Oklahoma passes insane abortion measures over veto

[Liberty]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html

Vetoes of Abortion Laws Overridden in Oklahoma
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
Published: April 27, 2010

The Oklahoma Legislature voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to override vetoes of two highly restrictive abortion measures, one making it a law that women undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion.

Though other states have passed similar measures forcing women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, requiring a doctor or technician to set up the monitor where the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

The second measure passed into law Tuesday protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects. The intent of the bill is to prevent parents from later suing doctors who withhold information to try to influence them against having an abortion.

Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, vetoed both bills last week. The ultrasound law, he said, was flawed because it did not exempt rape and incest victims and was an unconstitutional intrusion into a woman’s privacy. He painted the other measure as immoral.

“It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient,” Mr. Henry said.

The Republican majorities in both houses, however, saw things differently. On Monday, the House voted overwhelmingly to override the vetoes, and the Senate followed suit at 10:42 a.m. Tuesday, making the two measures law.

The ultrasound law was part of a bill that was struck down by the state courts last August because it violated a clause in the Oklahoma Constitution that requires bills to deal with only one subject. Republican lawmakers vowed at the time to pass it again.

This year, Republican leaders passed five separate antiabortion bills to satisfy the courts’ concerns. Mr. Henry signed one into law: it required that clinics post signs stating a woman cannot be forced to have an abortion, that an abortion cannot be performed until a woman gives her voluntary consent, and that abortions based on a child’s gender are illegal.

Two other antiabortion bills are still working their way through the legislature. One would force women to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about their reasons for seeking an abortion and then post statistics online based on the answers. The other restricts insurance coverage for the procedure.

Though many states have passed similar laws aimed at curbing abortion, with Tuesday’s action, Oklahoma appears to have become the most hostile to women seeking to end a pregnancy, said Dionne Scott, a spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group for abortion rights based in New York.

“It’s the most extreme ultrasound requirement in the country,” she said.

This is just criminal. My god. The sad thing is, in the fight over the legality of abortion, the anti-abortion crowd is winning, big time. And it makes me SO mad.

[Ghost Rider]

So from the story, Oklahoma is passed a bill into law that a woman having an abortion has to now feel even more guilty over her choice because, well you can insert your favorite choice. The second is a bill that tells doctors to withold information about the child to the parent because the parents may choose death for the child instead of a painful life.

Always nice to see stats proclaim they know more about yours and your child's well being then you do.

[jcow79]

Wow. I mean just WOW. That second law in particular seems extremely callous and egregious. Can the medical boards at least revoke a doctors medical license for withholding that information? Or would the law make them immune from that as well?

I just couldn't imagine my child being born brainless or some other horrific malady and the doctors knew the entire time and withheld the information.

[cosmicalstorm]

As if the world was running low on retarded babies.

[Spekio]

Oh wow... Is there a way any court can reppeal that?
That is messed up. Hey Victim of Rape! How are you? Still scarred by the experience? Here, see the spawn of your rapist inside of you and remember the event.

[SirNitram]

There's some bits this missed.

The sonogram must, if it could POSSIBLY be possible to get a better image via vaginal sonogram, must be done that way. Take a large metal cylinder, heated plastic, lube it up, and insert. I imagine some female members may know a bit about this experience.

The other part of that measures REQUIRES you to hear every minutae of said examination.

[Simon_Jester]

I wonder if we're going to see anyone try to sue the state over this. Probably not for some obvious and horrible reason I'm overlooking, but...

[jcow79]

I wonder if we're going to see anyone try to sue the state over this. Probably not for some obvious and horrible reason I'm overlooking, but...

I'm sure when some poor young mother dies because of complications of her horribly defected fetus and that information is purposely withheld by her doctor.

[Terralthra]

The sonogram must, if it could POSSIBLY be possible to get a better image via vaginal sonogram, must be done that way. Take a large metal cylinder, heated plastic, lube it up, and insert. I imagine some female members may know a bit about this experience.

Source?

[lance]

I'm unsure of the overall effect of the second measure. Don't potential parents ask about the health of the fetus normally? If not then I imagine woman should start asking. Doctors can be sued for lying to patients about their medical issues, right?

[Duckie]

I'm unsure of the overall effect of the second measure. Don't potential parents ask about the health of the fetus normally? If not then I imagine woman should start asking. Doctors can be sued for lying to patients about their medical issues, right?

Not in Oklahoma any more, at least on this.

[The Romulan Republic]

How can even an opponent of abortion can justify withholding information from parents like that? Many parents who would gladly keep a disabled child will now be unprepared for what they are facing. Its one of the most repellent pieces of legislation I've seen in a while, and while I can see how the ultrasound/description of fetus requirements (as psychologically and emotionally manipulative as they are) might be legal, I cannot see how this could be. Please tell me there's a chance a higher court will strike it down.

