As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
New Oklahoma Abortion Law: Going Too Far
Curly_Brace
Robot GirlMimiga VillageRegistered User regular
Robot GirlMimiga VillageRegistered User regular
Abortion Bill Veto Overturned by OK Legislature
To summarize: A newly-created law in Oklahoma requires doctors to perform an ultrasound on any woman before she is able to recieve an abortion. The doctors are not longer just required to inform her of the potential complications. There are no exemptions for victims of rape or incest.
The story does not mention it, but the bill also requires the doctor to use the best Ultrasound method to recieve the best picture. Which in most cases means performing a Vaginal Ultrasound. This procesure is uncomfrotable to say the least, and now it is against the law for the woman or the doctor to refuse this often painful and distressing procedure. Again, no exceptions for rape vicitims.
This saddens and angers me. Never before have I seen an anti-abortion bill go so far. Treating women who want an abortion as ignorant of the consequences was bad enough. But now women must experience a uncomfortable and sometime painful procedure. And the doctor can be fined or worse if they refuse to do so. It is insane to subject victims of rape, abuse and/or incest to a painful medical proedure. Even if they say no, it doesn't matter. Even if the doctor is technically violating their Hypocratic Oath by violating and hurting a rape victim, they have to do it or they will break the law.
I've shared my feelings. Now what do you think? Are you angry, shocked? Do you think this is a case of "good intentions" going too far? Are you an Oklahoman, and if so how do you feel about this new law? Is the story I linked biased, is this bill not as bad as I think it is? Are there any doctors or lawyers who care to weigh in on this?
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - The Oklahoma Legislature voted Thursday to override Gov. Brad Henry's veto of a bill that would require doctors to perform an ultrasound on a woman planning an abortion.
Henry, a Democrat, vetoed the Republican-sponsored bill Wednesday night, saying it was "unconscionable" to require victims of rape and incest to undergo the ultrasound procedure.
Sen. Todd Lamb, who introduced the bill, said Henry was "factually inaccurate" to assert that the bill forces a woman to view an ultrasound conducted before an abortion.
According to language in the bill, however, doctors must provide an explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting and "display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them."
The Senate, which is split with 24 Democrats and 24 Republicans, voted 37-11 for the override. The House, where Republicans have a 57-44 edge, voted to override by a margin of 81-15. The votes came with little discussion in either legislative body.
It is the first time Henry has been overridden in his two terms as governor. In fact, it was the first time a bill has been overridden since Democrat David Walters was governor in the early 1990s. His successor, Republican Frank Keating, was not overridden in eight years.
Henry said he knew it would be an uphill battle to sustain the veto, "but I thought it was important to fight to protect rape and incest victims from additional distress.
"I do not think it is morally responsible for the state to victimize those victims for a second time by forcing them to undergo an ultrasound and hear a detailed description of it after they have made the difficult and heart-wrenching decision to end their pregnancy," he said.
To summarize: A newly-created law in Oklahoma requires doctors to perform an ultrasound on any woman before she is able to recieve an abortion. The doctors are not longer just required to inform her of the potential complications. There are no exemptions for victims of rape or incest.
The story does not mention it, but the bill also requires the doctor to use the best Ultrasound method to recieve the best picture. Which in most cases means performing a Vaginal Ultrasound. This procesure is uncomfrotable to say the least, and now it is against the law for the woman or the doctor to refuse this often painful and distressing procedure. Again, no exceptions for rape vicitims.
This saddens and angers me. Never before have I seen an anti-abortion bill go so far. Treating women who want an abortion as ignorant of the consequences was bad enough. But now women must experience a uncomfortable and sometime painful procedure. And the doctor can be fined or worse if they refuse to do so. It is insane to subject victims of rape, abuse and/or incest to a painful medical proedure. Even if they say no, it doesn't matter. Even if the doctor is technically violating their Hypocratic Oath by violating and hurting a rape victim, they have to do it or they will break the law.
I've shared my feelings. Now what do you think? Are you angry, shocked? Do you think this is a case of "good intentions" going too far? Are you an Oklahoman, and if so how do you feel about this new law? Is the story I linked biased, is this bill not as bad as I think it is? Are there any doctors or lawyers who care to weigh in on this?
Curly_Brace on
0
Posts
I personally believe that it's a stressful, fucked-up time for any woman, regardless of why she's in there, and forcing the doctors to mind-fuck her further is pretty messed up, regardless of their motives.
Additionally, who would have paid for the ultrasound? They aren't cheap.
How much you want to bet the state isn't going to cover the procedure either? Or the insurance companies. That's dumping a big expense on someone's lap for an unnecessary test.
Har har har, it's demn dat darn southies. Have you ever been to Oklahoma or have any basis to make such a wild claim? Or are you just speculating because it's the South, as per the usual memorandum around here?
A few blogs have claimed that the woman pays for it as a part of the abortion. Unless she has insurance* that's a lot of money. SHe might as well just cross the state line.
*Unless of course the insurance company doesn't pay for abortions. And I'm not sure but I suspect state-funded health care in OK doesn't cover abortions either.
And honestly I have yet to meet any woman who doesn't understand the physical, moral and psychological consequences of an abortion. It's a potential life, we get it. I mean they even skew the information. Most states that have these "informed consent" laws make sure whatever the doctor has to tell the woman omits facts about miscarriages and stillbirths. Abortion isn't the only way a fetus can die, but God forbid we let women know that!
insurance companies will fight paying for something so unnecessary tooth and nail no matter what the law says.
