With all the election news going on I missed this little tidbit regarding the law passed last year by the South Dakota legislature that would have required doctors to tell women seeking abortions that it would “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”
In addition to requiring the statement about the life that would be terminated, it imposed a detailed procedure for how the statement was to be conveyed. It was to be made in writing, along with a dozen other statements, including some about the legal relationship between the mother and the fetus, and others about the increased risk of depression and suicide after abortions.
The law was put on hold in June of last year by the Federal District Court in Rapid City and South Dakota's appeal went before the federal appeals court in St. Louis earlier this week.
The appeals court ruled 2-1 in favor of blocking the enforcement of the law stating
Requiring doctors to convey information that they do not believe can violate the First Amendment, Judge Diana E. Murphy wrote for the majority, which also included Judge Michael J. Melloy. “Governmentally compelled expression is particularly problematic when a speaker is required by the state to impart a political or ideological message contrary to the individual’s own views”
The state imparting a political or ideological message contrary to the individual’s own views? Does anyone see a parallel with a certain bill being voted on next week?