"The Suicide Advisory"

I wonder whatever happened to this?

"The hearing focused on what the courts have called “the suicide advisory”: the statute’s requirement that abortion providers give patients “a description of all known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors … including … depression [and] increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide.”
This case is the latest example of how the lower federal courts repeatedly have tied up reasonable abortion regulations for years, preventing the regulations from taking effect, even when there is direct language from prior Supreme Court decisions supporting the purpose of the law."

It turns out that the Supreme Court has, several times in recent years, been stating that women should be advised if something, in this case, having an abortion, might be harmful to their psyches, personally:

"In 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the states have 'a substantial governmental interest justifying a requirement that a woman be apprised of the health risks of abortion and childbirth. … It cannot be questioned that psychological well-being is a facet of health. … In attempting to ensure that a woman apprehend the full consequences of her decision, the State furthers the legitimate purpose of reducing the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed. If the information the State requires to be made available to the woman is truthful and not misleading, the requirement may be permissible.'
"In 2007, the Supreme Court made it more explicit in its latest abortion case: 'Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision. While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort. … Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow. … The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed.'
"The court also reiterated that 'state and federal legislatures [have been given] wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.'"

This isn't about laws or legal arguments on abortion, though if anyone wants to beat me to the upshot of these 2012 legal proceedings, I'm all ears (or I'll just DYOR and maybe blog tomorrow as it relates to advising on "truthful" warnings women should benefit from).
This is about the simple news that the highest court in this land believes that women should be told of the possible psychological negatives about having our abortions, not just the possible positives.
We want to know all that detail when it comes to whether our prescription medications, our organic produce, our non-hormone-injected steaks or free-range chickens, are all safe to consume, or that our surgery and anesthesia and hospital care are going to be spot-on.
Why do so many women, and men for that matter, not want to know these details then, when it comes to the medical procedure that is abortion?