Does anyone have a link to the actual bill language?
It's part of the Bible Belt.
Don't leave me hanging here Oklahoma!
I hate being male sometimes.
Huh for the first time in a long time I'm actually happy insurance companies work they way they do. This is actually entirely possible, and while not ironic would be some sort of nice karmic justice I think.
Oh, but Tach... the bill says "the woman can avert her eyes" away from the image of the fetus! No seriously it does... but yeah moot point! The pain caused, the violation of body and privacy, the possible forceable breaking of the Hypocratic oath. Showing the woman a grainy picture of a tiny thing is the least bad thing.
Also, I am wondering: does this appy to woman who try to get the morning after pill too? An ultrasound then would be laughable, but of course not beyond the actions of these insane, evil people. This bill also restricts the use of the most popular "abortion pill" too, so it makes me wonder.
I personally think it's disgusting. But I'm definitely not your average Oklahoman either. I support abortion and all this bill does is make the process as difficult, embarrassing, and guilt-ridden as possible. Am I surprised? Not really. Am I appalled? Damn right.
But, if they say it 5 more times, to be sure, they'll get it... just like arguing on the internet.
And an ultrasound would show fuckall at that point anyway.
In other news: grass is green.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Lets hope a doctor refuses, gets hit with this, and we can just take it to the courts where it'll be knocked the fuck down.
Oh yeah I wasn't at all disagreeing with you, just venting more of my shock, really. Which yeah, is a little odd: me, of all people, actualliny being shocked at the inhumane, evil things people can do.
He he, thank you. That gave me a much-needed chuckle! :P
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Anyway you make an ultrasound sound like toture..
The physical aspect of ultrasound is not. torture. Lets just establish that.
Psychologically, im pretty unsure, aren't rape/incest (whom i imagine all the outrage is directed on behalf of?) victims going to have abortions fairly early? In which case, the picture looks nothing like a foetus at all to a lay person. As for the doc explaining the procedure, well, yeah? Docs always explain procedures they perform, they cant just do whatever they want to your body and not tell you whats going on.
So we're back to: is there any reason to perform the ultrasound medically. If there is, i think it would be worth it. Safer abortion, safer patient.
No, they are trying to guild the mother to not get the abortion if they "see" the shape of their unborn child on the monitor. For "unwanted" pregnancies for a "high school slut" who just wasn't taking any precautions, alright maybe (very very loosely) I could see trying to talk her out of it. But rape/incest?
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Also it's not the government's fucking job to talk people in or out of things. People have a right to do what they want with their bodies.
No, there is no "trying to talk her out of it" no matter who it is under whatever circumstances. She has reproductive rights and control of her own body. Giving her necessary information is acceptable, forcing unnecessary information in order to pressure her or change her mind because you think you know what's best for her is not.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
This is blatantly being billed as a way to fuck with the patient more. There's no medical, safety, or any other reason to do so than to show pictures to the patient in order to change their minds.
That's.. it's bad enough that I can see a lot of prosecution of doctors who simply refuse to participate in this travesty.
There are, obviously, medical reasons to perfom an ultrasound before an abortion. But it's not usually not medically nessessary.
And yes I doubt this appiles to users of the morning after pill. I was just wondering out loud about how far these folks are willing to take it. And andly cases of incestuous rape are often not reporter or discovered until later in the pregnancy. The woman in these cases is sometimes not able to safely seek out a doctor or morning after pill.
And a Vaginal Ultrasound can be uncomfortable and occasionally painful. Plus a woman in OK no longer has a right to refuse the Ultrasound. Whether she wants it or not, something may be placed up her vagina. Even if she was raped and abused. That is downright evil. The state is pretty much forcing doctors to perfom a medically unsessary procedure. No doubt many doctors will refuse to follow this law, and I hope the following court cases over-turn this law. This abosutely wrong and a horrible invasion of privacy.
Even if it was, why does the government have to mandate that doctors do it? If it is a necessary procedure that will aid in the safety of the abortion, doctors would be telling patients that and ultrasounds would be happening already.
In a normal pregnancy a ultrasound would be a pretty standard procedure though I don't think they'd ordinarily do it very early.
That's my other feeling here. Mandated procedures are never a good idea, really. On the whole, doctors tend to loathe legislative meddling in their profession as far as micromanaging which procedures they must use, and when. It doesn't do a lot besides take away the autonomy of both the patient and the doctor, and mess up the relationship between the two parties.
Well thats a highway to nowhere
I feel like we're missing information here, where is the justification for the bill? I presume the democrats and republicans who voted for it have their reasons, what were they? Without that information, you're simply filling the blanks with whatever agenda you feel they had. Cynicism will lead you to believe people want to hurt other people. I'd rather delay judgement on their motives until i see the reason for the bill.
Again, i know if i take x-rays of any patient im obligated to show them the pictures and explain what im doing. It's a staple of healthcare; anti-paternalism. The patient can refuse to look at them..and that option is given in this bill as well, if i read the first page right.
Oh, and women have to pay for it too- even if they don't want the procedure done. It's total bull.
as for the first argument adhoc the supreme court says otherwise