Abortion laws spark court battles

Two new laws being challenged in the Oklahoma courts would give the state some of the strictest abortion laws in the country by forcing women to answer questions about race and their relationships, and to listen to a doctor talk them through an ultrasound.

[les1489]

This county and its laws are doubled tongued. A woman can kill an unborn child because its not considered alive until full term birth. But a person will get a murder charge for killing a mother and her unborn child or the child in the womb of mother that survives a accident. This is a doulble standard and should be corrected. Either these mothers who get these abortions without life threating problems need to go jail or release and aquitt those people who have killed the children still in the womb that the laws would have it's ok to aboort under laws supporting abortion. Personally I say they both go to jail. It's murder on both accounts.

[offtopic deek]

boolsheet. the fetal homicide laws are in place to protect a pregnant woman from having an abortion she did not choose. even if she did choose that option, she would most likely NOT choose to have it performed by a gun-wielding criminal or a drunk driver. DUH.

[mskimberlyclark]

Oklahoma needs to read the United States Constitution. You can't just order women around like slaves, forcing them into physical and psychological procedures that are invasive, intrusive and have no legal basis. This is horrifying government intrusion into personal lives. Republicans would never stand for this kind of govermental intervention into their lives in other areas. Oklahoma needs to have some legal and moral standards that are consistent with laws protecting privacy.

[Lee Barry]

There should be no questions asked period...it is the right of the Mother. Also,any and all religious orders need to mind thier own business,it has nothing to do with them,the government,or those that would hinder the Mother should abortion be her choice.

[Ocean56]

mskimberlyclark wrote:

Oklahoma needs to read the United States Constitution. You can't just order women around like slaves, forcing them into physical and psychological procedures that are invasive, intrusive and have no legal basis. This is horrifying government intrusion into personal lives. Republicans would never stand for this kind of govermental intervention into their lives in other areas. Oklahoma needs to have some legal and moral standards that are consistent with laws protecting privacy.

I totally agree, but apparently, many OK legislators are religious extremists, who would prefer to see the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights ripped into shreds and replaced with toxic biblical law.

The way I see it, this is a highly dangerous and abusive law, because it can put women at real risk of actual harm, especially if an abusive ex or current boyfriend/husband got hold of such information. Even if her name isn't revealed, it obviously gives just about everything else.

[BobbyLaw666]

<<<This county and its laws are doubled tongued.>>

No.. you are just too dense to understand them...

<<< A woman can kill an unborn child because its not considered alive until full term birth.>>

wrong! Everyone knows a fetus is alive if it is living. The law says it isn't a person and that's the criteria -- Personhood.

<<<<But a person will get a murder charge for killing a mother and her unborn child or the child in the womb of mother that survives a accident.>>

Not if it was simply an accident. If a gravid woman walks in front of a bus and her fetus is killed, the bus driver will not receive any criminal charges if he didn't do anything illegal.

<<<<This is a doulble standard and should be corrected.>>

It's not a "double standard." Accidents happen... you can only get a criminal charge if you did it intentionally or with recklessness...

Like DUI and killing a fetus. Vehicular homicide. You didn't set out to kill anyone but by driving drunk, you were negligent and reckless in causing a fetal death!

<<<<Either these mothers who get these abortions without life threating problems need to go jail>>

Why?? The law says abortion is legal during the first trimester... period. you don't need to have a "life threatening problem" or any reason at all to obtain a legal abortion. How do you propose jailing a person who has not broken the law?

<<<or release and aquitt those people who have killed the children still in the womb that the laws would have it's ok to aboort under laws supporting abortion. >>

Because aborting a fetus without the consent of the woman is illegal abortion. People who commit illegal abortions should go to prison.

<<<Personally I say they both go to jail. It's murder on both accounts. >>

According to the law, you are wrong, Pizda......

[Dan]

Ocean56 wrote:

<quoted text>
I totally agree, but apparently, many OK legislators are religious extremists, who would prefer to see the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights ripped into shreds and replaced with toxic biblical law.
The way I see it, this is a highly dangerous and abusive law, because it can put women at real risk of actual harm, especially if an abusive ex or current boyfriend/husband got hold of such information. Even if her name isn't revealed, it obviously gives just about everything else.

Who would reveal the information to the abusive man other than an employee of the clinic (under penalty of law)? They're the only ones asking it and recording it. Recall that they already get their names and addresses. What's different with this scenario?

[Dan]

Lee Barry wrote:

There should be no questions asked period...it is the right of the Mother. Also,any and all religious orders need to mind thier own business,it has nothing to do with them,the government,or those that would hinder the Mother should abortion be her choice.

How does this abridge the right of the woman? She still will receive the procedure, right?

If I receive any medical services, I have to divulge detail about myself. I still receive the care.

[Conservative Democrat]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Who would reveal the information to the abusive man other than an employee of the clinic (under penalty of law)? They're the only ones asking it and recording it. Recall that they already get their names and addresses. What's different with this scenario?

