| Line 24: |
Line 24: |
| | Judge Colloton is not pro-life, and has ruled '''''twice''''' in favor of the pro-[[abortion]] side. | | Judge Colloton is not pro-life, and has ruled '''''twice''''' in favor of the pro-[[abortion]] side. |
| | | | |
| − | In a long-running case from South Dakota, Judge Colloton refused to join Judge Gruender's decision in favor of a [[pro-life]] South Dakota law. ''Planned Parenthood Minn. v. Rounds'', 686 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2012). Instead, Colloton wrote a concurrence that basically gutted the value of the pro-life South Dakota law in two ways, while purportedly concurring with the outcome. | + | In a long-running case from South Dakota, Judge Colloton refused to join Judge Gruender's decision in favor of a [[pro-life]] South Dakota law. ''Planned Parenthood Minn. v. Rounds'', 686 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2012) (''en banc''). Instead, Colloton wrote a concurrence that basically gutted the value of the pro-life South Dakota law in two ways, while purportedly concurring with the outcome. |
| | | | |
| | The South Dakota law required abortionists to disclose to patients that there is a higher rate of suicide by women who had abortions than those who do not. This is an indisputable fact that should be disclosed. | | The South Dakota law required abortionists to disclose to patients that there is a higher rate of suicide by women who had abortions than those who do not. This is an indisputable fact that should be disclosed. |
| Line 30: |
Line 30: |
| | Judge Colloton, however, insisted that abortionists should only have to disclose the connection between abortion and suicide that is reported in peer-reviewed medical journals, which of course are controlled by [[pro-abort]]s. So that ends up being nothing to disclose. | | Judge Colloton, however, insisted that abortionists should only have to disclose the connection between abortion and suicide that is reported in peer-reviewed medical journals, which of course are controlled by [[pro-abort]]s. So that ends up being nothing to disclose. |
| | | | |
| − | But that evisceration of the law was not even enough for Judge Colloton. He further said that an abortionist can supplement his disclosure with any opinion that the abortionist wants to provide about the issue in his "professional judgment." Of course, that's the same trick that the abortion industry has been using for decades, to have unlimited authority to tell and do to patients whatever they want. | + | But that evisceration of the law was not even enough for Judge Colloton. He further said that an abortionist can supplement his disclosure with any opinion that the abortionist wants to provide about the issue in his "professional judgment." Of course, that's the same trick that the abortion industry has been using for decades, to have unlimited authority to tell and do to pregnant women whatever abortionists want. |
| | | | |
| | In another abortion case before Judge Colloton, he joined a decision in favor of [[Planned Parenthood]] and against a pro-life Nebraska law. ''Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Heineman'', 664 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2011). | | In another abortion case before Judge Colloton, he joined a decision in favor of [[Planned Parenthood]] and against a pro-life Nebraska law. ''Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Heineman'', 664 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2011). |