| Line 22: |
Line 22: |
| | ===== Example: Judge Steven Colloton is not pro-life ===== | | ===== Example: Judge Steven Colloton is not pro-life ===== |
| | | | |
| − | 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 '''''three''''' times 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) (''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. | + | For starters, Judge Colloton has apparently never said anything publicly that is [[pro-life]], and the vast majority of attorneys having his background are pro-''Roe v. Wade''. He attended schools that are pro-[[abortion]], and he frequents a legal society that is not pro-life. But in addition to this, he has affirmatively written or voted in favor of abortionists or against pro-lifers on at least three separate occasions, as follows. |
| | + | |
| | + | 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'').<ref>https://casetext.com/case/planned-parenthood-minn-nd-sd-v-rounds (search on "concurring in part")</ref> Instead, Colloton wrote a concurrence that essentially 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. |
| | | | |
| − | 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 need 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. Such a limitation completely destroys the benefit of the laW. |
| | | | |
| − | 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. | + | 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. Colloton's view would have completely eliminated the benefit of the law, if he had prevailed. In addition, Colloton's insistence on requiring that the State defer to the abortionist, rather than protect the unborn child and mother against the abortionist, reflects his pro-''Roe v. Wade'' mindset. |
| | | | |
| − | 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).<ref>http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020111216088/PLANNED%20PARENTHOOD%20OF%20THE%20HEARTLAND%20v.%20HEINEMAN</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | In a third abortion-related cased, Judge Colloton came down hard on a [[pro-life]] internet activist by joining a decision by a [[liberal]] colleague to rule against him and allow a contempt order against the pro-lifer to remain in effect. ''Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy'', 382 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2004). | + | In a third abortion-related cased, Judge Colloton came down hard on a [[pro-life]] internet activist by joining a decision by a [[liberal]] colleague to rule against him and allow a contempt order against the pro-lifer to remain in effect. ''Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy'', 382 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2004).<ref>https://casetext.com/case/coca-cola-co-v-purdy-2</ref> |
| | | | |
| | === Judge Bill Pryor === | | === Judge Bill Pryor === |