Are abortion supporters more supportive of abortion -- or of women?

That may not be the legal issue in the case of South Dakota's disputed "informed consent" law, but it certainly is the central question.

The law, passed in 2005 and held hostage in the courts ever since by abortion supporters, simply requires abortionists to inform women in writing that the procedure "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

The legal challenges to the law continue, but the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that South Dakota can go ahead and enforce the law while its constitutionality is debated.

The only reason to continue holding up enforcement of the law would be if it created "irreparable harm" to someone. The federal appeals court realized that the only "harm" in enforcing the law prematurely might be in giving women "too much" information.

Now comes the decision over the law's constitutionality.

That decision will most likely hinge on whether the law's statement about abortion is, in fact, true: that it terminates "the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

Most of us intrinsically know this to be true. But let's go through the sentence one assertion at a time.

Is it a separate life?

Well, consider the state of the world: There are an estimated 6 billion people on the planet. No one, not even Planned Parenthood, can logically argue that these are all one life. They are, by definition, separate. Even if connected temporarily by umbilical cord, mother and child are still two life forms with separate heart beats, separate destinies. If someone breathes life into another during CPR, that doesn't merge their lives.

Unique? We get distinguishable fingerprints and other characteristics to constantly remind us that snowflakes have a better chance of being exactly alike.

Living? Ever see a sonogram? The truth is, when many mothers considering abortion see their child, hear the heartbeat, they change course.

Human? When does a fetus turn out to be something else?

That leaves "whole."

The simple fact is, a fetus can be missing many things -- an arm, a leg, fingers, toes, part of the brain -- but still be a whole human being. Just like any of us -- and we are all former fetuses.

But beyond the legal particulars of its wording, the important thing is that the South Dakota law simply seeks to give women more truthful information about the abortion procedure. Why? Because as much as they call themselves "pro-choice," abortionists and their followers don't really want the full range of choices discussed, or their consequences explained.

They are afraid, quite simply, that given more information, more women might make choices other than abortion.

Extremists in the abortion movement like to joke that if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. Well, we've got news for them: It already is, in their eyes.

If pro-choicers were truly advocates for women, rather than robotic champions for abortion, they would revel in giving women more information -- rather than go to court to prevent it.

Who are they really for? The women? Or the procedure?