The Associated Press reports:

Some doctors, crisis pregnancy centers and women who say they’ve had abortions want to help defend a new North Carolina law that would set more ultrasound requirements before an abortion.

The potential defendants filed a motion Tuesday in Greensboro federal court with the help of legal groups opposed to abortion. They want to intervene in the case to present evidence on why the law should be enforced in its entirety.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles put implementation of the law on hold “until she can hear more arguments.” The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, Planned Parenthood Health Systems, Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit against the state in October alleging that “the new law violates the rights of health care providers and women seeking abortions.”

This week, anti-abortion groups Jubilee Campaign’s Law of Life Project and the Alliance Defense Fund have filed a motion to intervene in the ruling to defend the law.

Crisis pregnancy centers have been created to attract women facing an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy in order to convince them to keep the pregnancy. NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina recently released an undercover investigation into crisis pregnancy centers. The report said the centers were “a threat to public health.“

Last month, U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles put implementation of the law on hold “until she can hear more arguments.” The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, Planned Parenthood Health Systems, Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit against the state in October alleging that “the new law violates the rights of health care providers and women seeking abortions.”

In a press release today, the anti-abortion groups said:

As their stories are described in LOLP’s Motion to Intervene filed today, LOLP’s clients, taken together, are uniquely and expertly poised to present the more than reasonable medical, humanitarian and legal reasons why the Act is constitutional and should be permitted to go into full effect.

LOLP represents medical professionals, pregnancy medical centers who exist to freely assist women and men facing an unplanned pregnancy, as well as women harmed by abortions to which they never would have consented had they been given the information required by the Act. These voices are vital and their important perspective should be fully represented in court. “Giving women the information they need before such a weighty decision is clearly more important than an abortionist’s bottom line,” said ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden. “Those attacking this law are obviously more concerned about financial gain from abortion than the best interests of women and their preborn children.”

Reproductive rights advocates and other opponents of North Carolina’s law argue that ultrasound mandates subject women to emotional pain and “violate the medical ethics of doctors who feel the government is forcing them to carry out the Republican-controlled Legislature’s ideology,” the Associated Press previously reported.

“If the ultrasound requirements were put into effect, this law would place doctors in a murky legal situation and inflict unnecessary harm on women,” said Katy Parker, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation “The state should not be using women’s bodies as political pawns, as this law clearly seeks to do.”

The state of Florida also passed a law this year requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before an abortion, whether it is medically necessary or not. However, Florida has avoided a legal challenge because the law includes an opt-out provision. In Florida, women can bypass a description or viewing of the ultrasound by signing a form.

The Christian Action League (CAL) got it’s start in 1937 as the Allied Church League, formed in response to the repeal of Prohibition. CAL continues to work to restrict access to alcohol and ban tobacco use, in addition to its opposition of rights for LGBT people.

CAL is one of only ten state-based affiliates of the American Family Association, an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center calls an anti-gay hate group.

The slogan of CAL is, “The only lasting cure for evil and injustice is Christian Action.”

In recent years, the group has opposed allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military, the group fought to keep sodomy laws legal — including an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court — and successfully beat back attempts by the North Carolina Legislature to pass stronger anti-bullying laws.

“My job is to proclaim the gospel to those who make our laws and to bring the Christian worldview to bear on the legislation that they consider,” said the Rev. Mark Creech, executive director of CAL, in an interview with the Biblical Recorder.

Creech said in the interview he makes himself available in the state Capitol. “In many respects, I feel like I’m still pastoring. Some legislators refer to me as their pastor. I am able to sit with them in their offices and talk about the Lord as the opportunity arises.

“Research is a premium with lawmakers. If there is legislation that we feel is inconsistent with our Christian values, or if it is consistent with our values and we want to help get that legislation passed, I am poised to testify on that issue,” he added.

In an interview with the Baptist Press, Creech said his organization had been working for a decade to get the amendment passed.

