| Line 38: |
Line 38: |
| | *Allison Eid: | | *Allison Eid: |
| | ::unusually silent on abortion; she tersely dissented from a denial of cert. before the Colorado Sup. Ct. in a challenge to an injunction against abortion protesters, initially on only the limited grounds of the length of the injunction and then later only on free speech grounds. | | ::unusually silent on abortion; she tersely dissented from a denial of cert. before the Colorado Sup. Ct. in a challenge to an injunction against abortion protesters, initially on only the limited grounds of the length of the injunction and then later only on free speech grounds. |
| − |
| |
| − | ===== 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 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 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 a third abortion-related cased, Judge Colloton came down hard upon 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'', in violation of Trump's pledge.
| |
| | | | |
| | === Judge Bill Pryor === | | === Judge Bill Pryor === |