Aroduc if a patient comes in with a hurt arm but refuses to have xrays done are you legally allowed to pin them down the the machine and force them?
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.
Of course an x-ray has a legitimate reason for treating a broken arm. An ultrasound for a abortion doesn't. how would you feel if they mandated a rectal exam for headaches? Just policy right? if the person doesn't want that blood clot in their head to explode why they should submit to an unnecessary test for no good reason.
It's Oklahoma. Nothing too surprising about this, unfortunately.
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?
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.
I don't agree with this bill at all because I'm with the camp that think it's trying to make it harder for women to get abortions or discourage them to do so.
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.
but of course not beyond the actions of these insane, evil people.
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.
Okay here are some excerpts from SB 1878, the bill (caveat: I googled this and found a document which I am assuming is the one that got passed, but there may have been some changes)
Doctors have to post a sign saying "no one can force you to have an abortion"
A. Any private office, freestanding outpatient clinic, or other facility or clinic in which abortions, other than abortions necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant female, are performed, induced, prescribed for, or where the means for an abortion are provided shall conspicuously post a sign in a location defined in subsection C of this section so as to be clearly visible to patients, which reads:
Notice: It is against the law for anyone, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you to have an abortion. By law, we cannot perform, induce, prescribe for, or provide you with the means for an abortion unless we have your freely given and voluntary consent. It is against the law to perform, induce, prescribe for, or provide you with the means for an abortion against your will. You have the right to contact any local or state law enforcement agency to receive protection from any actual or threatened physical abuse or violence.
B. The sign required pursuant to subsection A of this section shall be printed with lettering that is legible and shall be at least three-quarters-of-an-inch boldfaced type.
C. A facility in which abortions are performed, induced, prescribed for, or where the means for an abortion are provided that is a private office or a freestanding outpatient clinic shall post the required sign in each patient waiting room and patient consultation room used by patients on whom abortions are performed, induced, prescribed for, or who are provided with the means for an abortion. A hospital or any other facility in which abortions are performed, induced, prescribed for, or where the means for an abortion are provided that is not a private office or freestanding outpatient clinic shall post the required sign in each patient admission area used by patients on whom abortions are performed, induced, prescribed for, or by patients who are provided with the means for an abortion.
And you can get fined $10,000 if you don't
A. Any private office, freestanding outpatient clinic or other facility or clinic that fails to post a required sign in knowing, reckless, or negligent violation of this act shall be assessed an administrative fine of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). Each day on which an abortion, other than an abortion necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant female, is performed, induced, prescribed for, or where the means for an abortion are provided in a private office, freestanding outpatient clinic or other facility or clinic in which the required sign is not posted during any portion of business hours when patients or prospective patients are present is a separate violation.
B. An action may be brought by or on behalf of an individual injured by the failure to post the required sign. A plaintiff in an action under this subsection may recover damages for emotional distress and any other damages allowed by law.
Section 12, outlining the ultrasound requirement
A. Any abortion provider who knowingly performs any abortion shall comply with the requirements of this section.
B. In order for the woman to make an informed decision, at least one (1) hour prior to a woman having any part of an abortion performed or induced, and prior to the administration of any anesthesia or medication in preparation for the abortion on the woman, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion, or the certified technician working in conjunction with the physician, shall:
1. Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly;
2. Provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting;
3. Display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them;
4. Provide a medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, if present and viewable, and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable; and
5. Obtain a written certification from the woman, prior to the abortion, that the requirements of subsection B have been complied with; and
6. Retain a copy of the written certification prescribed by paragraph 5 of this subsection. The certification shall be placed in the medical file of the woman and shall be kept by the abortion provider for a period of not less than seven (7) years. If the woman is a minor, then the certification shall be placed in the medical file of the minor and kept for at least seven (7) years or for five (5) years after the minor reaches the age of majority, whichever is greater.
C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a pregnant woman from averting her eyes from the ultrasound images required to be provided to and reviewed with her. Neither the physician nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if she refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images.
D. Upon a determination by an abortion provider that a medical emergency, as defined in Section 1-738.1 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, exists with respect to a pregnant woman, the provider shall certify in writing the specific medical conditions that constitute the emergency. The certification shall be placed in the medical file of the woman and shall be kept by the abortion provider for a period of not less than seven (7) years. If the woman is a minor, then the certification shall be placed in the medical file of the minor and kept for at least seven (7) years or for five (5) years after the minor reaches the age of majority, whichever is greater.
E. An abortion provider who willfully falsifies a certification under subsection D of this section shall be subject to all penalties provided for under Section 13 of this act.
All sorts of bad things if you don't comply
A. An abortion provider who knowingly violates a provision of Section 12 of this act shall be liable for damages as provided in this section and may be enjoined from such acts in accordance with this section in an appropriate court.
B. A cause of action for injunctive relief against any person who has knowingly violated a provision of Section 12 of this act may be maintained by the woman upon whom an abortion was performed or attempted to be performed in violation of this act; any person who is the spouse, parent, sibling or guardian of, or a current or former licensed health care provider of, the female upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted to be performed in violation of this act; by a district attorney with appropriate jurisdiction; or by the Attorney General. The injunction shall prevent the abortion provider from performing further abortions in violation of this act in the State of Oklahoma.