“It’s the culmination of over 10 years of intensive work,” Creech told the Baptist Press. “Every year that that legislation was put forward, the leaders in both chambers would not even allow it even to be heard. But when the leadership changed at the last election, we knew we had hope that we were finally going to get a hearing on it, and if we could get a hearing, that it would pass.”

And Rev. Creech certainly spent time lobbying legislators in the most recent push for a constitutional amendment.

“There’s a lot of groundwork to be laid,” he said just before the Legislature passed the amendment on to the ballot. “Not only do you have to have all the votes that are needed, in the long run, you need to be in the best position so you can win North Carolina. Even though we have been working on this for many years, this is the first time we’ve had a real opportunity in front of us.”

At a marriage rally in August, he spoke of the importance in ensuring gays and lesbians not be allowed to marry or raise children.

“Two fathers can’t show a daughter how to be a good mother,” he said according to the Raleigh News and Observer. “The rite of natural marriage is the foundation of home life and social order and must so remain until the end of time.”

On same-sex marriage in general, Creech has been scathing.

“God didn’t create another Adam for Adam. Homosexuality is not blessed in the sight of God. Since the homosexuals came out of the closet, they have tried to run you and me into the closet,” Creech said in 2009 according to the Kinstin Free Press.

Things haven’t been rosy for the CAL. The group has struggled with finances. In June, the group sent an urgent plea for funds.

“It pains me to write that the Christian Action League is struggling financially,” Creech wrote. “Every time a note of this kind is sent out, people who pride themselves as being foes of our values rejoice. They earnestly desire that our effective lobbying presence in the North Carolina General Assembly and other public venues would simply disappear. But I must tell you that we have fallen behind in payroll for staff and are behind in our expenditures. We must catch up. I assure you that we have made every possible cut and the Board of Directors carefully oversees our spending.”

The group encountered similar money problems in 2010.

But it was the high-profile arrest of the group’s president in 2007 that damaged its reputation.

The group was headed by former legislator Coy Privette until 2007. Privette was arrested in July of that year for aiding and abetting prostitution for which he pleaded guilty.

Police were alerted by Privette’s bank of suspicious activity after Tiffany Summers deposited a check for an unusually high amount from Privette. When police contacted Privette, he said the checks were stolen.

It turned out that the checks were written in exchange for sexual services by Summers. Summers told police the couple had met in a hotel room twice, and police found those hotel rooms were rented under Privette’s name. Security cameras captured Privette and Summers entering the hotel room, and police had Summers hand over pictures of Privette from her cell phone.

CAL has teamed up with the other anti-gay groups to push for the amendment. In 2009, it teamed up with Return America and the now-defunct NC4Marriage for a rally. Also on hand at the rally was state Sen. James Forrester (R-Gaston County), who was a leading voice and sponsor of the amendment, which he had pushed for 7 years. He passed away on Monday.

Forrester’s wife has been as busy as her husband lobbying for the amendment. In 2010, she was a featured speaker at NOM’s marriage tour. She’s also a member, and state associate director, of the Concerned Women for America.

An article she wrote for the CAL in 2008 created quite a bit of controversy in North Carolina.

“Did you know that the average life span of a homosexual is 39 years as opposed to 78 for heterosexual women and 76 for heterosexual men?” she wrote. “Read your social history and you will find that most societies that condoned homosexual behavior did not survive past one generation.

“My fellow Christians, make no mistake. It is under the guise of tolerance that the homosexual agenda is seeking to change the course of Western Civilization, redefine the family and rob our children of their innocence.The Ten Commandments has been the legal code of the Western World for over 2000 years by the Western calendar, and over 5000 years by the Hebrew calendar. They have served as the standard for social and legal justice in America for over 200 years.”

CAL ended up removing the article from its website, admitting that some facts had been stretched.

That’s not the only group with which the Forresters had forged close ties in their efforts to get the marriage amendment on the ballot.

