Court Opinion

ID: 9500953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 18:46:05.688794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:14.257121
License: Public Domain

LOKEN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Though I agree with the dissent that the plain language of S.D.C.L. § 34-23A-10.1(l)(e)(ii) — “known medical risks ... to which the pregnant woman would be subjected” — strongly suggest legislative intent to require that a physician make an untruthful, misleading causation disclosure, the first two sentences of Part VI of the court’s opinion require only a disclosure as to relative risk that the physician can adapt to fit his or her professional opinion of the conflicting medical research on this contentious subject. With the facial constitutionality of the statute limited in this fashion, controlling Supreme Court precedent requires that I concur. See Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 163-68, 127 S.Ct. 1610, 167 L.Ed.2d 480 (2007).