The legal wrangling over South Dakota’s informed consent law hasbeen both bizarre and revealing. At core, it’s a battle between thepowerful abortion movement which operates under the mantle of ‘choice’,and the pro-life movement which is working mightily to give womenenough information to make an informed choice.
When South Dakota legislators passed a law requiring abortionproviders to inform women that they are carrying not a blob of tissue,but an already existing human being, among other highly relevant factsand the possiblerisks ass ociated with the procedure. PlannedParenthood got an injunction to prevent that law’s enactment byconvincing judge Karen Schreier that such disclosure violates theabortionists’ rights of free speech. Schreier decided that outweighedthe women’s right to information.