093231P.pdf   07/24/2012  Planned Parenthood Minnesota  v.  Mike Rounds
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  09-3231
                          and No:  09-3233
                          and No:  09-3362
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls   
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, for the Court En Banc]
   Civil case - Abortion. District court erred in granting a permanent
   injunction enjoining a provision of a South Dakota statute requiring the
   disclosure to patients seeking an abortion of an increased risk of suicide
   ideation and suicide as the suicide advisory is non-misleading and
   relevant to the patient's decision to have an abortion; advisory does not
   place an undue burden on abortion rights and is not a violation of
   physicians' free speech rights. Judge Loken, concurring. Judge Colloton,
   concurring in part and concurring in the result. Judge Murphy, with
   whom Wollman, Bye and Melloy join, dissenting.
  
093231P.pdf   09/02/2011  Planned Parenthood Minnesota  v.  Mike Rounds
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  09-3231
                          and No:  09-3233
                          and No:  09-3362
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls   
   [PUBLISHED] [ Murphy, Author, with Melloy and Gruender, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - South Dakota Abortion Law. For the court en banc's earlier
   decision in the matter, see Planned Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v.
   Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008). This action involves facial
   challenges to the constitutionality of South Dakota's 2005 law on
   informed consent to abortion. The court en banc's opinion upheld the
   law's human being advisory against a facial challenge, and the portion of
   the district court's decision reaching the same conclusion is affirmed; the statute's
   provision requiring doctors to tell the woman that she has a relationship
   with the fetus and that the relationship enjoys legal protection is valid, and
   the district court erred in finding it unconstitutional; the portion of the
   general risk advisory section requiring doctors to inform women that
   suicide and suicide ideation are risks of the procedure is not supported by
   any record showing a generally recognized connection between suicide
   and abortion, and the section is an unconstitutional violation of doctors'
   First Amendment rights since it would impose a significant constraint on
   exercise of their professional judgment and compel untruthful and
   misleading speech; the portions of the section requiring doctors to give a
   general risk advisory was valid. Judge Gruender, concurring in part and
   dissenting in part.