Return America

Perhaps the group most rigorously in favor of the amendment is Ron Baity’s Return America. The group does not mince words when it comes to same-sex marriage and homosexuality.

In the group’s January newsletter, Baity wrote, “Since they cannot produce they must recruit young people to their perverted, warped agenda. One cannot think of anything more nauseating, debased, lewd and immoral than recruiting precious young people into such shameful conduct.”

Baity has organized dozens of rallies to get the amendment on the ballot. In August, the group held a rally in Raleigh. “It’s a biblical issue,” Baity said. “Our organization is pushing to say to our legislature, ‘We want you to vote on it.’”

Baity and Sen. Forrester were close. The two are pictured below discussing the outcome of the vote to ban same-sex marriage via a posting on Return America’s Facebook page.

Baity is known for his fiery sermons against the LGBT community. He’s called LGBT people perverts who recruit children.

In February, Baity wrote in support of sodomy laws in the Return America newsletter:

“The laws of our country have historically been based upon a higher law, God’s law. When the higher law of God is abandoned another law, Man’s law, will replace it. Man’s laws at their best are fickle and changing,” he wrote. “For instance, the sin of sodomy was looked upon as breaking God’s immutable law, the higher law. Today, the higher law, God’s law, has been abandoned and man has changed his law to accommodate a sinful, perverted lifestyle.”

He accused the LGBT community of attacking him because homosexuals “know no restraints.”

Baity said after August’s marriage rally, a “homosexual man accosted our family” over the issue.

“His voice intensified as his language became more abusive. I stepped between him and my family at which time he began cursing me and using expletives that reflected his depraved nature,” Baity wrote on his website.

He said the incident is “a small sampling of a much larger problem in the homosexual community. They know no restraints.

“The homosexual community in North Carolina is working overtime to prevent the Marriage Amendment from being placed on the ballot in our state,” he added. “According to their websites, personal emails, and attacks, they see Return America as a threat to their movement.”

In May, Baity noted that for the first time in eight years, they would be able to pass the amendment.

“For the first time in eight years, we have been given the assurance from our legislative leadership that the Marriage Amendment will go forward for a floor vote in our Legislature,” he wrote. “With so much opposition on the forefront, it is vitally important that we rally behind our friends in the Legislature and lend our support to them. Those who oppose Biblical marriage are very active and stand united against God’s program for marriage.”

In fact, Baity has pushed for a marriage amendment since 1996, well before the first state passed such a ballot measure (Alaska in 1998).

Baity organized the Family Values March, drawing 12,000 conservative Christians to Winston-Salem in 1996.

“We needed to stand up for marriage and the family,” said Baity according to the Raleigh News and Observer. “We needed to send the message: Homosexuality is unacceptable.”

Baity pressed city councils and county commissions to pass resolutions in support of the amendment. In 2006, for example, he was successful in getting the city of Thomasville to approve a resolution calling on an amendment banning same-sex marriage.

North Carolina Family Policy Council

The North Carolina Family Policy Council was formed in 1992 as part of the Focus on the Family’s network of family policy councils.

In 1999, the group led the push to prevent the North Carolina Legislature from repealing sodomy laws used to imprison gays and lesbians.

Bill Brooks Jr., president of the North Carolina Family Policy Council told the Associated Press in 1999, “You can argue anything as a privacy issue, but that doesn’t make it right. Much of the assault and battery, the domestic violence, takes place in your own home, but that doesn’t make it right.”

Also in 1999, the group opposed efforts by the Legislature to pass a hate crimes law following the death of Matthew Shepard. John Rustin of the North Carolina Family Policy Council said, “This is not about crime. It is not about hate. It is about legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle.”

The group not only opposes same-sex marriage, but also domestic partner benefits. In 2003, when the Legislature was considering such benefits for same-sex couples, the NCFPC was very vocal in its opposition, saying the bill “would radically impact one of the fundamental principles of North Carolina law – the preservation and protection of marriage and the family.”

