Is Oklahoma Abortion Law Designed To Intimidate Women?
A new law to take effect in Oklahoma in two weeks will require doctors provide detailed information about women who have abortions, information to be published on a public web site.
The law, which will take effect on Nov. 1, compels the Oklahoma Department of Health to publish data online on all abortion patients — including the woman’s race, marital status, financial circumstances, years of education, number of previous pregnancies, and her reason for seeking the abortion. Doctors who fail to provide such information will be criminally penalized and stripped of their medical licenses.
Oklahoma State Representative Dan Sullivan (pictured) authored the bill, and believes it will work to bring down the number unwanted pregnancies. “If there’s something that we can do to positively impact that segment of that population — and have a lowering effect on those rates — then we want to be able to look at what policy decisions we can make.”
So, the idea is that by intimidating women, they’ll be less likely to become pregnant?
big brother is watching…
October 20th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
My anti-abortion stance is pretty obvious…but I’m curious as to what this is actually doing.
It would be one thing if it was a law to educate women on what an abortion actually is doing to their fetus (baby), or to watch a video on what a fetus (baby) looks like at whatever stage of pregnancy that the abortion (killing) will occur, but what does this law do?
I don’t like when the government creates detailed lists of people…even for something as deplorable as abortion.
Lib Patriot Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:57 am
“but what does this law do?”
It attempts to intimidate them by insinuating they will be selected by anti-abortion groups for personal harassment.
“I don’t like when the government creates detailed lists of people…even for something as deplorable as abortion.”
And that’s to your credit, Flap. Even though we disagree on a number of things, including abortion, I have to admire your ability to hold onto all your principles without selling out one principle for the convenience of promoting another principle.
flap Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“without selling out one principle for the convenience of promoting another principle.”
Hehe, don’t admire me, because you’ll be hating me the next minute.
I just don’t see the purpose in this law. I think child molesters are generally useless trash and I disagree with “sexual offender lists.”
October 20th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
This will be shot down by a higher court. Roe v Wade wasn’t about abortion, it was about privacy rights. This is no different.
flap Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“it was about privacy rights”
So if I kill my child, as long as it’s in my house, it’s okay? If I have a slave, as long as it’s on my plantation, it’s okay? If I have an abortion, as long as it’s in my body, it’s okay?
TDro319 Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Sure. I mean it was okay to sacrifice our soldiers in an unnecessary war and you didn’t seem to have any problem with that.
fede Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“So if I kill my child, as long as it’s in my house, it’s okay? If I have a slave, as long as it’s on my plantation, it’s okay? If I have an abortion, as long as it’s in my body, it’s okay?”
Murder is illegal, slavery has been abolished, abortions are legal and yes, as long as it’s in your body, and you don’t force one on another person.
Personally, I wouldn’t have one, and I realize you don’t approve, but it is a legal procedure, a personal and private matter that should be between a woman and her physician, not to be reported on a web site.
flap Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 3:46 pm
“slavery has been abolished, abortions are legal”
So a law dictates morality/ethicality and the way things SHOULD be? So if slavery were legal, then you would be “pro-choice” for slavery?
I don’t think it should be reported on a website…I am in agreement on that point.
“I mean it was okay to sacrifice our soldiers in an unnecessary war”
A lot of soldiers and civilians died in WWII, and you seem to support that mass murder by evil FDR and Truman.
fede Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 4:50 pm
“So a law dictates morality/ethicality and the way things SHOULD be? So if slavery were legal, then you would be “pro-choice” for slavery?”
The beauty of this question is that I don’t need to answer it because slavery isn’t legal, if slavery were legal, abortion would still be legal, but, as we do not deem slavery to be socially acceptable it wouldn’t be right and I can say NO, I would not be pro-slavery.
Alas, I did not live in biblical times or in any other century that slavery was the norm, so I cannot say what I would have done then. Although, being a woman, I would more than likely have been a slave, or at the very least oppressed and would not have had the opportunity to determine what was right or make decisions for myself.
We can go on and on to try to determine what is moral/ethical. Personally, I prefer to keep abortions legal. Many people would die by having “back alley” abortions. Then you would have the probability of the woman dying. Or is an embryo the only being you’re concerned with?
How about stopping abortion BEFORE it is needed. Talk to your children. Schools should be involved as in sex education. Passing out condoms, teaching respect for ones own body. The music, movie, and ad industry could do with being a little more responsible in the way they portray sex. The preaching of abstinence is NOT working.
flap Reply:
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“we do not deem slavery to be socially acceptable”
Why not?
