SB 1878 - Abortion Bill

[iplaw]

CF, not to pick apart your analysis of the study, but where did "religious indignation" factor into their analysis?  Or was that your take on the numbers?

[iplaw]

quote:Are women too stupid to realize what a fetus is?

No, but who hasn't heard the argument that since they aren't viable they aren't really alive yet, even though SCOTUS never reached a decision on that issue.

I remember our first ultrasound last year at 9 weeks when we heard the heart beat and watched our daughter doing what our doctor called the 9 week shuffle...

It's a little more difficult to justify killing something that you see moving around, when you can watch the heart pumping blood, and hear the heart beat.  

Out of site, out of mind I suppose.

[cannon_fodder]

The study I linked too was removed from my religious ramblings, sorry if that was not clear.  I found that link interesting in that it seems to take care to remain removed from the issues, so I just kind of stuck it in.  Sorry again.

And yes, I agree.  It would be more difficult aborting a fetus that you watch and hear described.  That's my whole point, THE whole point of this law is to force doctors to make that emotional argument to their patients (you are killing a heart beat, living breathing gift from god if you do this - love State of Oklahoma).  Medical need, consent and every other argument is just fluff... the POINT is that they are trying to personify the fetus and make the choice harder for the woman.

For better or worse, that's the point.  NOT medical safety or the other reasons.  Not sure why you are the only one who seems willing to own up to that fact or even why it is something worth dancing around.  Hence my frustration.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Oklahoma's legislature prescribes legal duties owed by legal and health professionals all the time. For example, did you read the statute I cited CF re: informed consent and abortion BEFORE this statute? This statute, which is actually 63 O.S. § 1-738.2 states:

B. Except in the case of a medical emergency, consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed if and only if:
1. a. not less than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the performance of the abortion, the woman is told the following, by telephone or in person, by the physician who is to perform the abortion, or by a referring physician, or by an agent of either physician:
(1) the name of the physician who will perform the abortion,(2) the medical risks associated with the particular abortion procedure to be employed,(3) the probable gestational age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed,(4) the medical risks associated with carrying her child to term, and (5) that ultrasound imaging and heart tone monitoring that enable the pregnant woman to view her unborn child or listen to the heartbeat of the unborn child are available to the pregnant woman. The physician or agent of the physician shall inform the pregnant woman that the web site and printed materials described in Section 1-738.3 of this title, contain phone numbers and addresses for facilities that offer such services at no cost,

Plainly the legislature can, and in fact did, set forth numerous, minimum requirements of information a physician must give a pregnant woman contemplating abortion.

As for your case law, while I appreciate the effort to make this debate about law, such is absolutely meaningless because the legislature is absolutely premitted to impose statutory duties on those persons it licenses.
It is worth noting that in Spencer, though, the Court made the following observation that is very relevant to my position: "...[A]lthough a woman's right to an abortion is fundamental, it is not necessarily unqualified; it must be considered against compelling state interests in regulating abortions." In Oklahoma, the legislature's compelling state interest pertaining to this bill, as I see it, is providing a woman considering abortion as much information as possible. Thus, the new bill appears consistent with Oklahoma jurisprudence.

[CoffeeBean]

Guido -

The ultrasound has no redeeming medical value whatsoever.  What additional information does the ultrasound provide that is not otherwise available to the woman?  

I appreciate the desire to fully inform women about their choice, but that only makes my point - it's their choice, and the scope of information necessary to make that choice is not the province of the Legislature.  

Let me ask it this way - if the Legislature determined that women would be better informed of their choice if forced to sit with a dead fetus for 24 hrs in advance of the procedure, would you agree?

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by CoffeeBean

Guido -

The ultrasound has no redeeming medical value whatsoever.  What additional information does the ultrasound provide that is not otherwise available to the woman?  

I appreciate the desire to fully inform women about their choice, but that only makes my point - it's their choice, and the scope of information necessary to make that choice is not the province of the Legislature.  

Let me ask it this way - if the Legislature determined that women would be better informed of their choice if forced to sit with a dead fetus for 24 hrs in advance of the procedure, would you agree?

I have already answered the question about the usefulness of the ultrasound in responding to CF. Given your silence as to the issues I raised in responding to your other positions, I think we are through.

[CoffeeBean]

Guido -

Do not mistake silence for concession. The reason I did not address your statutory argument had nothing to do with its merit;  quite the opposite.

You cannot hold up a never-before litigated statute and claim "Ah-hah, here is evidence of what the Legislature can do!"  That simply defies fundamental civis.  

For example, see 21 O.S. Sec. 901, titled "Crimes against Blasphemy."  Did the Legislature pass it?  You bet it did - way back in 1910.  Is it still on the books?  Absolutely.  Would it ever stand up in Court if challenged?  Not a snowballs chance in hell - not even in Oklahoma.  

So, while I appreciate reference to never-before litigated statutes, I prefer actual case law.  

That said, I do agree with you and the Spencer Court that abortions are both a fundamental right of the woman, and subject to regulation.  But therein lies our difference - you believe in forcing a woman to watch an ultrasound while I perfer giving her that option.

