It can only be called choice…

…if you know what the alternatives are and you choose one based on that information.

One of the most glaring flaws in the pro-abortion argument is the fierce opposition to any state laws affirming informed consent. I never got that.

This is huge news.

A federal appeals court ruled that South Dakota can begin enforcing a law requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions that the procedure ends a human life.

This used to be prevailing knowledge. So this is a return to sanity.

“The bottom line is if the state Legislature orders a professional to tell the truth, that’s not a violation of the First Amendment,” said South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long, who is defending the law in court.

What is the law?

The 2005 law would make doctors tell women “that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.” Women also would have to be told they have a right to continue a pregnancy and that abortion may cause women psychological harm, including thoughts of suicide.

Just so they know what they are choosing.

This is a huge victory for women, and for the pro-life legal movement.

Read the excerpts of the ruling there. Especially this:

Casey and Gonzales establish that, while the State cannot compel an individual
simply to speak the State’s ideological message, it can use its regulatory authority to require a physician to provide truthful, non-misleading information relevant to a
patient’s decision to have an abortion, even if that information might also encourage the patient to choose childbirth over abortion. Therefore, Planned Parenthood cannot succeed on the merits of its claim that [section 7] violates a physician’s right not to speak unless it can show that the disclosure is either untruthful, misleading or not relevant to the patient’s decision to have an abortion.

In other words, that a woman’s right to know exceeds an abortionist’s right to not tell her.

This is seismic. Expect to hear the aftershocks.