Because, perhaps, it is taking a GROUP of people and relegating them to non-human property status, much like an unborn child is supposed “property” of a woman?
“Then you would have the probability of the woman dying. Or is an embryo the only being you’re concerned with?”
When a woman drowns her children in a bathtub, doesn’t she risk injury? So should we make that process easier? I just don’t see how that is a convincing argument: “In the process of murdering her own child, a woman could get hurt!” Tough crap.
Now, I’ve said to my liberal friends on here that I agree with keeping 1st trimester abortions legal because at conception it’s a little bit murkier and harder to prove that we’re dealing with a human life. Embryonic stage only lasts until 2 months, then we’re talking about a fetus. 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should be banned with very few exceptions. Those pregnancies that are causing the mother life-threatening issues can be ended by DELIVERING THE BABY, not KILLING IT.
EricG Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I wonder how long before you learn to actually debate an issue and not just spout your tired old routine of noise…
You can’t kill you child because you’re a man. If you had one in your belly and you could die from it being there, you should have the right to do as you will in a free society. It is the job of the parents and the society as a whole to discourage and dissuade people from having unwanted pregnancies, not the state / feds.
You can’t have a slave. I know this upsets you deep down but you can’t enslave the other races anymore. It’s time to move on from the slavery issue unless you want to talk about human trafficking.
Yes, if you were a woman and had an abortion in your own body that is your liberty as a free citizen.
–
How much decision does a little boy in Afghanistan have about whether he lives or dies when a missile strike the roof of his home?
–
You’re not “Pro-Life”, you’re “Anti-Choice”.
Which really means you’re a fascist.
And considering you are pro-war, you are a hypocrite to the highest order.
All of you so-called “Pro-Lifers” are.
flap Reply:
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
EricG, you’re spouting leftist political garbage again.
Why can’t I kill my infant legally? How is that substantively different than an abortion? The answer is, which you would never admit to because it would violate your leftist views, that it is NOT different. You should be ashamed for embracing politics over young human life.
Do you know what SCIENCE is, EricG? I’m sure you’ll trumpet science when speaking of global warming or evolution, but strangely when we discuss abortion everything becomes political and we start using pep rally terms like “pro-choice” and “pro-life.”
Do you think WWII was a necessity? If so, you’re a hypocrite to the highest order.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:03 am
The people who write laws like this are the allies of rapists and predators.
Lib Patriot Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 3:05 am
They likewise want to contribute to the shaming and victimization of women, for sure.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:33 am
They are home grown terrorists. They have the same need to over-power defenseless women.
Blah!
Lib Patriot Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:59 am
Which is probably another reason why Average James refers to them as the American Taliban.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:33 am
The sperm donors should also be listed. And while they’re at it, why don’t you include mug shots of the women?
October 21st, 2009 at 9:58 am
All this is going to do is force them to go underground to another state or country.
What good it isn’t trying to embarrass these women.
Basically is is racist to single out women who have abortions,
woman’s race, marital status, financial circumstances, years of education, number of previous pregnancies, and her reason for seeking the abortion.
The forgot one, political status, or are they afraid that there be too many Republicans.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Oklahoma’s legislature has also passed Senate Bill 1878, which means there will be no abortions until an ultrasound is performed. It can be vaginally or abdominal, neither doctor nor patient can determine which one will be performed. You cannot opt out of the procedure and still have an abortion. There is no excepttion for rape or incest. By law, women must be told where to find information on fetal development, and are then referred to a location where a free ultrasound is performed.
For doctors, failure to perform this procedure is deemed an “unprofessional conduct” and the medical board can remove their license, the physician can be fined $10,000-$100,000.
Oklahoma is ranked 34 out of 47 states in abortions. This means nine out of every 1,000 abortions performed in women ages 15-44 result in an abortion. Statistics from statehealthfacts.org.(2005)
These tactics are merely to embarrass or guilt these women out of abortions. I believe them to be a violation of doctor/patient privacy. A tactic to try to deny women of a procedure which is legal and a personal and private matter.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Maybe the unmarried women can wear a scarlet “A”
October 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
This is disgusting and un-American.
Why don’t we publish everyone’s medical records (starting with the Republicans of course) online?
Why not?
Don’t you want everyone in the world to know all about when you go in for a check-up?
What are you hiding!?!
You criminal!!!
