South Dakota informed consent law

It’s in the spotlight again, and Planned Parenthood is still fighting it. That battle gets a higher profile now that the 8th Circuit Court has decided to grant an en banc rehearing, that’s all 11 members, in a highly unusual turn of events.

A South Dakota law to make sure women aren’t denied information from abortion facilities about abortion’s risks and alternatives is headed back to a federal appeals court this month. A hearing is scheduled and one pro-life group has filed legal papers saying Planned Parenthood shouldn’t be involved in the case.
The 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals prevented changes in the law from going into effect last October but has agreed to a rehearing of the case.

That shows the strength of the pro-life case. 

The state legislature approved modifications to the informed consent law in 2005 that would have abortion practitioners tell women that abortions end a human life and come with a plethora of medical and psychological problems.

Planned Parenthood claimed making them tell women the truth about abortion’s problems would infringe on the free speech rights of abortion practitioners and filed suit against it.

At that time, U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier had to decide between the “free speech rights of abortion practitioners” not to tell women the truth about abortion’s risks, and the rights of pregnant mothers to hear all the standards risk information that any procedure requires for informed consent. She ruled in favor of the abortion practitioners.

That case was appealed and the 8th Circuit Court ruled 2-1 to uphold the ruling. But now on the merits of the case, the full court will rehear it.

Now the Family Research Council, a pro-life group, has filed a friend of the court brief in the case saying that the abortion business should [not] be allowed to represent South Dakota women at the appeals court because it stands to profit from the abortions they would have.

“Anyone truly concerned about the interests of women would support a woman having access to all the information necessary to make a fully informed decision,” Jordan Lorence, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney representing FRC, told AP.

“Instead, the abortionists argue adamantly to restrict the information women have about the lives of their pre-born babies,” he added.

Again I ask, why do abortionists and abortion activists adamantly fight to restrict information for women? Crisis pregnancy centers have been asking that, too, and taking the question to court. Two of them have joined this case.

Alpha Center in Sioux Falls and Black Hills Crisis Pregnancy Center in Rapid City say they have a stake in the case because the women impacted by the law are considering an abortion and often come to the centers for more advice and information.

“When the pregnant mothers realize that abortion involves the termination of the life of a human being, they look at the procedure in a different light,” Leslee Unruh, Alpha Center president, said previously. “It is not taken lightly and for most of the women this fact is of critical importance and leads them to search for other alternatives.”

Isn’t this supposedly about choice? If so, why aren’t women being given one, except in crisis pregnancy centers? The 8th Circuit rehearing will be a vital one. The whole country is watching.