Changes

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 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.  Colloton's reference to an abortionist as a "professional" speaks volumes about his pro-[[abortion]] viewpoint.

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.