SB 1878 - Abortion Bill

[Townsend]

Veto

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=12&articleID=20080417_1_A1_hAsen08781

A senator vows an override attempt of the governor's action.


OKLAHOMA CITY -- Gov. Brad Henry vetoed an abortion bill late Wednesday that would have required anyone seeking to terminate a pregnancy to have an ultrasound within one hour before the procedure.

The Oklahoma Senate voted 38-10 last week for Senate Bill 1878, which was amended in the House to include several abortion measures. The bill's authors are Sen. Todd Lamb, R-Edmond, and Rep. Pam Peterson, R-Tulsa.

"While I support reasonable restrictions on abortion, this legislation does not provide an essential exemption for victims of rape and incest," Henry said in his veto message.

"By forcing the victims of such horrific acts to undergo and view ultrasounds after they have made such a difficult and heartbreaking decision, the state victimizes the victim for a second time. It would be unconscionable to subject victims of rape and incest to such treatment.

"Because of this critical flaw, I cannot in good conscience sign this legislation."

Lamb vowed a veto override attempt as soon as possible. He said he was disappointed with the governor's decision.

It would take 32 votes in the Senate to override the veto. The Senate is tied with 24 Republicans and 24 Democrats.

It would take 68 votes in the Republican-controlled House to override the veto.

If it became law, the measure would require women or girls who seek abortions to undergo ultrasounds within one hour of the procedures.

It would require that the images be displayed so that the patient could see them. It also would require the examiner to provide a medical description of the images, including dimensions of the embryo or fetus and the presence of cardiac activity.

Tony J. Lauinger, chairman of Oklahomans for Life, said an ultrasound provides essential information to women. They need the information to make truly informed decisions, Lauinger said.

"Abortion is not a solution to the tragedy of rape," he said.

Dr. Dana Stone, an Oklahoma City physician and chairwoman of the Oklahoma Section of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, said she hopes the the veto will be sustained.

Stone said a lot more is wrong with the bill than just the ultrasound provision. "It is a mistake to let the state Legislature hijack anyone's personal interaction with a physician like they have with this bill."

The bill also would require minors who seek abortions to provide written consent.

The measure also would allow health-care providers to refuse to participate in abortions and would ban "wrongful-life" lawsuits, which claim that a baby would have been better off aborted.

The measure also would require documentation when the chemical abortion pill RU-486 is prescribed and used to ensure that it is administered properly.

Doctors who prescribe RU-486 would have to report adverse effects to the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision or to the State Board of Osteopathic Examiners.

The information, except the patient's name and other identifying information, would be public.

Last year, Henry vetoed a bill that prohibited the use of state funds or facilities for abortions, but he chose to let a subsequent version that provided exceptions for rape and incest victims become law without his signature.

[iplaw]

Override.

[NellieBly]

I think it is absolutely barbaric to force a woman or girl who has been raped to undergo an ultrasound, especially if it is performed vaginally. How much more does that woman have to endure to end a pregnancy brought about by violence.

Imagine a young girl, impregnated by her father or her uncle or a friend of the family, to have to look at an image on a screen and have it described to her prior to terminating a devastating pregnancy.

This disgusting piece of legislation is just another way to undermine a woman's control over her own body. It reeks of misogyny.  I am proud to say that my representative voted against the override. Argue all you want but the fact remains, whether pro or anti-choice, no one makes the decision to obtain an abortion lightly or without much personal soul searching with herself, her partner, her doctor, her clergy, her family or anyone else she discusses this with.

Forcing unnecessary procedures on someone who has spent countless hours weighing the decision to terminate an unwanted pregancy (for whatever reason) is demeaning to all women. We aren't stupid and we can make our own decisions, in our own manner, within the confines of our family without the interference of politicians.

I have to say the whole part of the bill that states any doctor who is anti choice does not have to perform abortions, is at best, laughable. I didn't know there were so many doctors in Oklahoma forced to provide abortions against their will. They must be the same doctors that provide all those welfare mothers free abortions with our tax dollars (snark).  The reality is Oklahoma has about three abortion providers. None of them get money from the state to provide abortions to women on welfare. If there is a serious health risk to the mother, and she happens to be on some sort of aid, then, yes, some of our tax money may pay for that. But it's not at an abortion provider, it's at her gynocologists office or in a hospital. Because she is at risk or the baby is at risk.