Of course, this is a state that's talking about forming its own anti-government militia, so inhumane and stupid ideas are par for the course, I suppose.

[Liberty]

The sonogram must, if it could POSSIBLY be possible to get a better image via vaginal sonogram, must be done that way. Take a large metal cylinder, heated plastic, lube it up, and insert. I imagine some female members may know a bit about this experience.

Source?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD9F93JM00

Okla. governor vetoes 2 abortion bills
By TIM TALLEY (AP) – 3 days ago

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry vetoed two abortion bills Friday that he said are an unconstitutional attempt by the Legislature to insert government into the private lives and decisions of citizens.

One measure would have required women to undergo an intrusive ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting abortions. Henry said that legislation is flawed because it does not allow rape and incest victims to be exempted.

Lawmakers who supported the vetoed measures promised an override vote in the House and Senate as early as next week. A national abortion rights group has said the ultrasound bill would have been among the strictest anti-abortion measures in the country if it had been signed into law.

Henry said "it would be unconscionable to subject rape and incest victims to such treatment" because it would victimize a victim a second time.

"State policymakers should never mandate that a citizen be forced to undergo any medical procedure against his or her will, especially when such a procedure could cause physical or mental trauma. To do so amounts to an unconstitutional invasion of privacy," he said.

Under the ultrasound legislation, doctors would have been required to use a vaginal probe in cases where it would provide a clearer picture of the fetus than a regular ultrasound. Doctors have said this is usually the case early in pregnancies, when most abortions are done.

Henry vetoed similar legislation in 2008 but was overridden by lawmakers. The bill was struck down by an Oklahoma County judge before it went into effect on the grounds that it contained multiple subjects in violation of the state Constitution.

The second abortion bill that the governor vetoed Friday was one that would have prohibited pregnant women from seeking damages if physicians withhold important information or provide inaccurate information about their pregnancy. Supporters of that measure said it was an attempt to keep pregnant women from discriminating against fetuses with disabilities.

But Henry said the bill would allow unscrupulous or negligent physicians to withhold or provide inaccurate information without facing the potential of legal consequences.

"This is a very disappointing day for Oklahomans who care about maintaining a culture of life in Oklahoma," said House Speaker Chris Benge, R-Tulsa.

Tony Lauinger, state chairman of the anti-abortion group Oklahomans for Life and vice president of the National Right to Life Committee, said each of the measures are designed to protect the unborn as well as pregnant women.

"It is just as important for a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape or incest as it is for any other woman to have the benefit of full and complete information prior to taking the irrevocable step of having her baby aborted," Lauinger said.

Stephanie Toti, an attorney for the New York-based abortion rights group, Center for Reproductive Rights, applauded the governor's vetoes. The group has said the ultrasound bill would have been among the strictest anti-abortion measures in the nation.

"The patient has no autonomy to make a decision. And the physician has no discretion," Toti said.

See the bolded section. This is ridiculous. It means that they are afraid that when the fetus is too small it won't show up on a regular ultrasound clearly enough, i.e., legs, arms, etc, so they have to do an invasive (read uncomfortable) vaginal ultrasound to make it as clear and "babylike" as possible.


Oh, and apparently, this isn't Oklahoma's only new abortion statute. From the same article:

Henry did sign one abortion bill into law Friday: one requiring abortion clinics to post signs stating it is against the law for anyone to force a woman to have an abortion, and that an abortion will not be performed until the woman gives her voluntary consent.

Seriously? I want the same sign in hospitals stating that it is unlawful for anyone to force a person to have their appendix out, or to have their tonsils out, or to have a C-section or an epidural during labor. Jeez. The intent of this statute is clear. Everyone knows it's not legal to force someone to have an abortion; why post that all over the place?

Same article:

Earlier this month, Henry signed three other abortion-related bills, including a ban on abortions based on the gender of the child and tighter restrictions on the use of the RU-486 abortion pill.

Again, really?

Same article:

At least two other abortion measures are pending in the Oklahoma Legislature including one that would require pregnant women to complete a lengthy questionnaire before receiving an abortion.

Hm...what would the questionnaire include? Political affiliation? Mental stability?

I have to wonder. How many abortion clinics are there in Oklahoma? Some googling says three: Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Norman.

Also, this site (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/oklahoma.html) provides the following information about current abortion regulations in Oklahoma:

Restrictions on Abortion

In Oklahoma, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of January 2008:

The parent of a minor must consent and be notified before an abortion is provided.

A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided.

Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.

Lovely.