“[It] would represent a long stride down the slippery slope of redefining the family, would be the first step toward legalizing homosexual acts, and would de facto legalize same-sex relationships.”

The group says on its website it wants gays to change their sexual orientation, something most major professional organizations say isn’t possible and attempts to do so can greatly harm people.

The group also penned a newsletter last month that lamented the U.S. Supreme Court’s striking down of sodomy laws which were used in the past to incarcerate gays and lesbians.

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws nationally in 2003, Brooks told the Durham Herald-Sun, “Taking these laws off the books is the state basically saying that we think that this is a wholesome and healthy activity.”

The group also said laws barring discrimination against LGBT people in hiring and housing would lead to bestiality. The state Legislature considered such a bill in 2003 that lost by one vote.

In 2009, the group again wrote that sodomy laws should be reinstated.

“The decriminalization of sexual acts between homosexuals (such as anal and oral sex) has been a top priority for the homosexual rights movement since it began, and for good reason,” they group wrote. “It is difficult to convince the public that a lifestyle is legitimate and natural, if the behaviors that define it are illegal.”

NCPFC continued, “North Carolina’s sodomy statute is still on the books,” and said that if a proposed bill to repeal the state’s antiquated law were to pass, “North Carolina would be stuck with a pro-sodomy statute on the books, if HB 100 were enacted.”

Brooks even said sodomy laws are like seatbelt requirements.

“The human body is not designed for homosexual acts. It’s harmful to their bodies. I think it’s the business of the government to hold up a standard and to protect people from behavior that is harmful to themselves and society. It harms society because it harms them. They are a part of society.”

In 2009, the group touted discredited researcher Paul Cameron in a newsletter painting all gays and lesbians as unhealthy. “Two conclusions from the data seem inescapable: first, from a public health perspective condoning same-sex ‘marriage’ or homosexual activity is a bad idea, and second, homosexual sex is inherently dangerous, regardless of promiscuity,” the group wrote.

Brooks complained that there’s not enough gay sex on television and other media, and that if there were more depictions of of graphic sexuality, Americans would be less likely to support LGBT rights:

As we discussed the growing pro-homosexual advocacy in the halls of the General Assembly, we realized one of the problems in countering their agenda is simply that no one likes to talk about what homosexuals do that defines their sexuality. In the media, in the movies, and on television, homosexuals are almost always presented in the best possible light. They are kind, friendly, sympathetic, and understanding. They are rarely ever shown having sex, in contrast to movies about heterosexuals, which have them kissing, hugging and under the sheets at almost every opportunity.

Research demonstrates that there is a very dark side to the so-called “homosexual lifestyle.” Yet, pro-homosexual activists have an agenda and they are working in the halls of our legislature, actively lobbying legislators for special rights that would affirm and legalize their behavior. But what does homosexual behavior offer society? Why should the government do anything that would promote the practice of sodomy?

Aside from banning other rights for LGBT people, the group was successful in lobbying this year for the amendment.

“We are pleased that North Carolina voters will finally have the opportunity to place the definition of marriage in the State Constitution,” Brooks said in a statement when the amendment passed the Legislature. “We look forward to talking about the importance of marriage and the benefits to children when they have a father and a mother. But today, we join with the people of North Carolina in thanking these representatives and senators for passing the Marriage Protection Amendment.”

According to the poll, the amendment would pass with 59 percent of the vote to 35 percent which is down from 61 percent in September.

Twenty-six percent of North Carolinians support full marriage equality for same-sex couples and 34 percent support support civil unions.

According to the poll’s authors, that presents a problem.

“The problem is that 40 percent of those favoring some form of legal recognition are still planning to vote for the amendment- even though it would bar all legal recognition and not just gay marriage,” wrote PPP’s Tom Jensen. “Getting pro-civil union voters to oppose the marriage amendment will be the key for those hoping to defeat it- there’s a lot of education to be done.”

