So, to compare this to Judge Eagles' ruling, one must have informed consent in order to be made incapable of having a baby, but denied informed consent when one is carrying a child and wants to abort it.
A federal mandate requires agriculture employers to provide an oral warning to employees of certain pesticide applications in greenhouses, farms, nurseries and forests. Another requires a home health agency to orally disclose to a patient prior to giving them care the extent to which payment may be expected from the federal government and how much the individual must pay. The comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC require banks that sell insurance to orally disclose to the consumer that the insurance is not FDIC insured.
No one is challenging in court any of these oral requirements. So what's the objection to orally and visually disclosing to a woman seeking an abortion what's inside her womb? Judge Eagles' decision, and the rationale behind it, is unabashedly political. How can more speech containing factual information violate the First Amendment, which is all about protecting, not restricting, speech?
With studies and stats showing large numbers of women choosing to give birth after viewing an ultrasound of their baby and learning about the consequences of abortion -- along with positive alternatives -- refusing to empower women in this manner makes "pro-choicers" censors and an enemy of women, as well as the enemy of another generation of babies who are not being born. This has consequences for society and corrodes culture. It also darkens our souls and harms the common good.
"Gas the Jews": Anti-Semitic Protesters Loot Shops, Burn Cars In France's 'Little Jerusalem' | Cortney O'Brien