtained from the trans-vaginal sonogram can be tossed in the garbage without anyone ever seeing it.  So, what would be the purpose of doing it?  I mean, other than rape by the government.

Texas:  where crazy is codified into law.