[Instant Sunrise]

What happened to that massive HIPAA violation of an abortion law Oklahoma was trying to pass?

It was a public database of every woman who got an abortion, that had a lot of personally identifiable information just short of posting names, photos, addresses and phone numbers.

[eyl]

Earlier this month, Henry signed three other abortion-related bills, including a ban on abortions based on the gender of the child and tighter restrictions on the use of the RU-486 abortion pill.

OK, this only addresses a minor point, but one that stuck out to me...does Oklahoma have a significant number gender-based abortions? For the rest of those laws, I can at least understand how the follow from the abortion opponents' logic, but in this case...

[Liberty]

Earlier this month, Henry signed three other abortion-related bills, including a ban on abortions based on the gender of the child and tighter restrictions on the use of the RU-486 abortion pill.

OK, this only addresses a minor point, but one that stuck out to me...does Oklahoma have a significant number gender-based abortions? For the rest of those laws, I can at least understand how the follow from the abortion opponents' logic, but in this case...

Short answer: no.

Long answer: Oklahoma has a total of three abortion clinics. While Oklahoma's population makes up 1.2% of the population of the United States, the number of abortions performed in Oklahoma make up 0.9% of all abortions nationwide (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/compare ... p=1&sort=a). This meas that abortion is not a huge issue in Oklahoma - it's not like they're having an explosion of abortions or they're like the abortion capital of the country.

This link is to an article on a religious website that indicates that abortions based on gender are taking place in immigrant communities from Asia. This is all I could find when trying to determine if there are gender based abortions taking place anywhere in the U.S.: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... y_experts/

If there are issues with immigrant communities, it's important to note that (from Wikipedia's article on Oklahoma) Oklahoma has a very small number of immigrants:

As of 2006, 4.7% of Oklahoma's residents were foreign born, compared to 12.4% for the nation

Also, according to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40000.html, Oklahoma has only 1.7% Asians compared to 4.5% Asians in the country at large.

There is no evidence that any gender based abortions have been performed in Oklahoma, and even the debates on the issue noted the lack of actual data on the subject. It's purely a symbolic measure to please the anti-abortion crowd.

Finally, according to Wikipedia's article on abortion:

In 2003, from data collected in those areas of the United States that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 88.2% of abortions were conducted at or prior to 12 weeks, 10.4% from 13 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks

You cannot know the gender of a fetus for sure until between 16 and 20 weeks. Most women don't find out until around 20 weeks. Generally, abortions are not performed at that point unless there is something wrong with the fetus; after all, abortions at this stage are more involved, painful, and expensive. So it is safe to say that in probably 95% of all abortions performed, there is no way to know the gender of the child.

[tim31]

An obstetrician I know warned me half jokingly to keep an eye out for people tampering with the car or putting bombs in the mailbox because he sent a furious and strongly worded email to Right to Life after reading this story.

[Crossroads Inc.]

It is things like this that remind me that the Religious Right in America actually have no interest in "Stopping" abortions, but just banning them. Deep down none of them really care about women other then as baby making factories, they don't care HOW a women becomes pregnant, only that she carries it to term and pops out a new convert to the christian faith.

Talk to anti abortion wingnut and ask them "Do you want to stop abortions" and they will invariably say "yes of course" ask them HOW they want to stop abortions, and the answer is always the same. Ban ban ban.

[Liberty]

It is things like this that remind me that the Religious Right in America actually have no interest in "Stopping" abortions, but just banning them. Deep down none of them really care about women other then as baby making factories, they don't care HOW a women becomes pregnant, only that she carries it to term and pops out a new convert to the christian faith.

Talk to anti abortion wingnut and ask them "Do you want to stop abortions" and they will invariably say "yes of course" ask them HOW they want to stop abortions, and the answer is always the same. Ban ban ban.

This point is critical. I used to be an anti-abortion extremist, I did the marches, the dinners, the protests, etc. I never picketed an abortion clinic because the city I grew up in was the largest metropolitan area without an abortion clinic, largely due to the local right to life group, for which my family constantly volunteered. My mom even worked at one of those "crisis pregnancy centers" for a while. In college, I became the president of the local students for life group and brought in pro-life speakers.

Here is what changed my mind: I read a study that reported that the countries with the lowest abortion levels are those where abortion is most legal and available and birth control is most available and widespread (ie, Western Europe), and the countries with the most abortions are those where abortion is illegal and birth control is rare (ie, parts of Africa). Honest, that moment was like a strike of lightening for me, and that's all it took to completely change my focus. Though I don't like abortion (no one does), the key to lowering the number of abortions that occur is widespread birth control, and that should be our focus.

