Okla. Overides Veto, Passes Bills To Restrict Abortions

Oklahoma has enacted two bills intended to restrict abortions, overriding the Governor's vetos. The bills become effective immediately.

Under one law, women must listen to an ultrasound and hear a spiel describing the fetus.

Oklahoma’s law goes further [than those in other states] 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 law exempts doctors from malpractice suits for failing to tell prospective parents their fetus has birth defects.

Maybe Oklahama and Arizona can secede from the union. They deserve each other. We deserve better than both of them.

< Arizona Boycott Spreading to Tourism, Baseball | Lost Protoype iPhone Seller ID'd, Gizmodo Journo's Home Searched >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    and (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:24:04 PM EST
    apparently more are coming.  like the one that makes all information about abortions public.

    when have we EVER made medical information about ANYTHING public?

    they wouldnt even let them do that with AIDs.

    Yes, creepy (none / 0) (#11)
    by ZtoA on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:52:50 PM EST
    The new wave: Everyone will Know Everything about Everyone. And the stocks are back 'in' for behavior management, its just that now the stocks are virtual and uploadable.

    Medical records were recently misused by WellPoint in order to cancel coverage for breast cancer patients. Supposedly if a person does not reveal every last thing for their medical records they are committing fraud?


    It's gotten scary in the good ol' USA (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by mexboy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:31:41 PM EST
    What's with all the legislated control over people's lives?

    I think this is all about religion and imposing people's interpretation of their holy books on others.

    That first law is bad. The second one (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:37:49 PM EST
    is just completely and utterly freaking nuts. If you live in Oklahoma, go to another state to see a doctor.

    The second law (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:06:49 PM EST
    was drafted by diseased minds which should have been aborted before birth.  Does the state of Oklahoma intend to provide lifetime care for all its handicapped citizens?  Any ob-gyn. who unilaterally decides to prevent abortion of a defective fetus by leaving the parents in ignorance is making himself into a 'god'--thus smashing to smithereens the Ten Commandments.

    ps--written by the loving mother of a Downs adult, a mother who nonetheless understands that love can not be legislated and that 'saving' every baby will sentence some of those children to life in a virtual prison.

    Of course not (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:17:57 PM EST
    And we have those studies now that mothers of disabled children end up with a shortened life span, I suppose because of the stress.  But Oklahoma wants every child born so the state itself can attempt to kill it by denying it everything that it needs to live.  If Josh has shortened my life I don't think I mind so much, he has made it worth it but my child can talk to me and interact with me and I was always a very strong person.....just born that way.  I am not the average woman or the average mom because I can muster a crazy determination when needed, and for those not so crazy welcome to a lifetime of crippling stress and debilitating depressions that will never actually leave you.....even if eventually your child passes away from his/her deformities.  Oh yeah, and your marriage will fail too unless you are as big a freak as I am and marry someone equally as bizarre, the odds are so stacked against both of you it isn't even funny.  Enjoy life in Oklahoma though, if you wanted all this and voted to have these laws it could be true that you deserve what will happen to many of you.  Those more fortunate can act smug too and superior, as if God is happy with them and the rest of you are such losers you had it coming.

    Yep, MT, you know! (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:16:53 PM EST
    Have you ever had some sanctimonious idiot tell you 'God chose you to have Josh because you are so strong'?  If I was not strong to start with, having my daughter when I was 24 gsve me a  boot in the right direction.  I suppose that strength paid off as I raised my oldest and then three more.  (And as their father and I applied CPR to our marriege every so often because we were both determined to 'be there' for the oldest, who finally moved out when she was 43.)

    Don't know if I could do what you do everyday; my own road seems rather tame.  But I strongly suspect that, like me, you will be rolling along well into old age--because you too have collected the good stuff of life along the way.


    Josh is a binding force (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:23:05 PM EST
    I had to quit focusing on how we were changing and how much we were changing into something that was not beautiful and often times so heavy hearted and despairing, balanced upon only attempting to suffer a little less if we could somehow bring that about.  Now we have been forged into an amalgamation of sheer determination and must take forced breaks to "remember" how much we love each other (sometimes my husband says it reminds him of scheduled morale time and forced fun events that everyone must participate in in the Army).  We always laughed a lot together and we always enjoyed the slightly dry joke, I have noticed though that from the longterm stress our joint sense of dry humor often shocks people leading lives a little less desperate.

    yep-- (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:59:16 PM EST
    the jokes we told only where they could not be overheard:  "What do you mean, 'mentally challenged'?  She's never been mentally challenged in her life!"

    To tell the truth, we did not always like each other.  But we did love the kids, including the one that could never grow up.  Over years the world around us changed so that we lived less on the edge (may that somehow happen for Josh).  And, of course, never did she suffer physically; neither does she care nor understand what the world thinks of her. Our road was easier.


    Barbaric (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Lora on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:08:25 PM EST
    I can't help thinking that the total lack of support for reproductive rights for women at the national level has given the rabid right the green light to press their agenda at the state level.  Who is standing up for women?  ACLU?  Are you on this at all?

    More Apt (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:25:05 PM EST
    Linky not working (none / 0) (#9)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:28:55 PM EST
    Correct me if I'm wrong (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:23:31 PM EST
    But doesn't the first bill require that doctors use a vaginal probe in very early pregnancies (when most abortions are performed), because it gives a clearer picture?  So a rape victim who wants an abortion gets to.....get raped again, by the vaginal probe?  This is unconscionable. Absolutely barbaric.  The whole law is.  

