The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Approves An “Informed Consent” Requirement for Abortions: The Slippery Quality of Statutory Definitions
Sherry F. Colb has this commentary on Findlaw discussing the recent Eighth Circuit ruling on South Dakota’s informed consent law. She concludes:
Despite its value-laden content, the government, under existing precedents, may directly communicate with women the view that embryos and fetuses are entitled to consideration and life . . . What the government may not do, however, is force doctors to utter ideological statements in the guise of “information.” Such compelled speech violates the doctor’s freedom of speech along with the patient’s right to hear the authentic words of her own chosen health care provider. The state may define a human being as it sees fit, in other words, but it may not force either a doctor or a woman to accept that definition at the risk of criminal penalties. I would therefore, respectfully, dissent from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision.
Related:
Abortion Providers in South Dakota Are Required to Admit Abortion is Ending a Life
8th Circuit: S.D. can enforce women’s “right to know” abortion law
More thoughts from Colb on Professor Michael Dorf’s blog.