SB 1878 - Abortion Bill

[cannon_fodder]

I Bill in front of Governor Henry requires an ultrasound be performed with the monitor viable by the mother before an abortion can be performed.  It has much more in it than that, but that's what most people will care about.  The naked intent is to discourage abortion by adding another step.  It seems ripe for legal challenge successful or not, but lets at least look at what it really says in a simple manner:

The "Freedom of Conscience Act"
Currently SB 1878
Found here: http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2007-08bills/SB/SB1878_SFLR.RTF
To be codied as Okla. Stat. tit. 63 §§ 1-729

Sections 1 & 2 are formalities and definitions. The only interesting thing is the definition of "participate in" as in "participate in procedures:  "Participate in" (means to perform, practice, engage in, assist in, recommend, counsel in favor of, make referrals for, prescribe, dispense, or administer drugs or devices or otherwise promote or encourage).  The part about "counsel in favor of" strikes me as potentially troublesome - it applies to people in favor of abortion but not to people opposed - regaurdless of medical reasons or anything else.  


Section 3:  Employers can not discriminate against employees or perspective employees for failure to accommodate religious beliefs on abortion, stem cell research, suicide, in vitro procedures, or experiments on any stage of development that is not "beneficial treatment to the developing child."  

[I'm not really sure what Section 3 is getting at.  Facially, I suppose that means planned parenthood would have to hire an MD they know would refuse to give professional advise about abortions.  A medical research clinic would have to hire someone who they know would refuse engage in developmental research.]

Section 4:
Health care facilities do not have to admit a patient wanting nor allow physicians to use their facilities for any of the above. And no employee can be disciplined for refusing to help with any of the above and is immune from liability for such refusal if on moral or religious grounds.

Section 5:
Extends section 4 to schools - geared towards university level.  Tenor, hiring, etc. not affected by refusal based on moral or religious...

Section 6:
If adversely affected in violation of this law (fired) they can sue in civil court and get attorney fees.


Then House Amendment to the Engrossed Version of SB 1878, it technically over rules all the above but then restates it exactly the same, but adds:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2007-08bills/HB/SB1878_HASB.RTF  (this link is the most complete version)

Section 7:
A.  Definitions
B. MDs have to follow federal law and be qualified to administer the abortion pill.
C. MDs must comply with federal law in re abortion
D. If there are complications they must be reported (a list including "adverse reaction" as examples of complications)
E. Does not apply to manufacturers or distributors of drugs, just MDs
F. If not complied with, Married Fathers, Mothers and/or Grandparents can sue MDs for actual and punitive damages (doesn't say if medical malpractice or otherwise, authorizes suit and damages for failure to comply a a de facto cause and does not appear require actual damages)

Section 8:
Requires a large sign to be posted in any location that might perform (perform includes "advise in favor of") abortions other than to prevent death, 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.

Section 9:
Damages are $10,000 a day for failure to comply with the sign plus a cause of action for anyone damages by lack of a sign

Section 10:
Minors must be orally informed of the notice on the sign plus must sign an informed consent document stipulating he told her the info (kept on file).

Section 11:
Definitions - all seem standard

Section 12:  Seems to be the most controversial or grabbing the most headlines, so bold and ACTUAl text.
A. (applies to abortion providers...)

quote:
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...

C. The women can overt their eyes if they want (but have to listen apperently)

It goes on to provide penalties for avoiding or falsifying the requirements in Section 13.

Section  14:

Wrongful birth is NOT a cause of action in Oklahoma (technically if you went in for an abortion and the MD instead birthed a fetus and it lived, you can not sue for the birth nor any condition in the child).
- - -

So now you know!  I'll chime in when the ball gets rolling, but I have seen this talked about on the news and around town and few people really know what it says.

[NellieBly]

It's redundant.
Oklahoma Planned Parenthood does not provide abortions and women already receive an ultra sounds prior to the abortion to determine how advanced the pregancy is.

[Wrinkle]

A more straight-forward bill might require every Dr.'s office to have on hand one of those rubber-chicken-like, goopy/bloody fetuses which they can fake a yank and toss to the mother before they actually perform the real procedure.

...if it's shock value they're after.

And, having an anti-abortion nurse on hand during an abortion procedure is just what the patient needs, they think. Is that just to be sure name and address information gets reported correctly to the public?

This bill needs to be vetoed, fast.

[Steve]

In my opinion, these measures are efforts to lay guilt on the woman and discourage abortion, no matter what the circumstances are.  It is more efforts among the anti-abortion groups to slowly pick away at women's reproductive rights.

Abortion is not an easy decision to be taken lightly, but it is the fundamental right of any female to decide these matters between herself, her doctors, and her conscience.  No one or any government has any right to interfer with that decision.

[iplaw]

"...no matter what the circumstances are."

What do you mean by this?  Most abortions, 79% to 98%, are performed for personal reasons (i.e. unprepared, unable to afford, interferes with school, etc.)

Reasons provided for abortion

"Abortion is not an easy decision to be taken lightly"

Statistics show that US pregnancies end in abortions from 25% to 30% of the time based upon CDC numbers over the last few years.  I would think that an act which is "not an easy decision" would occur at lower frequencies than 1 out of 3 depending on the year.

As an aside, the bill will go nowhere.  Providing these services for free for those who request it and can't afford it seems more likely to pass.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Steve



Abortion is not an easy decision to be taken lightly, but it is the fundamental right of any female to decide these matters between herself, her doctors, and her conscience.  No one or any government has any right to interfer with that decision.