    I really just don't get it, and I (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:42:44 PM EST
    probably never will.

    Any physician who would fail to be honest with his or her patient - and make no mistake - the woman sitting on the examining table, or in the office, is his or her patient - is acting in an unethical and negligent manner; having the legislature say it's okay and there's no legal consequence or recourse doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

    What's next?  What else will the tiny little minds taking up space in state legislatures decide patients don't really need to know?  Maybe we won't need to know that that little lump that is growing bigger is cancer, saving insurance companies thousands of dollars when the patient dies without treatment.  Maybe they will decide we don't need to know that we're diabetic - I mean, who really wants to spend years monitoring diet and having vision and circulation problems; maybe that whole diabetic coma thing won't be all that bad - like going to sleep, maybe.  And so much less expensive.

    Dangerous, dangerous ideas allowed to be legislated.  

    It would do my heart good to see a phalanx of Oklahoma ob/gyns standing up for the full, honest and open communication their patients should have an unqualified right to; the legislature deserves no less than a collective middle finger for ever coming up with this abominable idea, and so does any physician who would even consider going along with it.

    Exaclty (none / 0) (#22)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 11:25:37 PM EST
    they might be protected from lawsuits, but I wouldn't be shocked if even the conservative AMA stripped membership from any doctor who'd knowingly lie to patients.  Oh, and as has been mentioned- the first kid with a birth defect who dies due to this bill- is going to become a test case- there's literally no way this doesn't result in a doctor getting assaulted.

    I realize the intent (none / 0) (#1)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:21:50 PM EST
    of the second law is to allow doctors to lie to their patients to prevent abortions (ultra-skeevy) but wouldn't it also allow an almost blanket defense against malpractice for OB/GYNs I mean as long as the physician in question didn't directly cause the defect, he/she would be freed from liability, Doctor didn't say you shouldn't drink- well, the Doc was afraid doing so might make you abort, etc.

    If this doesn't break the outer limits (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:34:43 PM EST
    of "undue burden," nothing will. Of course, that's probably exactly the point.

    Always my little law school geek (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:58:21 PM EST
    Nobody makes me run for the google more :)  So, this undue burden thing, could this be something that would work in favor of the families who would have to endure and survive a person disabled from birth?  Does Oklahoma know how many kids who have deformities as severe as my son's have been abandoned and now are shuffled around the foster system?  Two to three surgeries a year and amputations being done on your babies is too much for many people to try to survive.  I would never tell someone they must have their child or they must abort that child, but not all people are capable of even doing this badly emotionally and financially.

    All depends on which side of the bed (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:03:27 PM EST
    Justice Kennedy wakes up on--assuming we can rely on Sotomayor and Steven's replacement (not a bad bet).

    Erm, *Stevens's* (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:16:20 PM EST
    Sotomayer is Dependable (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:19:10 PM EST
    Just spoke to a friend who is very close to those very close to Sotomayer. She is a true progressive, 100% guaranteed.

    I'm pretty confident about that (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:25:42 PM EST
    But of course, one never really knows.

    Liability is key to accreditation of hospitals. (none / 0) (#23)
    by observed on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:57:52 AM EST
    I know this because there is a ridiculous law being considered by the legislature where I live. This law would confer immunity from lawsuits at a hospital where he works, because he's such a wonderful man, blah blah.
    If the law is passed, I'm told the hospital could lose its certification. Stripping doctors of liability is verboten.
    I'm not sure how this would work in OK.
    I would make a request of OK hospitals if they plan to "comply" with this bill; those which say yes I would refer to the appropriate national organization with a complaint.

    The first law is reasonable ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by nyrias on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:13:15 PM EST
    the second is really bad.

    I don't see the harm of having the woman looks at what she is potentially giving up. It is called making a decision with MORE information.

    The second law is exactly the OPPOSITE of the first and give LESS info. In fact, birth defect information is HIGHLY relevant to a decision of abortion.

    Both laws are about information and do not do anything to actually restrict the choice though, to be fair.

    You may want to read more about the first one. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:22:13 PM EST
    I don't want to sound condescending, but I don't know whether you're aware of how many ultrasounds are done. It's not as simple or as easy as a wand over the belly. The Oklahoma law would require the provider to do ultrasound using either an abdominal or vaginal probe, whichever method will offer the clearer image. In early stages pregnancies, that usually means a vaginal probe. Mandated insertion of a vaginal probe into a woman as a prerequisite for her to gain access to what is, after all, a legal procedure?  If it's against her wishes, that's rape with an instrument. As if that wasn't bad enough, there's no exception for cases of rape or incest, so a rape victim who wants an abortion must be raped a second time by a medical provider in order to qualify for something that she should be entitled to under the law.

    The whole thing reeks.


    Question (none / 0) (#26)
    by nyjets on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:35:21 PM EST
    Wow, that I did not know. Does an abdominal probe work the same way?

    No. (none / 0) (#27)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:11:52 PM EST
    Abdominal probes are what you'll usually see in Hollywood versions -- the gel rubbed over the surface of the belly, and the wand applied externally. They work best when the fetus has reached a certain size.

    No matter (none / 0) (#28)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    Even if it was the presumably benign abdominal probe, it's still an unwanted procedure and an unwarranted obstacle. The whole idea is to induce guilt and fear in a woman requesting an abortion. Name one medical procedure a man goes through where he has to undergo a set of unrequested, unecessary, and unwanted procedures or unwanted "counseling" first. Not one.