Also, if abortions were easier to obtain, more of them would take place earlier, when the fetus less resembles a baby. Abortions after the point of viability are unfortunate, and I don't think anyone things otherwise. So the key to decreasing later abortions is to make abortions more widespread and more easily obtainable. And the key to lowering abortions in general is birth control.

But I'm preaching to the choir here - you guys know this stuff. I didn't, until I read that study halfway through my undergrad.

[Crossroads Inc.]

But I'm preaching to the choir here - you guys know this stuff. I didn't, until I read that study halfway through my undergrad.

Hey man, don't belittle yourself, you were able to actually come to this realization yourself. I routinely bring this point up to people marching outside the local Family Planning center here. You tell them "Banning Abortions drives UP abortions, giving out out condoms and teaching kids about sex drives DOWN abortions." And they either look at you with blank expressionless faces, are slip into this "oh THATS what you believe..." speech and begin talking about the evils of premarital sex, and how condoms are stopping "Gods Will"/

Which is where you discovery that these people don't really care about "preventing" abortions, only banning them. Its nothing but a Feel Good exercise for them. If they got their way, and banned all abortions nation wide, they wouldn't care that more then likely young teens nationwide would get backdoor abortions, getting hurt or killed in shady clinics, or that the amount of single mothers, with no job, no support would skyrocket. they don't Care.

You are probably like me, I don't like abortions, no one does, but you probably grew up asking "How can I Prevent people from 'needing' abortions' and not "How can I ban them?"

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

It's not just banning abortions, it's punishing promiscuous sinners. Conservative Christian morality can be summed up in 3 steps:

1. Separate all people, practices, foods, and inanimate objects into good (God) and evil (Satan).
2. Praise good (God).
3. Punish, shun, and cast out evil (Satan).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

These measures are psychotic and evil and frankly to hear the details makes me nervous in a way most other initiatives of the Christian Right never have. There's something fundamentally medieval in crafting legislation specifically to shame individuals. It's Scarlet Letter territory, and that suggests a disturbing reaction toward more and more extreme expressions of conservativism. And I'm not any particular friend of abortion, either.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is things like this that remind me that the Religious Right in America actually have no interest in "Stopping" abortions, but just banning them. Deep down none of them really care about women other then as baby making factories, they don't care HOW a women becomes pregnant, only that she carries it to term and pops out a new convert to the christian faith.

Hell, they dont even give a shit about the resulting kids, because they also are the same people who do not support public healthcare, welfare, food stamps, assisted daycare, and strong public education.

They dont care about children. Rather, all they want is to punish women for being sluts. Even rape victims. After all, if she had not gone out after dark unescorted/worn such scanty clothing/left her window unlocked/invited her date in for coffee/gone to that party where she was drugged/refused to wear a plate steel chastity/given her daddy the wrong idea by hugging him affectionately she would not have been raped. The man bears no responsibility for his falling for feminine wiles. The slutty little Jezebels must be punished for leading men into sin and then having the audacity to kill an innocent baby who after it is born is under the Lord's Protection, not theirs!

Frankly, both of these measures violate federal law relating to informed consent http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol2/winter/merz.htm

By withholding information from a patient about the risks of a procedure (in this case, giving birth), the doctors is in violation of federal law. Collecting patient statistics as a condition of treatment outside of a research setting is also probably a violation of HIPAA.

[Liberty]

They dont care about children. Rather, all they want is to punish women for being sluts. Even rape victims. After all, if she had not gone out after dark unescorted/worn such scanty clothing/left her window unlocked/invited her date in for coffee/gone to that party where she was drugged/refused to wear a plate steel chastity/given her daddy the wrong idea by hugging him affectionately she would not have been raped. The man bears no responsibility for his falling for feminine wiles. The slutty little Jezebels must be punished for leading men into sin and then having the audacity to kill an innocent baby who after it is born is under the Lord's Protection, not theirs!

I should point out that they (at least the anti-abortion advocates I have talked to) aren't intending to shame women so much as they are intending to save a life (that of the unborn baby). They literally believe that unborn babies are just as much people as you and I, and have just as many rights as an infant or toddler. It's not a farce. Now, there is a bit of what you're talking about their implicitly, but it's not the first intent. It is true, though, that when asked "don't women have a choice?" they respond "yes, but they made that choice when they spread their legs." Once conception takes place, they believe, there really is another life, and you can't just kill it. Yes it becomes misogynist, but they really do believe fetuses are persons.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

They might tell themselves that, but that can only be true if they won't make an exception for rape, incest, etc. After all, if a fetus is a baby, would they support bashing a newborn's brains all over the hospital floor because the mother was raped? It doesn't make sense if the goal is to protect the fetus, only if the goal is to punish the mother (who is not sinful enough to be punished if it was rape).