Whether compulsory display-and-describe ultrasound laws abridge physicians' freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment

QUESTION PRESENTED The Kentucky Ultrasound Informed Consent Act (House Bill 2) requires a physician, while performing a pre-abortion ultrasound, to (i) describe the ultrasound in a manner prescribed by the state; (ii) display the ultrasound image so that the patient may see it; and (iii) auscultate (make audible) the fetal heart tones. The physician must display and describe the image even when the patient objects, even when complying with the statute would harm the patient, and even when the patient seeks to avoid the state-mandated speech by covering her eyes and ears. The Sixth Circuit upheld the law against a First Amendment challenge on the ground that it is an ordinary informed-consent provision. The Fifth Circuit previously upheld a similar Texas law for the same reason. The Fourth Circuit, in contrast, invalidated a materially identical North Carolina law as an unconstitutional compelled speech mandate, reasoning that a law requiring physicians to engage in speech over a_patient’s objection and in contravention of the physician’s medical judgment— even when the patient is intentionally avoiding the speech and images—is “antithetical to the very communication that lies at the heart of the informed consent process.” Stuart v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238, 253 (4th Cir. 2014). The question presented is whether such compulsory ultrasound laws abridge physicians’ freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment. i STATEMENT OF