Rick Perry is no longer in the running for the GOP presidential nomination, but his ideological ghost is still haunting the citizens of Texas — only this time, it is singling out a group to which he cannot claim membership.

According to a Feb. 6 report from The Huffington Post, District Judge Sam Sparks denied an attempt to block a Texas sonogram law that would require a woman to see a sonogram of her fetus and hear its heartbeat a full 24 hours before having an abortion.

Perry signed the law, which originally came about in the Texas state Congress, on May 23, and since then, it has made its tour through the various courts due to complaints and demands from both anti- and pro-abortion groups.

Perry’s remnants aside, the law is a clear violation of a woman’s privacy, which is a right explicit in the U.S. Constitution. What is more, according to The Huffington Post report, Sparks made sure in his written decision that he did not agree with the law’s passing.

“There can be little doubt [the law] is an attempt to discourage women from exercising their constitutional rights by making it more difficult for caring and competent physicians to perform abortions,” Sparks wrote. “It appears [the appeals court] has effectively eviscerated the protections of the First Amendment in the abortion context.”

Strong language, yes, but effective in hitting home is exactly what happened a few days ago — women in Texas are being manipulated, and it was not by their own will, but rather the will of three male judges.

Sparks made another point that seems absent from the average abortion discussion — the fact that doctors are performing the actual procedure, not politicians who write legislation or judges who interpret it.

Maybe it is because moral and ethical views take precedent oftentimes when abortion is the topic, but how is it that few have taken into account the fact that there are medical professionals who are, despite their personal convictions, honoring women’s privacy by performing abortions?

It is illogical to hold the opinions of a small group of political elites — many of whom are male, nonetheless — in higher regard than both the women undergoing abortions and the doctors performing them.

And that is what this law does.

After signing the bill — as emergency legislation, by the way — Perry said the sonogram law would “ensure that every Texas woman seeking an abortion has all the facts about the life she is carrying and understands the devastating impact of such a life-changing decision.”

While the grammarian in me is tempted to break it down, extreme clause by extreme clause, I’d say the quote speaks for itself.

Perry, as a male political elite, is the last person who should be making a binding decision on the affairs of the 81,000 women in 2011 and those who, under a variety of circumstances, choose to have an abortion every year.

And comments like this undermine those women in their choice to do so.

Does every woman fully understand an abortion before having one? Maybe not, but not everyone understands how our national infrastructure works, yet millions of people travel on highways every day.

But for Perry to say a woman does not understand the fact that having an abortion is a “life-changing decision,” even if some consider it more life-changing than others, is a direct example of male privilege rearing its manipulative head in the political arena.

As the U.S. takes a look into the future of abortion-related laws and debates, it’s important to take into account that abortion will always be legal, despite elitists’ efforts to revoke citizens’ privacy and avoid transparency communication. What’s more, every U.S. citizen should be advised to shield his or her rights — and those of other citizens — such as privacy before taking refuge under guise of moral and ethical arguments.

Wyatt Kanyer is a senior journalism and Spanish double major from Yakima, Wash.