Really? I thought the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the ban on partial birth abortion. I guess government can interfere with this decision.

[Ed W]

Is there a valid medical reason to do an ultrasound as part of an abortion procedure?  Or is this just another attempt to pressure a pregnant woman at a very stressful moment?  I could fully understand it if her doctor stood next to her bed to say, "Yes, this is necessary."  But it's a totally different animal when a lawmaker in Oklahoma City says so.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

Is there a valid medical reason to do an ultrasound as part of an abortion procedure?  Or is this just another attempt to pressure a pregnant woman at a very stressful moment?  I could fully understand it if her doctor stood next to her bed to say, "Yes, this is necessary."  But it's a totally different animal when a lawmaker in Oklahoma City says so.

It is only an attempt to lay more guilt on the woman contemplating an abortion.  One more attempt to discourage the process.  A foolish, unnecesary law and a crass attempt by abortion foes to further limit access to the procedure.  The people and legislators that passed this law should be ashamed of themselves, and I hope Governor Henry has the guts to veto this legislation.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

Is there a valid medical reason to do an ultrasound as part of an abortion procedure?  Or is this just another attempt to pressure a pregnant woman at a very stressful moment?  I could fully understand it if her doctor stood next to her bed to say, "Yes, this is necessary."  But it's a totally different animal when a lawmaker in Oklahoma City says so.

It is only an attempt to lay more guilt on the woman contemplating an abortion.  One more attempt to discourage the process.  A foolish, unnecesary law and a crass attempt by abortion foes to further limit access to the procedure.  The people and legislators that passed this law should be ashamed of themselves, and I hope Governor Henry has the guts to veto this legislation.

By all means let's take those "people and legislators" out back and beat the sh@t out of them because they dare to have a different view on life issues than you Steve. Oh, and I am pro-life and by no means am I ashamed of my view or my faith that underlies that view.

[Hometown]

With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans:

The state Senate voted 38-10 Wednesday for Senate Bill 1878, which included a number of abortion provisions.

Democrats voting for the measure (14): Randy Bass, Sean Burrage, Kenneth Corn, Mary Easley, Earl Garrison, Jay Paul Gumm, Tom Ivester, Charlie Laster, Debbe Leftwich, Susan Paddack, Nancy Riley, John Sparks, Joe Sweeden and Charles Wyrick.

[NellieBly]

I love it when men argue abortion.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

I love it when men argue abortion.

Do you laugh when non-soldiers discuss war?  Or when environmentalists who do not earn a living in mines or heavy industry talk about mother Earth?  What about when people without children worry about education?  How about people without cancer wanting more funding for cancer research?  Men who want more drastic punishments for male - female rape?

In society, a direct impact is not needed for you your opinion to matter.  But I would assert that medical procedures on, or life choices of, my girlfriend, wife or daughter are in fact personal issues for me and often more important to me than my own health.  Not too mention the greater societal issues that both sides argue on behalf of.

So I think many people have a stake in this matter.  People who want abortions, people who wish to protect fetuses, male and female.
- - -

quote:Guido Write
Oh, and I am pro-life and by no means am I ashamed of my view or my faith that underlies that view

Nor should you be, but that is not a reason to dictate those views as laws upon others that do not share them.  That my friend, is called theocracy - the act of dictating other's behavior based on your religious beliefs.  I understand there are other justifications for pro-life laws, but the bottom line is it stands against many people's religious beliefs.

I respect your faith and your view, but please understand while your religious belief fails to persuade people in their positions.
- - -

Not that it will nor should effect anyones view, but n case anyone is curious, the poll breaks down 57% think it should be legal, 40% illegal, and 3% refuse to think.  A total of 15% believe it should be illegal no matter what (Rape incest, medical problem).  Those numbers are pretty steady over the years.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

[guido911]

Wow CF. I am pushing a theocracy because I support a pro-life/anti-abortion law on religious grounds? I also support anti-murder and anti-theft laws on religious grounds (that 10 Commandments thing). Maybe this country is a theocracy then. I also kinda believe we as Americans are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights"--a powerful non-secular phrase from the document that essentially formed this country--which in my view extends to all who are created. So please, enough with the hyperbole.

As for the first part of your post re: males having on opinion on the abortion issue, I think your position is spot on. Indeed I have made that exact argument to others in this forum. It usually shuts them up.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

I love it when men argue abortion.

I understand your point, and in some ways I am sorry I chimed in on this issue.  There have been some great Op-Ed articles in the World recently about this bill.

In the least, this latest measure is just one more effort to lay guilt on women contemplating an abortion, without regard to the circumstances.  For shame to the Oklahoma Legislature.  The Tulsa female legislator that co-sponsored this bill was asked about the ultrasound provisions, and she said "well the woman could close her eyes!"  (I am paraphrasing here.)  Typical callous attitude.

[TulsaFan-inTexas]

Women's reproductive "rights?" I'd like to educate you on something; abortion is not "reproduction."

Why is is that it's a "woman's right" where in reality there are more people involved?

What about the father? Does HE have ANY say at all?

quote:Originally posted by Steve

In my opinion, these measures are efforts to lay guilt on the woman and discourage abortion, no matter what the circumstances are.  It is more efforts among the anti-abortion groups to slowly pick away at women's reproductive rights.

Abortion is not an easy decision to be taken lightly, but it is the fundamental right of any female to decide these matters between herself, her doctors, and her conscience.  No one or any government has any right to interfer with that decision.