If this law was to pass, the state would be entitled to have the information in the questionaire. And that's not only a violation of HIPAA laws, but the information sought to be collected, which the law would make mandatory, is a blatant infringement on citizens' reasonable expectation of privacy, notwithstanding that it isn't medically necessary. Here read the bill and please pay particular attention to pages 9 - 11:

http://www.sos.state.ok.us/documents/Legislat...

Fortunately, two circuit judges have stopped this law until the Oklahoma Supreme Court rules on its consitutionality, according to the Oklahoma State Constitution. I have a feeling this will end up at the SCOTUS' steps.

[Conservative Democrat]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
How does this abridge the right of the woman? She still will receive the procedure, right?
If I receive any medical services, I have to divulge detail about myself. I still receive the care.

Yes you'd have to divulge details about yourself. However, you wouldn't be asked to divulge your race, or your financial status, or who's your significant other, or your social status, or how much education you have, or the reason for which you're seeking medical care, or whether you're having relationship problems or unemployed. Would you?

How do you deduce this information to be medically necessary, except perhaps to treat mental health, or behavioral problems?

[Dan]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes you'd have to divulge details about yourself. However, you wouldn't be asked to divulge your race, or your financial status, or who's your significant other, or your social status, or how much education you have, or the reason for which you're seeking medical care, or whether you're having relationship problems or unemployed. Would you?
How do you deduce this information to be medically necessary, except perhaps to treat mental health, or behavioral problems?

They get financial information from me now. They ask if I will pay or if they can bill an insurance company. They ask for employment information. That's not medically necessary information.

When I ask to see a doctor, they certainly do ask me why I what I want to be seen for.

[Dan]

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
If this law was to pass, the state would be entitled to have the information in the questionaire. And that's not only a violation of HIPAA laws, but the information sought to be collected, which the law would make mandatory, is a blatant infringement on citizens' reasonable expectation of privacy, notwithstanding that it isn't medically necessary. Here read the bill and please pay particular attention to pages 9 - 11:
http://www.sos.state.ok.us/documents/Legislat...
Fortunately, two circuit judges have stopped this law until the Oklahoma Supreme Court rules on its consitutionality, according to the Oklahoma State Constitution. I have a feeling this will end up at the SCOTUS' steps.

Thanks for the link-I read it

They're asking for a lot of information, granted.

Given your noted objection to it being asked for at all, is there, in your opinion, an intrinsic harm in obtaining this information?

[Bitner]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
They get financial information from me now. They ask if I will pay or if they can bill an insurance company. They ask for employment information. That's not medically necessary information.
When I ask to see a doctor, they certainly do ask me why I what I want to be seen for.

Do they post that infor to a website that anyone can access? Why do you have such a hard time being honest?

[Dan]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
Do they post that infor to a website that anyone can access? Why do you have such a hard time being honest?

This is really a matter of reading comprehension as opposed to "honesty", Bitner.

No mention is made anywhere of posting individual survey responses on any website nor making the individual responses available to the public.

What IS mentioned as something to be posted is statistical detail concerning medical complications resulting from the procedures. That's it.

[Dan]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
Do they post that infor to a website that anyone can access? Why do you have such a hard time being honest?

I re-read it and the sentence is clumsy, but at worst it would catalogue responses and report them statistically.

STILL not individual responses, so no, one could not deduce the identity of their "SO" from what would be reported.

[Dan]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
Do they post that infor to a website that anyone can access? Why do you have such a hard time being honest?

I'm quite sure that if I searched for stats for medical patients who had or didn't have insurance, or for how many unemployed people have seen a doctor, I'd get a hit from some agency.

Dos that mean I ro my SO could pick me out from those stats?

[Bitner]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
This is really a matter of reading comprehension as opposed to "honesty", Bitner.
No mention is made anywhere of posting individual survey responses on any website nor making the individual responses available to the public.
What IS mentioned as something to be posted is statistical detail concerning medical complications resulting from the procedures. That's it.

And you are going to maintain that many of those questions wouldn't identify a woman to her husband/bf?

Yes, it is a question of your honesty. Or lack thereof.

[Dan]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
And you are going to maintain that many of those questions wouldn't identify a woman to her husband/bf?
Yes, it is a question of your honesty. Or lack thereof.

Wel, duh-yes they would IF they saw it. When would they see the individual survey unless she ran a copy off and showed him?

[Dan]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
And you are going to maintain that many of those questions wouldn't identify a woman to her husband/bf?
Yes, it is a question of your honesty. Or lack thereof.

Also, they aren't administering this thing under oath. The honesty of the responses is not guranteed.

[Conservative Democrat]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the link-I read it
They're asking for a lot of information, granted.
Given your noted objection to it being asked for at all, is there, in your opinion, an intrinsic harm in obtaining this information?

You're welcome. I believe there is an instinsic harm. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that the harm is plausibly imminent. Simple. For a legislative body to demand that for one medical procedure this information is given is to establish a precedent of requiring this information for any medical procedure with which the legislature may disagree, especially those who have been addressed by the SCOTUS. It's true that the information in those records is protected by HIPAA, but that can be waived by signing a release of records. And if for some reason that information gets released to the scum of my profession (ambulance chasing PI lawyers), I'd hate to see just ONE person be adversely affected by that information becoming public.

YOur thoughts???