Only 38 percent of the state believes gay and lesbian couples should have no relationship rights at all.

Forrester had introduced the amendment in every legislative session for the last decade, and his efforts drew the ire of LGBT-equality advocates in recent months after he successfully shepherded the measure onto the ballot.

Forrester had called the city of Asheville a “cesspool of sin” and claimed gay men have shorter lifespans.

“At least 20 years is taken off a homosexual’s life, if they practice homosexuality, due to the increased death rate from AIDS, and hepatitis, and all of the other related factors to that. That doesn’t seem to discourage them from practicing this unhealthy lifestyle,” he said.

Through the controversy, the Raleigh News & Observer notes Forrester was suffering from health problems, though the senator declined to elaborate.

An email from the Forrester family announced the senator’s death mid-day Monday.

”It all happened suddenly,” the email read. “Yesterday, they went to the mountains and Jim lost strength in his legs. The doctor advised him to come back to Caromont for some tests.

“We all know how ill he has been, but he continued to work in the Senate. He told Mary Frances (his wife) that he wanted to go out with his boots on and support the causes in which he believed to his last breath.”

The North Carolina GOP released a statement as well:

“We are deeply saddened to hear of Senator Forrester’s death and send our prayers out to his wife, Mary Frances, and all of his family. Those of us who have worked in politics with Senator Forrester for years know him as an honorable and kind man who always stood for what he believes and fought to defend the values that made North Carolina and America great. Jim Forrester’s life is a model of public service, as a family physician, as a general in the national guard, Gaston County Commissioner and for the last 22 years as Gaston County’s senior State Senator. He will truly be missed by those of us in his GOP family.”

On Tuesday a federal judge blocked one part of the law with a preliminary injunction (PDF), saying she needs to hear more arguments before deciding whether forcing a woman to listen to the heartbeat of a fetus she has chosen to abort is unconstitutional, reports the Associated Press.

The law is being challenged by various organizations representing several North Carolina physicians and health-care providers, including the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the American Civil Liberties Union.

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order (PDF) explaining her ruling, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Eagles wrote:

It is undisputed that the Act compels content-based speech by providers; it requires providers to orally and visually convey specified material about the fetus to their patients. The message is compelled regardless of a patient’s individual circumstances or condition and regardless of the provider’s medical opinion. The message is required even when the provider does not want to deliver the message and even when the patients affirmatively do not wish to see it or hear it. It is further undisputed that this implicates the First Amendment rights of providers such as the Plaintiffs. [...]

The Supreme Court has historically taken a dim view of content-based speech compelled by the government, finding it to violate the First Amendment in the absence of a compelling state interest in a wide variety of circumstances. … Based on the record before it, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of the First Amendment challenge. [...]

The judge upheld the remainder of the new law, which requires women to wait 24 hours before obtaining an abortion.

As The American Independent previously reported, NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina this week released a report with findings from a yearlong investigation, revealing that so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” (CPCs) in North Carolina sometimes give women misleading or false information about abortion, contraception and pregnancy. The majority of the CPCs NARAL looked at belong to the Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship (CPCF), which was slated to benefit from the ultrasound in the “Women’s Right to Know Act.” A new law (PDF) passed this summer channels funds to the CPCF through a newly adopted “Choose Life” license plate program and recommends women visit one of these CPCs for a free ultrasound.

On Monday, NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina — the state affiliate of the nation’s leading abortion-rights lobbying group — released a report (PDF) of findings uncovered during a year-long undercover investigation of 66 of the state’s 122 so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” (CPCs).

