Planned Parenthood vs Rounds (2008)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben_Sinner

Guest
According to Trent Horn and other Pro-Life apologists who make similar claims:
*
For example, in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds (2008), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found that requiring abortionists to say that the fetus is a “living, separate, whole human being” does not force an abortionist to espouse an unconstitutional religious viewpoint. The Court ruled that this statement was a biological fact that even physicians affiliated with Planned Parenthood accept.*

Is there an actual document from the case that affirms this. I can only find second hand sources like the above.

I went on the Planned Parenthood website for this case and they don’t show anything about them losing this case. In fact, it sounds like the court ruled in their favor.

plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-v-rounds

*In a critical victory for women’s health, the people of South Dakota voted down the dangerous ban by a margin of 12 points in November 2006. South Dakota has one of the lowest rates of abortion and some of the strictest laws in the United States regulating abortion. *

I’m trying to find a first-hand source that affirms Trent Horn’s comments.
 
Maybe it refers to this part, from page 19 of the case file?

“Indeed, Dr. Wolpe’s affidavit, submitted by Planned Parenthood,
states that “to describe an embryo or fetus scientifically and factually, one would say
that a living embryo or fetus in utero is a developing organism of the species Homo
Sapiens which may become a self-sustaining member of the species if no organic or
environmental incident interrupts its gestation.” Wolpe Aff. ¶ 6. This statement
appears to support the State’s evidence on the biological underpinnings of § 7(1)(b)
and the associated statutory definition.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top