Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
New Oklahoma Abortion Law: Going Too Far
Posts
If they want treatment, i'd advise them that best practice insists i take x-rays, depending on hospital policy, i would then generally tell them the consequences of no treatment, give them some meds, and send them on their way. I'm not risking causing further harm to the patient because of a lack of information due to a test which is judged to be harmless in the conext of the injury/condition. Similarly for ultrasounds.
These women want/need the abortion. If they didnt want the abortion, they could simply walk out and avoid abortion and ultrasound. That is why i suspect their is a medical basis for taking these ultrasounds. I could be wrong, but again, there is an information vacuum.
This is just a step above hospital policy, it's government policy instead. I don't find that overly distressing, a politician's job is, for all intents, to create policy.
I've been to Oklahoma, southern Missouri, western Kansas (well, actually all of Kansas), Louisiana, Kentuky, Georgia, and Texas (though only El Paso).
I will say that this is exactly what I expect out of Oklahoma, or really from any of those places except maybe Texas. Largely because Texas is a large and varied enough that that I'll not generalize based solely on what I experienced in El Paso. That, and El Paso wasn't entirely fundietastic.
But I want to know if Oklahoma is as retarded as Florida in requiring women to pay for them. Anyone know? That's just another can of worms.
Ah, and if it requires a vaginal ultrasound that seems like a fairly invasive one to boot. Go Oklahoma! Bravely forging new trails into fuckedupdom!
EDIT: Also, I suggest you keep it down radroadkill...they'll hear you, and if they haven't already done so I'm sure they'll love that idea as well.
o_O
Please to being not so reactionary. Does anyone have a link? Their online system looks like a 9th grader put it together. Does the language specifically say the highest resolution image, or a high resolution image? There may be more than enough wiggle room for their democrat Attorney General to issue a relatively favorable reading of the bill.
Click on basic search form on the left side and then type SB 1878 under measure number. You can then download the house amendment.
Doctors have to post a sign saying "no one can force you to have an abortion"
And you can get fined $10,000 if you don't
Section 12, outlining the ultrasound requirement
All sorts of bad things if you don't comply
Didn't see any mention of who pays for the procedure.
edit: Billing for a medically unnecessary procedure is $10,000 per instance, by the by.
Those are both unbelievably morally objectionable.
I got understandably upset about this, but yeah I still think these legislators are evil.
This blog here is among several sources which note a doctor is required to perfom the type of Ultrasound that will produce the clearest image, i.e. a Vaginal Ultrasound in most cases. I'm not too eager to cite a blog for obvious reasons.
EDIT: Thanks, Medopine!
In any case it's still an invasion of privacy. A doctor should never be forced to do anything that would override the patient's consent. If a woman wants an abortion sans Ultrasound, even if the doctor thinks the ultrasound is medically nessessary (which again is a rare case) then that is absoluetly her right. The doctor might refuse treatment in this rare case, but at least they (the doctor and woman) were able to make those decisions for themselves.
And it's pretty clear in this bill the doctor will be punished for violating this law, even though obeying this law may violate their own professional or personal ethics. It seems to be written to trap the doctors between a rock and a hard place, obviously. Damned if they do (violate ethics, insurance companies can come after them) damned if they don't (fines and liscense to work in Ok revoked) situation.
Doctors will land it in court first. Unless that state is downright strange, I don't know a single doctor who would do this, even the ones who object to abortion.
The bill doesn't count "prescription of contraceptives" as abortions.
It's so obvious the point of this law is to crack down on those crazy "abortionists" who force everyone around them to help them perform abortions on women they trick into coming in to the clinic. All so they can make money muahahaha!
Clearly I do not understand your definition of evil.
In this case, I don't think the argument of forcing a procedure works, as far as medical ethics, as the woman has an (terrible) option of not having the abortion at all.
As far as "whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly," what is the actual difference in display between the two methods? Is there some minor benefit to the display in some manner, for the abdominal version?
If I'm reading that right, it isn't just abortion procedures that they can object to participating in.
http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=pelvus&bhcp=1
Yup, right on the money: casting your opponents (doctors, gay people, atheists, Christians, Americans, etc.) as eeeeevil is a pretty common and often horrifingly effective tactic. It can also be hilariously ridiculous.
Mind you, not that these legislators actually believe gay muslim abortionists are trying to take over America by killing all the white babies, all with the help of Barack Hussein Obama and the ACLU. They just say that so the ignorant, fearful bigots out there vote for them. Pandering to the lowest common denomenator, if you will. It's actually a pretty smart thing to do, if you look at in a "how to remain popular" way. Of course some politicans are ignorant, fearful bigots.
Greeeat.
"If we can't make it illegal, we're sure going to fuck with them while they're doing it.
It's stuff like this that makes me cringe every time I think how close the Bible Belt is located to me (I'm in Denver and Colorado Springs is on the fringes of the Bible Belt).
Pretty much.
And ask her if she has talked about this to the father, because, he may have interest in raising the child**.
**Once he's out of prison for...you know...the rape.
Oklahoma is surrounded by States which (to my knowledge) are much more lenient on abortions and the restrictions thereof. And of course it's expensive to travel, but is it more expensive than a medical procedure that women don't want or need?
~The Management
If they can afford it.
Keep in mind the Republican majorities in Oklahoma are huge, and Tom Coburn still won his senate seat after this little gem:
Your state's a shithole of intolerance because it chooses to be, you don't get to bitch when people have come to expect it to be.
Or is it just implied by default?