New update on South Dakota ruling
Late yesterday, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals filed its opinion in the lawsuit Planned Parenthood filed last year to stop the new ‘informed consent’ bill passed by the South Dakota legislature (see below, ‘Legal maneuvering in South Dakota’). The abortion movement does not want women considering abortion to get information that might change their minds.
That 8th Circuit opinion is not a decision on the merits of that lawsuit, but more or less just allows the suit to go forward by deciding that, though Planned Parenthood’s case against informed consent is flimsy, their case can proceed.
It was a 2-1 decision yesterday, and one of the three judges concluded that Planned Parenthood had no chance of success on any of the disclosures required, and shouldn’t be given a trial. But the other two judges dubiously sided with Planned Parenthood.
So let’s look at what this means. Here’s a statement just released by the parties to that suit, represented by Attorney for the Intervenors, Harold J. Cassidy. For one thing, it says that the two-judge majority made a number of assumptions in the case that were unjustified by the record.
The court also reached some erroneous conclusions of law, including a misinterpretation of Roe v. Wade itself. Because of the magnitude of the rights of pregnant mothers that are being lost by South Dakota women, every week that the injunction stays in effect, we have concluded that review of the U.S. Court of Appeals opinion yesterday should be sought at this time. In that way, the profound issues concerning the destruction of the fundamental rights of these pregnant mothers can be brought to the attention of the upper courts now. These issues have never been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. (emphasis added)
And the Intervenors see this as the right opportunity to raise them.
The statement does on to clarify what this battle is all about.
The essential purpose of the Informed Consent Statute is to benefit the pregnant mothers and to protect their own constitutionally protected interest in their relationships with their children, their interest in making decisions for their children, and their interests in their own health. The law is intended to protect the women against an abortion clinic or Planned Parenthood’s out of state doctor who may devalue those interests and impose their own personal values upon the women. The statute was designed to help preserve the women’s right to make an informed and voluntary choice concerning some of a woman’s most important liberty rights in all of life. (emphasis added)
Notice that the word “choice” is still in this ‘informed consent’ act. These parties just want to help women make “an informed and voluntary choice.” Why doesn’t Planned Parenthood want that? Aren’t they called the ‘pro-choice’ movement? Let’s be honest.
The act…is designed to provide basic informatioin necessary for a pregnant mother to make an informed decision before she gives up her fundamental rights. In the process, it allows her to apply her own personal, moral, and ethical values to the facts once they are disclosed, and to guard against others who would impose their views upon the women.
It’s the “facts once they are disclosed” part that causes Planned Parenthood and their abortionists so much concern. The reasons why are a matter of record in this case.
If a woman calls Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls inquiring about an abortion, an employee with no medical training schedules the surgical procedure. When the woman arrives, she is required to sign a consent to an abortion and pay for it before receiving any counseling. When she sees a “patient educator” she receives no information about the child, no information about fetal development, or what it is that is being removed. The “educators” all admit they know nothing (or little) about human embryology, human genetics or molecular biology. Some of them do not know when an embryo’s heart first starts to beat or how many chromosomes the human embryo has. In many cases, women cry during the session with the “educator,” but the doctors do the abortion anyway. There is no true patient-physician relationship and the doctor most often only sees the woman for the four to seven minutes it takes to perform the surgery scheduled by the lay person who takes the woman’s call. (emphasis added)
And it cites the record to document these findings. The crisis pregnancy centers and counselors, and Governor Mike Rounds — who are all parties to this suit — came to this conclusion in the statement:
We believe this case is of great imortance to the women of South Dakota, and we shall bring the issues for review before the entire Eighth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. We are confident that the courts will uphold the statute as a reasonable measure to protect the rights of the women of South Dakota.
And that is only the beginning. Forty-nine other states are watching.