Nuff said from me. You all know my opinion on this topic.

Back to your arguments, men. (I particulary like the whiner who equated abortion rights with being forced into uniform to defend them. Last time I checked, men were not forced into the military in the US and, in case you didn't get the memo, women serve in combat too).

[RecycleMichael]

Well said Nelly.

I think the Governor's comments were right on as well.

[rwarn17588]

^+1

[guido911]

Well, I think its absolutely barbaric to rip apart an unborn child who is completely innocent. In my opinion, such reeks of murder.

In any case, our legislature has spoken today for the unborn. I know how that disappoints you.

[cannon_fodder]

Guido, you have taken any debate out of the matter and are addressing it as a purely emotional issue.  If your intent is to change peoples minds or at least cause them to think about their position, you are failing.  Clearly they disagree with your premise that the "unborn" is a child and that it is murder, so by sticking to that argument you make discussion moot.

Would it be helpful if I wrote:
Clearly the governor has spoken today for the rights of women, I know how disappointed you are.

No, it would not be helpful at all.

If you wish to actual engage in the dialog please explain to those who disagree  how this law would be helpful. Other than satisfying your religious credence, what good would come from forcing a rape victim to look at a fetus that resulted from that rape?  

Not telling you that your opinion is lesser, just trying to let you see how it is not going to accomplish your goal of convincing people abortion is wrong.  Hope you do not take offense.

[iplaw]

I think it would be fine to have an exception for rape/incest since it's the reason given for less than 1% of all abortions...

That being said, why are we so afraid of producing a "guilty" response for an individual seeking an abortion for personal reasons?  Yet again, people are being protected from having to exercise even a modicum of personal responsibility.

Those who oppose this understand that it's hard to sanitize something when you see it with your own eyes.

Isn't it the mantra from the pro-choice side that more "information" and "education" is the key to cutting down the number of abortions performed?

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Guido, you have taken any debate out of the matter and are addressing it as a purely emotional issue.  If your intent is to change peoples minds or at least cause them to think about their position, you are failing.  Clearly they disagree with your premise that the "unborn" is a child and that it is murder, so by sticking to that argument you make discussion moot.

Would it be helpful if I wrote:
Clearly the governor has spoken today for the rights of women, I know how disappointed you are.

No, it would not be helpful at all.

If you wish to actual engage in the dialog please explain to those who disagree  how this law would be helpful. Other than satisfying your religious credence, what good would come from forcing a rape victim to look at a fetus that resulted from that rape?  

Not telling you that your opinion is lesser, just trying to let you see how it is not going to accomplish your goal of convincing people abortion is wrong.  Hope you do not take offense.

As I am not trying to convince anyone of anything on the life issue in this thread, I am not offended. While I disagree that people are so firmly entrenched in their position on abortion that their opinions cannot be turned, those on this thread appear to be locked into their opinion. In other words, debate and dialogue with the likes of Steve, Nelly, and perhaps yourself on the efficacy or even fairness of the new pro-life bill is an exercise in futilty.
What is left, however, is the ad hominems flying around that pro-lifers are misogynists and that men have no right to an opinion on abortion(admittedly, ad hominems go both ways). These statements, which are plainly designed to reduce the strength or discredit another's argument, illustrates the inherent emotional aspect of the abortion issue. So please do not suggest that somehow you can carve emotion out of the abortion debate and argue pure legal substance. Along that line, although I am not certain, I suspect a majority of Americans have never read Roe, Casey, or Carhart, or any other abortion case, much less cases such as Griswold where the underpinnings of a constitutional right to privacy is found. Thus, how can one argue the legality of Oklahoma's new statute--which should be what is at issue because plainly the overwhelming majority of Oklahoma's legislators rebuked the Governor's veto. Without knowing the legal issues, we are left with considering the traumatic experience the rape victim might experience with the ultrasound and so on. Oppose that argument, then the course of the argument degenerates to dredged up, tired 1970s feminist mantras like "You are a man, you have no right to an opinion."

As a side note, has anyone ever pointed out that you come off somewhat arrogant? I mean, you act as if you were appointed (or annointed) the "debate referee", free to judge how an argument is being conducted and offering us a free education on how we can improve. []

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Well said Nelly.

I think the Governor's comments were right on as well.

Thank goodness we have a Governor that recognizes these issues and had the guts to veto this bill.  Besides circumstances of rape/incest, there are also circumstances when it is known that the fetus has severe birth defects, and survival post birth is nil.  That was the case with a recent family member of mine.  I think there is a good chance that Henry's veto will be overridden, give the attitudes of the current OK Legislature, but I thank our Governor for his stance and courage.

The abortion debate will go on and on for generations to come, much like the homosexuality debate of "nature vs. nurture."  We can argue these issues till the cows come home, and never definatively decide them.  I say in these moral matters, live your life in accordance with your convictions, but don't expect others to do the same, or try to force your beliefs on others via civil law.  That way, you can die with a clear conscience.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by guido911


As a side note, has anyone ever pointed out that you come off somewhat arrogant? I mean, you act as if you were appointed (or annointed) the "debate referee", free to judge how an argument is being conducted and offering us a free education on how we can improve. []

AOX points it out about every other day.  I'm not trying to be arrogant, just trying to keep threads as discussion instead of descending in totality to "baby killer" vs. "freedom haters" or whatever.  The alternative would be to ignore it (thread usually goes downhill) or join in (and how).

Generally, I've found if someone points out it is in danger of descending and explains why, it either dies or actually gets back on track.  This is true for when I point it out, or when someone tells me I'm going over board.  In this instance, I understand that most people are more emotionally involved than I am so I was trying to explain that as a matter of discussion either side's emotional arguments are not effective.

Perhaps I was stating the obvious, but trying to get back to logic is the only way I know how to respond to emotional arguments without responding in kind.  I apologize if it comes off as arrogant.  I assure you I do not think my own opinion is any more important than any other (well, ok. Honestly I think it is more important than some, but not most.  []).

Thanks just the same for point it out, keep me on the straight and narrow!

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw



That being said, why are we so afraid of producing a "guilty" response for an individual seeking an abortion for personal reasons?  Yet again, people are being protected from having to exercise even a modicum of personal responsibility.

Isn't it the mantra from the pro-choice side that more "information" and "education" is the key to cutting down the number of abortions performed?

Yup. I have no problems with others trying to appeal to their consciences about abortions. And it would seem that a lack of personal responsibility of many, many abortions is key.

The art of persuasion seems to go missing in a lot of pro-life arguments, unfortunately.

However, to be additionally punitive to women are are pregnant through absolutely no fault of their own is unduly cruel. Going through rape and incest is hell enough. To start throwing up ultrasounds and other obstacles to these women who've made this decision is just being an a**hole.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by iplaw



That being said, why are we so afraid of producing a "guilty" response for an individual seeking an abortion for personal reasons?  Yet again, people are being protected from having to exercise even a modicum of personal responsibility.

Isn't it the mantra from the pro-choice side that more "information" and "education" is the key to cutting down the number of abortions performed?

Yup. I have no problems with others trying to appeal to their consciences about abortions. And it would seem that a lack of personal responsibility of many, many abortions is key.

The art of persuasion seems to go missing in a lot of pro-life arguments, unfortunately.

However, to be additionally punitive to women are are pregnant through absolutely no fault of their own is unduly cruel. Going through rape and incest is hell enough. To start throwing up ultrasounds and other obstacles to these women who've made this decision is just being an a**hole.

I hope that you just mistakenly left out my first sentence where I explicitly stated that I think abortions in the case of  rape/incest should be exempted from this law.  Because from your response it looks like you were intentionally misquoting me.

[rwarn17588]

No, that was a mistake on my part, iplaw. Caffeine hasn't kicked in this morning.

I agree with you on the rape and incest stance, if it wasn't already apparent.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

No, that was a mistake on my part, iplaw. Caffeine hasn't kicked in this morning.

I agree with you on the rape and incest stance, if it wasn't already apparent.

I switched to Pepsi Max in the morning.  Coffee just doesn't get it done anymore...