Among the findings — collected through 27 undercover in-person visits, 47 website analyses and 40 phone calls – the reports reveals:

• 92 percent of the CPCs studied (61 CPCs) did not have medical professionals on staff, but only 24 percent (16 CPCs) disclosed they are not medical facilities; meanwhile, NARAL’s report notes that many non-medical staff wore lab coats similar to those worn by doctors and nurses.
• 35 percent (23 CPCs) provided ultrasounds on site.
• 12 percent (eight CPCs) conducted sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing.
• 26 percent (17 CPCs) stated as fact that abortion leads to breast cancer (national medical organizations dispute this notion).
• 24 percent (16 CPCs) suggested that abortion leads to miscarriage in later pregnancies.
• 48 percent (32 CPCs) told women that none of the common methods of birth control effectively prevent pregnancy and promoted abstinence over contraception.

The investigation was conducted by the NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina Foundation (NPCNCF) between October 2010 and July 2011. In the report, one investigator claimed to have identified herself as Jewish and was allegedly told at five CPCs that she would not go to heaven unless she converted to Christianity.

“Because much of the reproductive health information provided by CPCs is inaccurate, NPCNCF believes these centers are a threat to public health,” the report concludes.

The North Carolina report’s release is timed with a new anti-abortion-rights law, the “Women’s Right to Know Act,” which requires pregnant women seeking abortions to hear a description of their ultrasound images between 72 and four hours before the scheduled abortion, even if they have had a previous ultrasound. On Wednesday, a state-run website will launch a list of all the CPCs that provide free ultrasounds. Attorneys representing state doctors and abortion-rights groups are awaiting a court ruling on a request for a restraining order and permanent injunction to suspend the law before it goes into effect this month.

Another law (PDF) passed this summer, channels funds to CPCs in the state through a newly adopted “Choose Life” license plate program, which originated in Florida in the late 1990s but has since spread across the country. For each “Choose Life” plate sold to a North Carolina car owner for $25, $15 will go to a fund a network of more than 60 centers throughout the state, called the Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship (CPCF), which will distribute funds to individual centers based on how many clients served by each CPC and from which county the plates were sold. The majority of the CPCs NARAL investigated — 54 — belong to the CPCF network.

In May, some state House representatives attempted to introduce a “Trust Women, Respect Choice” license plate to the state list of available plates, and other representatives proposed removing political messages from license plates, but both proposals were rejected.

The Raleigh, N.C., News & Observer reports that, at least in the beginning, CPCs are unlikely to earn much money from license plate fund; however, their recognition and influence is likely to increase as more people buy plates and as more women are directed to the CPCs for free mandatory ultrasounds, depending on the outcome of the pending legal challenge. A CPCF state director told the daily that volunteers are trained to treat women with respect but could not “guarantee every word that comes out of a volunteer’s mouth will be what we hope.”

At least 300 people have signed up for the North Carolina plates, reports the News & Observer, which also notes that, according to “a national pro-life group,” about $13.6 million has been raised from “Choose Life” plates in 24 states in the past 10 years.

NARAL has recommended North Carolina require state CPCs advertise their services and abortion views; ensure CPCs communicate clearly to clients if staff are not medically trained; guarantee counsel dispensed to clients is “medically sound and accurate”; and require CPCs establish confidentiality rules in absence of HIPAA regulations, which do not apply to clinics that are not medically licensed.

The bills would be a version of U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s “Heartbeat Informed Consent Act.” The Minnesota Independent reported that the law “would require women undergoing an abortion to listen to the fetus’ heartbeat on a monitor.”

While anti-abortion legislation might be tough to pass on a federal level due to the Democratic majority in the Senate and Democrat in the White House, anti-abortion advocates are getting ready to push the legislation in state capitals. Many state legislatures all over the country have significant conservative majorities, including Florida, a big reason why states have been successful in restricting access to legal abortions all over the country.

In Florida, for example, the state Legislature introduced 18 anti-abortion bills last session. Five of those bills passed. Already this year, a bill aimed at limiting access to abortions has been introduced; the session officially begins in January.

According to the Associated Press, the usual suspects in the anti-abortion movement are throwing their weight behind the plan:

The informed-consent bill that’s being pushed in the 50 states would require abortion practitioners to make the fetal heartbeat audible and visible to pregnant women before an abortion. It’s being backed by the National Right to Life, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony List and Family Research Council Action.

