South Dakota Informed Consent Injunction Lifted

A victory for pro-lifers today as word comes from KOTA that the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court decision to

block enforcement of a South Dakota law that would require doctors to tell women seeking abortions that the procedure ends a human life.

The case now goes back to U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier in Rapid City for further hearing.

The law was actually passed in 2005 and required abortionists to inform women seeking an abortion that "abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

Planned Parenthood argues that the law, intended to provide more medical information to women seeking abortions, violates the free speech rights of abortionists by forcing them to tell patients about this.

Today's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds can be read here.

The decision lifts the injunction from enforcement of the law:

We conclude that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction based on Planned Parenthood’s claim that the Act violates physicians’ First Amendment rights. Accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) allied attorney Harold Cassidy represented state crisis pregnancy centers in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the law.

In a press release from the ADF today, ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence said, “A woman’s life is worth more than Planned Parenthood’s bottom line. Anyone truly concerned about the interests of women supports making sure they have access to all the information necessary to make a fully informed decision. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has argued adamantly to restrict the information women have about the lives of their pre-born babies. We’re pleased the court’s decision today will make sure women have access to the information they need and deserve.”

Stacy Wollman, executive director for Black Hills Crisis Pregnancy Center, was pleased with the decision. "Women deserve to be told the truth. The South Dakota legislature recognized this fact three years ago, and today, so did the court. It is a great day for women throughout South Dakota, including the women we see in Rapid City."

Kimberly Martinez of the Alpha Center in Sioux Falls said, "Thanks to today's decision by the court, women are now going to be given the truth by abortion providers, who have been fighting to avoid doing so for years."

Medical authorities are already required to tell patients all sorts of things for all sorts of procedures; why is this any different? Could it be because the woman might come face to face with the reality that she is considering ending the life of her child?

In almost every medical case, more information is seen as positive. Why would more information about the ramifications of a woman's abortion be a bad thing? Could it be that she might realize she'd be ending the life of her unborn child--an irrevocable act--and that would mean less abortion revenue for Planned Parenthood?

What an upside-down world we live in where some medical authorities promote ignorance over information, and some judges help them promote ignorance.

Fortunately common sense has carried the day over political agenda this time. We'll see if it continues as this case goes back to court in Rapid City.