Links to explore: 

Courts cases, / papers on legal aspects:,  or,



Everywhere reasonable health and safety regulations on abortion are passed, the abortion industry challenges them in court.  But when the facts about abortion are fully explored, abortionists usually lose.


Here is an illustrative list of examples involving abortion industry challenges to recent health and safety regs or informed consent provisions that were turned back by courts, although there are many more:


-          Planned Parenthood v. Daugaard, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2012:  The same federal appeals court ruled that South Dakota’s informed consent law requiring Planned Parenthood to tell expectant mothers that abortion increases the risk of suicide was a true statement.


“When the government requires, as part of the informed consent process, the giving of truthful, non–misleading information about the nature of the procedure, the attendant health risks and those of childbirth, and other information broadly relevant to the decision to have an abortion, it does not impose an undue burden on abortion rights, even if the disclosure might cause the woman to choose childbirth over abortion.”


-          Planned Parenthood v. Abbott, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2014: A federal appeals court, affirmed by Supreme Court on emergency appeal, ruled that Texas’ law mandating that abortionists have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility and that chemical abortion procedures adhere to the rules prescribed by the Food & Drug Administration were reasonable health and safety restrictions. 


-          Karlin v. Foust, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 1999:  A federal appeals court ruled that Wisconsin’s informed consent law, mandating that expectant mothers be told the probable gestational age of the baby at that stage, the baby’s anatomical and physiological characteristics, and the medical risks associated with abortion including the risk of “psychological trauma” and any “danger to subsequent pregnancies,” was truthful and non-misleading.