C. Any person who knowingly violates the terms of an injunction issued in accordance with this section shall be subject to civil contempt, and shall be fined Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) for the first violation, Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) for the second violation, One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) for the third violation, and for each succeeding violation an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) that is sufficient to deter future violations. The fines shall be the exclusive penalties for such contempt. Each performance or attempted performance of an abortion in violation of the terms of an injunction is a separate violation. These fines shall be cumulative. No fine shall be assessed against the woman on whom an abortion is performed or attempted.
D. A pregnant woman upon whom an abortion has been performed in violation of Section 12 of this act, or the parent or legal guardian of the woman if she is an unemancipated minor, as defined in Section 1-740.1 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, may commence a civil action against the abortion provider for any knowing or reckless violation of this act for actual and punitive damages.
E. An abortion provider who performed an abortion in violation of Section 12 of this act shall be considered to have engaged in unprofessional conduct for which the provider's certificate or license to provide health care services in this state shall be suspended or revoked by the State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision or the State Board of Osteopathic Examiners.
Didn't see any mention of who pays for the procedure.
Hrm, a quick check on HIPAA seems to imply that at the very least you can't make insurance pay for any of this, because it's legally necessary, but HIPAA fines you if a procedure is not medically necessary. I'll need to read more, but occasionally said law makes me happy and overturns medical stupidity. I'm not as well versed in the non IT aspects of it however.
edit: Billing for a medically unnecessary procedure is $10,000 per instance, by the by.
4. Provide a medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, if present and viewable, and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable; and
5. Obtain a written certification from the woman, prior to the abortion, that the requirements of subsection B have been complied with; and
Those are both unbelievably morally objectionable.
Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly
but of course not beyond the actions of these insane, evil people.
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.
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.
Insurance companies have a policy of pretty much not paying for anything they can avoid and even then delaying paying as long as possible. Oddly it'd probably be them who would land it in court by refusing to pay for a medically unnecessary procedure.
Insurance companies have a policy of pretty much not paying for anything they can avoid and even then delaying paying as long as possible. Oddly it'd probably be them who would land it in court by refusing to pay for a medically unnecessary procedure.
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 also provides for employees of doctors and clinics the freedom to morally/religiously object to participating in abortion procedures.
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!
"By strengthening the ultrasound provision of their law, the Oklahoma legislature has created the strongest, most protective ultrasound law in the nation," said Mary Spaulding Balch, state legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). "They are doing everything possible to ensure that a mother is given the opportunity to see her unborn child in real-time and learn all the facts before making the life and death decision of abortion."
They are barely even trying to pretend that this bill is for something other than stopping abortions.
It's Oklahoma. Nothing too surprising about this, unfortunately.
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 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.
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?
The bill also provides for employees of doctors and clinics the freedom to morally/religiously object to participating in abortion procedures.
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!
If I'm reading that right, it isn't just abortion procedures that they can object to participating in.
An employer shall not discriminate against an employee or prospective employee by refusing to reasonably accommodate the religious observance or practice of the employee or prospective employee, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the program, enterprise, or business of the employer, in the following circumstances:
1. An abortion as defined in Section 1-730 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes. The provisions of this section shall not apply if the pregnant woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness which, as certified by a physician, causes the woman to be in imminent danger of death unless an abortion is immediately performed or induced and there are no other competent personnel available to attend to the woman. As used in this act, the term “abortion†shall not include the prescription of contraceptives;
2. An experiment or medical procedure that destroys an in vitro human embryo or uses cells or tissue derived from the destruction of an in vitro human embryo;
3. An experiment or medical procedure on an in vitro human embryo that is not related to the beneficial treatment of the in vitro human embryo;
4. An experiment or medical procedure on a developing child in an artificial womb, at any stage of development, that is not related to the beneficial treatment of the developing child;
5. A procedure, including a transplant procedure, that uses fetal tissue or organs that come from a source other than a stillbirth or miscarriage; or
6. An act that intentionally causes or assists in causing the death of an individual by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.
Transvaginal ultrasound is performed very much like a gynecologic exam and involves the insertion of the transducer into the vagina after the patient empties her bladder. The tip of the transducer is smaller than the standard speculum used when performing a Pap test. A protective cover is placed over the transducer, lubricated with a small amount of gel and then inserted into the vagina. Only two to three inches of the transducer end are inserted into the vagina. The images are obtained from different orientations to get the best views of the uterus and ovaries. Transvaginal ultrasound is usually performed with the patient lying on her back, possibly with her feet in stirrups similar to a gynecologic exam.
The bill also provides for employees of doctors and clinics the freedom to morally/religiously object to participating in abortion procedures.
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!
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.
The bill also provides for employees of doctors and clinics the freedom to morally/religiously object to participating in abortion procedures.
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!
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.
Are you lauding their tactics?
Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
Wow, they can actually force penetration on a woman in Oklahoma now.
"If we can't make it illegal, we're sure going to fuck with them while they're doing it.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
I've been to Oklahoma (Tulsa Oklahoma to be exact) and that place is so backwards and, to put it in so many words, fucked up that I'm not at all surprise that they would pass a law like this.
