[Saundra Duffy]

Might I ask what, exactly, the ruling said and what the reasoning was behind determining that Planned Parenthood should NOT have to inclue this information in the interests of informed consent?

Well, it got kind of complicated but here goes. The Judge ruled that we were full of crap and had to pay Planned Parenthood's legal fees. How's that?

[nicmarlo]

Ping; RnMom.....maybe for your ping list for prayers?

[sparkydragon]

I see. He just said you were full of crap? I'm sure he backs this up with his own extensive medical knowledge. After all, "extensive knowledge" is simply that which "everyone knows to be true." I must say, if he had even had a good reason for saying they need not include such information I might have been prepared to accept it and just suggest that your arguments be better prepared on appeal; however, if the all he did was determine that "of course there's no link between abortion and breast cancer, don't you tink there would be studies saying so?" when, in fact, you presented such studies to him, I'd say it's a great illustration of judicial bias. Good luck on your crusade.

[buffyt]

Police Investigate Abortion Death at DC area Abortion Facility
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/797135/posts

[templar]

The Judge ruled that we were full of crap and had to pay Planned Parenthood's legal fees. How's that?

Any chance that you could post the complete actual ruling? Possibly with the motions from both sides leading up to it? I know it's probably a bit long, but you could excerpt the minor ones and post the ones the Judge referenced.