| Line 30: |
Line 30: |
| | 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. | | 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. 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. | + | 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. Colloton's reference to an abortionist as a "professional" speaks volumes about his pro-[[abortion]] viewpoint. |
| | | | |
| | 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 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).<ref>https://casetext.com/case/coca-cola-co-v-purdy-2</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).<ref>https://casetext.com/case/coca-cola-co-v-purdy-2</ref> |
| | + | |
| | + | In sum, Colloton has not indicated any public support for the pro-life side, but has repeatedly written in favor of the abortion side. He is virtually certain to vote to uphold ''Roe v. Wade''. |
| | | | |
| | === Judge Bill Pryor === | | === Judge Bill Pryor === |