Ruling blocks injunction against state's informed consent process.

    Argus, South Dakota - A federal appeals court decided Friday that a state law requiring abortion doctors to get written consent from women who want an abortion should be enforced.

    Physicians who perform abortions now will be required to gain a pregnant woman's written consent, a process that includes informing her that abortion will terminate a human being's life and will end her constitutional rights to her relationship with the fetus, and about known medical risks such as depression and suicide.

    The 7-4 decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sends the case back to U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier of Rapid City for proceedings that will result in a decision on whether the law passed by the 2005 South Dakota Legislature is constitutional.

    Schreier temporarily had prevented the law from taking effect while she decides the case. She had ruled that opponents had a fair chance of succeeding in their claim that the law violates doctors' free-speech rights by forcing them to tell women things the doctors might not believe.

    A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit agreed with Schreier, but the full appeals court threw out her order. It said Friday that Planned Parenthood, which operates South Dakota's only abortion clinic in Sioux Falls, has not provided enough evidence that it is likely to prevail.

    Mimi Liu, a lawyer for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said such rulings generally require about three weeks to take effect.

    South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long, who is defending the law in court, agreed that the state probably can begin enforcing the law in three weeks or less. "It won't be very long."

    Kimberly Martinez, executive director of Alpha Center, said it is nice to know that when a woman receives information and thinks abortion remains an option, she will hear it at the abortion clinic and from her doctor.

    "We talk about informed decisions, how important that is and this is the woman's right," she said. "Let's let this woman choose with all the information so she can make the best choice for herself and her unborn child."

    Kate Looby, Planned Parenthood executive director, said the law is not about providing women with accurate information and adds to the list of already restrictive abortion laws.

    "It's about government interfering in the private communication between doctor and patient," she said. "Planned Parenthood has always believed and worked to ensure that everyone receive sound, medical, accurate, science-based information to make the best health care decision regarding her unique circumstance."

    Casey Murschel, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota, called Friday's appellate decision a blow to patient privacy. "We all agree that a woman considering abortion, like any patient, should receive from her doctor full and unbiased information about a range of medical options, but the law in question puts politicians into the examining room," she said.

    Looby said Friday night that she would need to consult with Planned Parenthood's legal counsel about any further appeal.

    -------

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.