October 21st, 2009 at 3:41 pm
So, the idea is that by intimidating women, they’ll be less likely to become pregnant?
Is it intimidating? Not sure how posting information on a woman’s demographics is personally intimidating anyone. Perhaps information could be found in these numbers. Maybe there are segments of the population that can be reached via education to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. Or, maybe, we can begin to see that there are women having 4-5-6 abortions a piece.
A tactic
Actually, it’s a law. And it is now as “legal” to post this information as it is “legal” to have an abortion.
OldLefty Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 8:49 pm
So once again, no problem for those who can afford to go out of state, just a violation of privacy for those who can not.
We’ll see if it were your daughter ….especially if the pregnancy was caused by an uncle or brother.
The Wahhabis will be proud.
flap Reply:
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
“We’ll see if it were your daughter ….especially if the pregnancy was caused by an uncle or brother.”
Oh, yeah, I would want my granddaughter or grandson to be murdered because of someone else’s evil deeds. Perfectly sensible.
Premeditated, planned murder of innocent life is morally wrong.
However, I’ve said that 1st trimester abortions should be kept legal, so there’s the out for the killing.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:37 pm
We’ll see if it were your daughter
My daughter will be raised to accept the responsibility of her choices.
especially if the pregnancy was caused by an uncle or brother.
Virtually no one supports the concept of denying an abortion to victims of crimes or where the health of the mother/CHILD is in question.
OldLefty Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 9:07 pm
‘Virtually no one supports the concept of denying an abortion to victims of crimes or where the health of the mother/CHILD is in question.”
…………………………………..
YOU can say, “My daughter will be raised to accept the responsibility of her choices.”
…but it’s not always her choice, and it’s nobody else’s right to pretend to know OR be in a position to pass judgment…..again, that’s why it’s a private matter.
Of course, no problem for the rich.
John Galt Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 9:11 pm
but it’s not always her choice,
You are mixing up circumstances. If it’s not her choice, then I am guessing that she is the victim of a crime. And again, virtually no one support denying the abortion to victims of crimes.
If, on the other hand, she CHOOSES to have sex and gets pregnant, it is my expectation that she have that child. Again, notice the key word–Child. She would have the child. As in, you know, person.
If you feel that privacy rights Ought be enforced, then I ask you to consider the right to privacy being afforded her -ahem- child.
OldLefty Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Whether or not it is an blastocyst, embryo, fetus or child, is a matter of opinion.
If you are so sure, then you better demand that the product of EVERY menstrual cycle be examined in case a death certificate needs to be issued.
I will leave it up to the individual and the doctor.
As for her choice, there are a million reasons why it happens, from an abusive relationship, incest, pressure from family and friends to hold onto a boyfriend,…..
You DON”T know, and you don’t need to know, it’s nobody’s business.
At this point, just get back to me when you care as much about the children killed by bombing and later by cluster bombs in unnecessary wars, and the babies exposed to rocket fuel in breast milk in 18 states.
And get back to me when you are as passionate about the fathers taking as much responsibility, ( who can be easily identified ), even if it means losing HIS scholarships or telling HIS wife and kids everything, including that the money they thought was available to them will now have to be shared
I notice you ignore the fact that this only effects poor women.
John Galt Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Whether or not it is an blastocyst, embryo, fetus or child, is a matter of opinion.
It’s not, actually. It’s a matter of law. Which is why drunk drivers can be charged with double homicide when they kill a pregnant woman.
If you are so sure, then you better demand that the product of EVERY menstrual cycle be examined in case a death certificate needs to be issued.
A touch dramatic. Even for you Lefty.
You DON”T know, and you don’t need to know, it’s nobody’s business.
The child might disagree with you.
get back to me when you care as much about the children killed by bombing and later by cluster bombs in unnecessary wars
I am guessing you are talking about Iraq*? I tend to agree that we went into Iraq for political reasons. But, just for argument’s sake, let’s talk about the human toll there in Iraq.
Since the war began in 2003, the civilian casualty rate has been halved. At least. It is far FAR better to be an average citizen of Iraq now then before we invaded.
And get back to me when you are as passionate about the fathers taking as much responsibility, ( who can be easily identified ), even if it means losing HIS scholarships or telling HIS wife and kids everything, including that the money they thought was available to them will now have to be shared
This I resonate with you on. The fact that men are walking away and letting their families suffer is criminal. They should be brought to justice. Absolutely agree with you.
I notice you ignore the fact that this only effects poor women.
What are you talking about? Effects only poor women?