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).
The bill also provides for employees of doctors and clinics the freedom to morally/religiously object to participating in abortion procedures.
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!
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.
Are you lauding their tactics?
Their message is antithetical to everything I am. I'm noting how they use bigotry to stay in power, even if they don't believe it themselves. Objectivley I kinda have to give them props for using a very effective method of staying in power. So bravo for them for being able to sleep at night, I guess.
Surely this is undue burden. Surely the courts will strike this down.
Matrijs on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
Seriously though what's next? Have children come in and talk to the woman beforehand, maybe a priest to tell her she'll go to hell, have the doctor ask her if she's a slut who couldn't keep her legs closed?
The bill also provides for employees of doctors and clinics the freedom to morally/religiously object to participating in abortion procedures.
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!
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.
Are you lauding their tactics?
Their message is antithetical to everything I am. I'm noting how they use bigotry to stay in power, even if they don't believe it themselves. Objectivley I kinda have to give them props for using a very effective method of staying in power. So bravo for them for being able to sleep at night, I guess.
If you are giving props, guess what, it's not objective.
Seriously though what's next? Have children come in and talk to the woman beforehand, maybe a priest to tell her she'll go to hell, have the doctor ask her if she's a slut who couldn't keep her legs closed?
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.
Why can't women hop on a bus to another state (or drive)? I know it's a pain, and of course no one should have to...but as a temporary measure it seems like it'd work. While the courts go about bending this law over their knees (I hope), why can't women just get abortions out of state?
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?
Caelesto on
In all likelihood, this is my fault. If the current situation is not my fault, please let me know as soon as possible so that I may rectify this oversight. Thank you.
~The Management
It's Oklahoma. Nothing too surprising about this, unfortunately.
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?
Highlights from the Oklahoma Republican party platform:
We encourage an adoption process that recognizes the rights of parents while maintaining safeguards for the children. Except for adoption by a qualified relative (as defined by existing law), we support adoption only by traditional families.
We believe marriage should not be entered into casually and not be allowed to bedissolved easily. Therefore we call for states to repeal “no-fault” divorce statutes.
We support Federal and State legislation, including a Constitutional Amendment, whichprohibit recognition of same-gender marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships.
We believe that in order to encourage and protect family values, those promotinghomosexuality or other aberrant lifestyles should not be allowed to hold responsible positions over children or other vulnerable persons.
We affirm the state‟s recognition that marriage between one man and one woman is a covenant relationship, instituted by God, not to be entered into casually, and is fundamental to our very existence and survival as a nation.
For the unity of our nation, we strongly encourage and support the establishment ofEnglish as the official language.
We oppose the promotion of homosexuality, the elimination of laws against sodomy, andthe granting of minority protection or special status to any person based upon sexual preference or lifestyle choices.
We believe that homosexuality is not a genetic trait, but a chosen lifestyle.
We support drug testing for any person applying for or receiving any type of government aid. If illegal drugs are found to be present, all government assistance should beterminated until that person is drug free for at least six months. We believe anyone whois an habitual illegal drug user should not receive any type of government aid.
We encourage rigorous enforcement of all anti-pornography laws. Government agencies or tax-supported institutions, especially libraries and public schools, should not provideaccess to pornography.
We affirm the right of private associations to admit or deny membership based on what these associations‟ conscience dictates.
We believe that government should not fund any organization that opposes the ideas andprinciples contained in the Republican Platform.
The traditional family unit, consisting of a (husband) man, (wife) woman and child(ren), is the foundation of our social structure. The Oklahoma Department of Educationand various Boards of Regents should uphold and teach this definition of traditional family at all levels of public and higher education.
Parents have a Constitutional right to home school their children. We oppose any andall regulation of home schooling.
The Ten Commandments should be posted in all public schools as a means of moral guidance along with our national motto “In God We Trust” and the Bill of Rights.
Public Schools shall promote the Judeo-Christian worldview upon which our countrywas founded. Public Schools shall be prohibited from promoting other worldviews such as, but not limited to secular Humanism, New Age philosophy, deep ecology, reincarnation, psychotherapy, channeling, transcendental meditation, altered states ofconsciousness or any occult practice.
American heritage should be taught in public schools and include representativegovernment, limited government, lives and beliefs of the founders, influence of the Bible and religion on our laws and principles, and the concept of free enterprise. Students should study directly from the primary founding documents, which teach the distributionof power among three branches of federal government and between federal and stategovernment.
Where evolution is taught, intelligent design must be taught as well. The differences between fact and theory shall be included in instruction.
Federally mandated AIDS education shall hold to the following guidelines:a. Neither homosexual nor extramarital sexual activity shall be presented as safe, nor shall they be presented as morally or socially acceptable behaviors. b. AIDS shall be presented as incurable and fatal. c. Abstinence or lifetime fidelity shall be presented as the only safe sexual practices. d. All materials and instruction shall be open to prior parental review (opt in vs. opt out)
Keep in mind the Republican majorities in Oklahoma are huge, and Tom Coburn still won his senate seat after this little gem:
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?