Changes

===== 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 '''''three''''' times against the pro-life position.  He has apparently never even said anything publicly that is [[pro-life]].  He attended a law school that is overwhelmingly pro-[[abortion]], the same law school that candidate Justice Charles Canady attended, but unlike Canady Judge Colloton has not spoken out against abortion.  In addition, Judge Colloton has affirmatively written or voted in favor of abortionists or against pro-lifers on at least three separate occasions, as follows.

Judge Colloton is not [[pro-life]], and has ruled '''''three''''' times against the pro-life position.  He has written that abortionists are professionals who should be able to tell their victims (mothers) whether they like in their "professional judgment" in order to perform an abortion on them,<ref>''Planned Parenthood Minn. v. Rounds'', 686 F.3d 889, 907 (8th Cir. 2012) (Colloton, J., concurring).</ref> which is the same pro-abort mindset of Justice Harry Blackmun in ''Roe v. Wade''.<ref>''Roe v. Wade'', 410 U.S. 113, 165 (1973).</ref>

 

Judge Colloton has apparently never even said anything publicly that is [[pro-life]].  He attended a law school that is overwhelmingly pro-[[abortion]], the same law school that candidate Justice Charles Canady attended, but unlike Justice Canady, Judge Colloton has not spoken out against abortion.  In addition, Judge Colloton 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.

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.