South Dakota scored a win when a 3-member appeals panel ruled Friday that abortion-seeking women must be informed they have a legally protected “existing relationship” with their unborn child.
Unfortunately, the same Eighth circuit panel upheld a lower court decision quashing an informed consent warning to women that abortion elevates suicide risk; the court opined the link was unproven and may not exist.
Ironically, on the very same day, came news of a huge “study of studies” in a prestigious psychiatric journal, which supports what certain judges bristle at– that abortion causes significant mental harms.
So why can one court deny the existence of what an international journal exposes? Because not one official U.S. study on abortion harms has ever been conducted. Somehow, the National institute of Health and the Center for Disease Control have managed to ignore studying the most common elective surgery done on women– abortion.
This criminal absence of authentic scientific studies on abortion by governmental health authorities helps activist judges use Planned Parenthood arguments to stall pro-life laws.
Although Kansas is in a different appellate division (the tenth) from South Dakota, the latter’s experience with pro-abortion rulings from U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier and Eighth Circuit court of appeals Judge, Diana Murphy are illustrative.
In 2002, Schreier ruled against a 1973 South Dakota law requiring hospitalization for abortions in the second & third trimester abortions because determining gestational age was an ‘impermissible (more…)