*I acknowledge the lack of symmetry in the whole “we did it for humanitarian reason…” line of arguing. For instance, what about Darfur? My point is this, there is LESS civilian death no than before.
OldLefty Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 10:04 pm
“It’s not, actually. It’s a matter of law. Which is why drunk drivers can be charged with double homicide when they kill a pregnant woman.”
“That is a political stunt. There is no law about when a human life begins, which is why we don’t require a death certificate.
As for, “The child might disagree with you.”
That’s still the mother’s and doctor’s business to decide if that is a child.
It doesn’t matter what the death toll is now, we caused immeasurable suffering there to those actually born.
I think the Iraqis, (especially those who suffered) will tell us in 20 or 30 years if the sacrifice we decided would be good for them was worth it.
At least we should learn to stop supporting Saddams in the future.
“What are you talking about? Effects only poor women?”
In the case of Okleehomee, rich women can go ANYWHERE, to another state or country if need be only the poor will be stuck there with private business made public.
OldLefty Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Good Night Everybody.
flap Reply:
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
“You DON”T know, and you don’t need to know, it’s nobody’s business.”
Just like if I have slaves working my plantation, it’s NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS LEFTY. Get out of my life! Don’t impose your anti-slavery views on me. My livelihood is at stake, here.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Sure, as long as we publish the names of everyone whoever bought a gun, their purpose for having a gun, what kind of gun, how many guns, how they intend to use the gun, whether or not they’ve taken gun safety classes, where they live, their race, salary, education, and marital status.
Actually, this makes better sense than publishing the data of women who’ve gotten abortions, which is a medical procedure and should be covered under federal HPPA laws.
John Galt Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Sure, as long as we publish the names of everyone whoever bought a gun,
Of course, ya know, ignore for a second the fact that the law doesn’t require the listing of names.
their purpose for having a gun, what kind of gun, how many guns, how they intend to use the gun, whether or not they’ve taken gun safety classes,
These are required today. It’s an interesting fact that a person is required to have a library card to borrow a book and a license to have a fish. But we let just anyone get pregnant.
crh3e Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
“But we let just anyone get pregnant.”
-well someone’s flirting with eugenics here. John your beef in that statement is with the maker, not human libs.
John Galt Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:36 pm
John your beef in that statement is with the maker, not human libs.
Except that referring to the “maker” is off limits when dealing with the “libs”.
crh3e Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
only in your head john
John Galt Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
only in your head john
Fair enough.
The maker would not have us abort our children.
crh3e Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
not exactly John, according to the maker it all depends……say for instance if you have a very deformed fetus developing inside you and you know life will be hell for that individual, my maker says, “Have Mercy for Christ’s sake!” After all, the maker desires mercy, not sacrifice, right?
flap Reply:
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“you know life will be hell for that individual”
Since the individual already exists, shouldn’t it be up to THAT individual and not you?
crh3e Reply:
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Flap, your response is lame…..I’m sure we can ask a fetus that question?!? If I’m a female with a severly deformed fetus, I’m getting an abortion. I’ve taken care of enough of the deformed to know the pain and suffering some experience, so depending on the severity of the problem, I think an abortion is the right thing to do. You would rather birth that fetus knowing it will suffer and expose it to a prolonged hell on earth. That’s where we disagree and I’ll leave it at that.
flap Reply:
October 24th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
“I’ve taken care of enough of the deformed to know the pain and suffering some experience”
Why don’t we kill already born deformed people, using that logic? Is that not reasonable? Don’t we owe that to them as a society?
“so depending on the severity of the problem, I think an abortion is the right thing to do.”
No, murdering someone because they are deformed is morally wrong. It’s no different than murdering your deformed infant. If you think it is reasonable to kill 1 year old deformed babies then I will accept your logic. Otherwise, it’s very flawed.
There is this crazy idea that you apparently espouse that an abortion somehow PREVENTS a life. No sir. No ma’am. The life exists. Just because the life is sequestered in a particular person’s womb gives no one a right to terminate that life, anymore than a baby being in MY house and eating MY food and using MY resources gives me the right to kill it. Very flawed logic.
Now, I will grant you that if a baby has 0% chance to survive outside of the womb, such as having no brain, then an abortion is probably a reasonable option if the parents desire it. Otherwise, you’re killing your child. Totally unacceptable mid-to-late term.
Until the time comes that our society allows parents to kill their deformed post-born children, pre-born children should be no different in the eyes of the law.
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:30 pm