While the separate strategies show internal differences, their purpose is the same, said Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion-rights group.

“Let’s be clear, they all want to take away a woman’s ability to make personal, private decisions by outlawing abortion,” Copeland said.

Ohio Right to Life director Mike Gonidakis, whose group is part of the coalition looking to push this legislation, tells the AP that “this plan has been in the works for six months, and has been vetted with coalition lawyers.”

Forcing a woman to hear a heartbeat or see an ultrasound image has been called unconstitutional by opponents of as similar laws, which were passed this last session. Today, for example, women’s health advocates in North Carolina are fighting in court against a law requiring women to see an ultrasound image before having abortion.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, Planned Parenthood Health Systems, Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed the lawsuit challenging the measure. They allege “the new law violates the rights of health care providers and women seeking abortions.”

According to the Associated Press:

Lawyers for the state and abortion rights groups representing several doctors are expected to make arguments Monday in a Greensboro courtroom.

The physicians sued last month, saying the new law requiring ultrasounds and other information for women planning to have an abortion violates the rights of doctors and the patients who are constitutionally protected to undergo the procedure. They want a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction to suspend the law’s enforcement starting this month.

Both Florida and Texas passed ultrasound bills this past legislative session. Florida has avoided a legal challenge to its mandatory ultrasound bill because it included an opt-out provision. In Florida, women can bypass a description or viewing of the ultrasound by signing a form. However, ultrasounds are still required, whether or not they are medically necessary, before every abortion.

During the 2004 general election, Oregon was among 11 states that passed ballot measures banning gay marriage — 57 percent of Beaver State voters approved the ban. But in 2012, Oregonians might be given the opportunity to vote to lift the ban, if the state’s largest LGBT-rights group, Basic Rights Oregon (BRO), decides to it has enough support to start a full-fledged ballot-initiative campaign.

As The Register-Guard reports, volunteers have recently been working the phone bank at the BRO’s Eugene headquarters, trying to gauge support for marriage equality in the state.

Last month, Basic Rights Oregon announced it was exploring a Marriage 2012 campaign and, simultaneously, organized an advisory group made up of community leaders and campaign professionals to help finalize that decision in late October or early November.

“Deciding whether to go to the ballot is not something we take lightly nor a decision we will make alone,” said BRO Executive Director Jeana Frazzini in a statement on group’s website. “We want to hear from the experts and leaders on the Advisory Group as well as from the larger LGBT and allied community, because we cannot move forward unless we have a viable ballot measure as well as a supportive and engaged base of support.”

According to the Register-Guard, in 2004, gay-marriage-ban campaigners spent $2.5 million to push the amendment, while marriage-equality supporters spent almost $3 million.

The state’s leading marriage-equality foe, the Oregon Family Council, has promised to give BRO “the fight of their lives to protect marriage” if they start a ballot measure campaign.

If next year Oregon joins Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia in becoming the seventh state to offer marriage to both straight and gay couples, it will be the first state to legalize same-sex marriage via popular vote and the first to overturn a constitutional gay-marriage ban.

Meanwhile, campaigns to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage wage on in Minnesota and North Carolina, and GOP presidential candidates face pressure from social conservative groups to support a federal constitutional gay-marriage ban. However, contender Herman Cain made news on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” by saying he thinks banning or legalizing gay marriage should be a state’s decision.

“I wouldn’t seek a constitutional ban for same-sex marriage, but I am pro-traditional marriage,” Cain told “Meet the Press” host David Gregory.

Cain, along with Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), are the only four GOP candidates in the leading pack of eight that did not sign the National Organization for Marriage’s controversial “Marriage Pledge,” which among other provisions binds the signer to supporting a federal constitutional amendment “defining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.”

Watch Cain on “Meet the Press”: