SB 1878 - Abortion Bill

[Robinson]

Such conversations have been waged for years. Seems nothing have changed. Women's bodies and the right to decide for themselves continues to be taken away from them. Typically, the asserted right to decide for a woman what she should do, only demonstrates a shielded ignorant perspective. There are many reasons why pregancies need to be terminated. Reasons which one wouldn't wish for anyone to have to deal with. They are personal and painful. Knee jerk reactions to what is not fully understood doesn't help. Then again, those that knee jerk are more than likely incapable of understanding. Or worse, of not caring enough to inform themselves.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Robinson

Such conversations have been waged for years. Seems nothing have changed. Women's bodies and the right to decide for themselves continues to be taken away from them. Typically, the asserted right to decide for a woman what she should do, only demonstrates a shielded ignorant perspective. There are many reasons why pregancies need to be terminated. Reasons which one wouldn't wish for anyone to have to deal with. They are personal and painful. Knee jerk reactions to what is not fully understood doesn't help. Then again, those that knee jerk are more than likely incapable of understanding. Or worse, of not caring enough to inform themselves.

So your point is the overwhelming number of house reps and senators that trounced Henry's non-knee jerk reaction through veto were knee jerking when they passed the bill? Oh, and they are not caring to inform themselves as well.

BTW, tell me again how the bill deprives a woman of her precious, constitutitonal right to choose?

[cannon_fodder]

Guido - the bill denies no one of her choice.  It does, however, dictated a totally unneeded medical procedure in the hopes of coercing the choice the legislature believes is the moral one.  And, as most people argue against abortion on religious grounds - it is the legislatures attempt to force their coerce their religious beliefs on others.  I'm generally against legislation attempting to dictate morality.

IP - While there are many people who logically argue against abortion from an agnostic point of view - the vast majority of people and groups that oppose abortion do so on religious grounds.  


But in spite of this new bill, does anyone think it will have any effect on the abortion rate in Oklahoma?  Perhaps more to the point, what would be more effective to limit the number of abortions:  this argument or one about sex education or the availability of alternative choices (ie. early adoption or counseling)  Oklahoma?    For some reason the "teenagers don't have sex" lessons of today aren't working any better than they ever have.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Guido - the bill denies no one of her choice.  It does, however, dictated a totally unneeded medical procedure in the hopes of coercing the choice the legislature believes is the moral one.  

Well CF, there you go again with the arrogance. Unless you are a physician, on what basis can you blanketly assert something is an "unneeded medical procedure?" Indeed, there are stories such as the discovery of twins during a pre-ab ultrasound that made this "unneeded medical procedure" fairly damned useful to that woman who based on that information decided not to terminate the pregnancy.

[bokworker]

To Guido's point... just over 21 years ago my wife was pregnant and started bleeding. We went to he OB/Gyn and it was determined that she was having what he called threaded miscarriage. For whatever reason he requested an ultrasound before proceeding with a DNC. As my wife and I were consoling each other and the nurse was carrying out the ultrasound, she found a heartbeat. It was in fact a twin to the fetus that was being miscarried. My daughter will be 21 this Friday. Absent this additional procedure we would have aborted her. Even today I cannot think about this event and not become emotional.... My daughter will here the story of the blessing she is for the 21st time on Friday. And I will weep again as I do everytime I tell her.....

[CoffeeBean]

Its preposterous for the Legislature to dictate what information a woman needs to make an "informed decision."

Do our elected officials believe that a pregnant OB/GYN seeking an abortion, a doctor with more medical training than 99% of the Legislature, needs Rep. Sally Kern telling her what she needs to make an "informed decision?"

[cannon_fodder]

Not being rude nor arrogant, just telling it how it is.  In the performance of an abortion nothing indicates that an ultrasound and a description of the fetus to the mother is medically necessary.  You need neither of those things to abort a fetus.  It hasn't been needed the prior 30 years and isn't needed anywhere else.

I understand that in rare instances, as sited, it will have an effect.  People considering abortions for medical reasons are  advised to get ultrasounds as bokworker pointed out.  This law would not effect that.

But the entire point of this law is to discourage abortions.  That's why its on the books.  Not for medical reasons or the safety of the mother.

At lest, that is my understanding of it.  If the fact of the matter is otherwise, let me know.  But every statement by legislators is about respecting life, not about medical need.

[CoffeeBean]

I'm assuming the State is foisting the cost of these ultra-sounds upon the "uninformed" woman?  With no ability to "inform" herself through other, less expensive, means?  And no ability to "opt-out" of incurring this "medically necessary" cost?  

Can someone tell me of another elective medical procedure that is Legislatively mandated?

[guido911]

quote:

Can someone tell me of another elective medical procedure that is Legislatively mandated?

You mean, other than the manner of the delivery of the DEATH PENALTY via lethal injection? See, 22 O.S. § 1014. Interesting isn't?

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Not being rude nor arrogant, just telling it how it is.  In the performance of an abortion nothing indicates that an ultrasound and a description of the fetus to the mother is medically necessary.  You need neither of those things to abort a fetus.  It hasn't been needed the prior 30 years and isn't needed anywhere else.

I understand that in rare instances, as sited, it will have an effect.  People considering abortions for medical reasons are  advised to get ultrasounds as bokworker pointed out.  This law would not effect that.

But the entire point of this law is to discourage abortions.  That's why its on the books.  Not for medical reasons or the safety of the mother.

At lest, that is my understanding of it.  If the fact of the matter is otherwise, let me know.  But every statement by legislators is about respecting life, not about medical need.

My understanding of the entire ultrasound issue is the improvement of providing informed consent to women contemplating abortion.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08041704.html

I guess in your opinion having informed consent, which in this connection is the option to view an ultrasound that may or may not change the mind of a woman, may be medically unnecessary. However, what constitutes "informed consent" is not necessarily for you or I to decide. Our legislature has frequently codified what is required for informed consent--even for lawyers. See, Rules of Professional Responsibility, 1.0(e); 63 O.S. § 1-738.4 (Prior Abortion Consent statute).   As I pointed out, there are those that have changed their mind as a result of the ultrasound. Is that such a horrible thing to you?

As far as every statement by legislators being the respect of life, do you have a citation for that?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Robinson

Such conversations have been waged for years. Seems nothing have changed. Women's bodies and the right to decide for themselves continues to be taken away from them. Typically, the asserted right to decide for a woman what she should do, only demonstrates a shielded ignorant perspective. There are many reasons why pregancies need to be terminated. Reasons which one wouldn't wish for anyone to have to deal with. They are personal and painful. Knee jerk reactions to what is not fully understood doesn't help. Then again, those that knee jerk are more than likely incapable of understanding. Or worse, of not caring enough to inform themselves.

As has been stated time and time again and attested to by the vast majority of studies and statistics, the life of the mother, rape and incest are numerically a tiny fraction of abortions performed in the US every year.

Again, what is it that I am uninformed about?  Ed W touted statistics and science that I'm ignoring, but never bothered to back up, and now you.  What exactly am I missing?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Guido - the bill denies no one of her choice.  It does, however, dictated a totally unneeded medical procedure in the hopes of coercing the choice the legislature believes is the moral one.  And, as most people argue against abortion on religious grounds - it is the legislatures attempt to force their coerce their religious beliefs on others.  I'm generally against legislation attempting to dictate morality.

IP - While there are many people who logically argue against abortion from an agnostic point of view - the vast majority of people and groups that oppose abortion do so on religious grounds.  


But in spite of this new bill, does anyone think it will have any effect on the abortion rate in Oklahoma?  Perhaps more to the point, what would be more effective to limit the number of abortions:  this argument or one about sex education or the availability of alternative choices (ie. early adoption or counseling)  Oklahoma?    For some reason the "teenagers don't have sex" lessons of today aren't working any better than they ever have.

I don't disagree with you, I just hate when people make blanketed statements and I chose to point out the obvious error.  Arguments can be made both theistically and materialistically and it's important to bear that in mind.

[cannon_fodder]

No, I have no citations.  Interviews and evening news broadcasts are the only areas that I have heard any legislator speak on the issue - i should have caveatted "that I have heard."

I'm not sure where our difference lies on the purpose of this bill.  Do you disagree that the sole purpose of the bill is to discourage abortions?  And the reason they want to discourage abortions is because it is against their moral, usually religiously based, code.  Why not be upfront about the goal of this legislation?

All the other discussion is just so much noise. Ultrasound is not medically needed to abort a fetus.  Informed consent does not require an ultrasound nor a description of the fetus.  Informed consent would require informing the woman that this procedure will terminate the fetus inside of her and may have XY&Z complications associated with it (as they have done for 30 years).  If anything, I'm sure the consent forms do more than necessary for the simple reason that medical consent forms always do.

This absolutely gives the woman more information.  So would having them watch a cancer biopsy or seeing the culture results from a pap smear.  But THIS information is design solely to draw an emotional response to influence the decision - NOT for medical purposes.  Why does everyone pretend that isn't the case?  Are women too stupid to realize what a fetus is?

You think abortions are immoral and should be illegal.  Thus you are pleased that the legislature passed a law to discourage abortions by forcing the prospective mother to go through an ultrasound and description before she can have an abortion.  

Why not just come out and say "I dislike abortions and think we should do anything we can to dissuade them."   I can disagree with that, but can't really argue against it. Why the guise of medical necessity, informed consent or other tangents?  

Do you see what my grievance is?  I don't think any of the medical need or informed consent junk is honest at all.  It is an after thought to very superficially avoid the appearance of legislating against abortion wholesale.   But that's the goal, so just go for it.

"I don't like abortion, I think this will cut back on it so I am in favor of the legislation. " There, done and done.

See what I'm getting at in my rambles?

[edit]
IP - I understand that secular arguments can be made against abortion.  My pet peeve in the debate is weak secular arguments supplanting a simple belief statement.  Which, IMHO, most arguments on abortion are.  

In the long run the anti-abortion crowd will probably win.  Simply because they seem to care more than anyone else.  I'd rather other options be taken (sex ed, adoption, etc.) and have not been personally effected by nor anticipate being effected by an abortion... so at the end of the day either way I have no real effect on my life.

Interestingly enough, European countries that don't offer the religious indignation to abortion we do have much lower abortion rates.  This article offers a cold look at world wide abortions (46 million):
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib_0599.html

The legality of abortion is not correlated to it's frequency, so this entire debate is really more pointless than it first appears
[/edit]

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by CoffeeBean

I'm assuming the State is foisting the cost of these ultra-sounds upon the "uninformed" woman?  With no ability to "inform" herself through other, less expensive, means?  And no ability to "opt-out" of incurring this "medically necessary" cost?  

Can someone tell me of another elective medical procedure that is Legislatively mandated?

Look to the current discussions on the cervical cancer vaccine.  Some states are looking to make them mandatory.

[CoffeeBean]

Guido -

Under Oklahoma law, the test for informed consent is entirely subjective.  See Scott v. Bradford, 1979 OK 165 (the relative inquiry being what the patient would have wanted to know, not what a "reasonable" physician would have disclosed.)

In Spencer By and Through Spencer v. Seikel, 1987 OK 75, the Oklahoma Supreme Court specifically rejected the intorduction of expert medical testimony in cases of informed consent "because what is material to a patient's decision is subjective to each patient, objective or general professional standards are ineffective to determine the scope of the physician's duty to obtain informed consent in a given case."  

The Legislature is now telling us what we need to know to be "informed."  This could not be more contrary to well-settled Oklahoma law.