South Dakota’s 8th Circuit Judge recently announced a new ruling which will give carte blanche for any legislator to decide upon which science results they want to put forward when presenting arguments regarding abortion.
This ruling has been attacked by pro abortion campaigners who say that doctors who are themselves opposed to abortion will be allowed tell lies to their patients.
This all came about after the 2005 abortion law was taken to task. This law allows doctors to tell patients that they could be at greater risk of depression if they go ahead with an abortion.
However, pro-abortionists say this is untrue, a statement backed up by the American Psychological Association (APA). A spokesperson for the APA recently told reporters that the best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the relative risk of mental-health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy.
The APA also says that this new ruling effectively turns all the scientific evidence on its head and allows other, more spurious evidence to be accepted as being equal.
Pro abortion campaigners say that this ruling makes it easier for people to use misleading and untrue information without the need to break the law that allows abortion to take place.
In other words, it enables anti abortion doctors the chance to make women wanting an abortion to feel worse about their condition than they already are, in the hope they change their mind.
Abortion has been a very contentious issue in American society for decades, and while it is legal in all states, the anti-abortionists have been fighting back using a variety of creative tactics. This South Dakota ruling seems to be the latest in a growing list.