And since I answered your question, why don't you answer mine:  If the legislature decided that forcing woman to sit with a dead fetus during the 24 hrs prior to a procedure would better inform her choice, would you agree?  How about just physically touching a dead fetus?  

I don't mean to be overly gruesome, but all these "things" would fall under the rubric of providing more and better information.  

The question is - how much is too much, and when can the woman exercise her right to say enough is enough?

[iplaw]

quote:The question is - how much is too much, and when can the woman exercise her right to say enough is enough?

This is a great question, and I think legislation like this is drafted in response to the fact that getting an abortion appears, from most available information, to be a detached, overly sanitized process where little if any information is exchanged during the procedure about what exactly is taking place.  

And as has been demonstrated time and again through numerous independent studies, most 90%+ abortions are performed for convenience or backup birth control.  In fact, more than 50% weren't using birth control AT ALL.  I would imagine that any thinking, compassionate individual would have no issue with putting in place measures such as an ultrasound that would help to decrease abortions.

What happened to demanding people act responsibly and not get pregnant in the first place?  Why do we concern ourselves with whether this causes mental distress to the only party in this matter who acted irresponsibly?

If this law even keeps a handful of people from getting pregnant because they know at some point they're going to come face to face with their child before they have them vacuumed out, then it would be a success.

[Robinson]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

When the abortion arguement arises, there is a stereotype of who receive an abortion. Not all pregnancies are meant to be - and having to decide between a wife and the fetus that is killing the wife is not an issue for anyone but the people involved.

She was crawling from the bed to the bathroom before she accepted the fact that the miscarriage they told her would happen didn't. Then here only option was to have the abortion.

Knee Jerk reactions disregard so much.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

With this in mind, what is the point of the bill?  What's next, are they going to require in vitro fertilization patients to look at fertilized eggs through a microscope?  It seems like this bill is based on us vs. them mentality, and discounts any real facts.

[iplaw]

So many canards, so little time...

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.

What the hell are you talking about?  Who's keeping anyone from getting an abortion now?

quote:
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.

Read the statistic fella, the vast majority fall into discretionary/personal choice categories.  I can't help you if scientific studies aren't your cup of tea.

Speaking of painful, how does scrambling your brains or vacuuming body parts sound?

quote:
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.

Please, again, for the third time now.  INFORM US.  What information am I missing.

quote:
When the abortion arguement arises, there is a stereotype of who receive an abortion.

It's not a "stereotype."  It's called statistics.

quote:
Not all pregnancies are meant to be - and having to decide between a wife and the fetus that is killing the wife is not an issue for anyone but the people involved.

She was crawling from the bed to the bathroom before she accepted the fact that the miscarriage they told her would happen didn't. Then here only option was to have the abortion.

Less than 3% of all abortions are for instances of the health of the mother.

quote:
Knee Jerk reactions disregard so much.

As does amplifying statistical outliers and making the extreme minority case appear to be the majority.

[mrhaskellok]

My question is this...given the fact that we are all little fetuses running around, just a little more grown up (some not so much), what is wrong with wanting to be sure we got this one right?

I mean, this seems like the perfect start to a great history lesson...

Little Jimmy,

Once upon a time, there was a great civilization, who for some strange reason started aborting millions and millions and then billions and billions of their babies.  (Oops, sorry, fetuses)

When "life", no matter how helpless and easy it is to terminate, becomes a "choice", then we have failed miserably to move forward as a people.  I would ask you to read about ancient civilizations who found it acceptable to kill themselves off.  (Aztecs, Romans)  We condemn the Chinese for committing female infanticide...but if it is purely the mom's choice, then why would it be wrong?   I know why we think it is wrong, it is because it is demented thinking! We just don't want to say we are committing these atrocities...only communist China has those kinds of problems. Read this...
Gendercide
"governments and other actors can be just as guilty of mass killing by neglect or tacit encouragement"  By skirting the real issue, i.e. we are killing our babies off, and by providing FREE abortions, we are committing "tacit encouragement".
The Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificed their infants...According to Diodorus Siculus:
"There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire."  The only difference is, instead of trying to appease some stupid god, we are simply trying to appease ourselves.  The sacrificial medium is the same.
What will the history books say?  Hmmm?

My wife is pregnant, and she is not carrying around anything but a baby.  If someone ran into her and killed that "thing" in her belly, they would be guilty of MANslaughter.  

The main difference between the two schools of thought is this, one wants the woman to be able to CHOOSE if she wants to have the BABY...enough with the terminology.  (My patella is still my knee cap.)  

Barring medical nightmares, (which do occur)the only right a woman has is to stay out of that bed if she doesn't want the thing.  That is the choice we all have.  Of course this is all assuming you had the conversation about the birds & the bees.  

This isn't a casino...it's life...and I know here in Oklahoma it is hard to tell the difference but you don't get to keep pulling the handle till you finally get what you want, your perfect world.  We have to live with our choices and move on, bad or not.  

Flame me all you want, I wont budge...as a race, we have no business accepting the practice of aborting our future generations for convenience.
(Assuming we agree that the vast majority of them are for that reason)

I agree with you CF, the legislation is silly.  For those of us who would rather not see it happen except for by medical necessity only, we need to just state it and put it up for election and stop dancing around the "issue" by pretending we have some other motives.

That article is far from biased btw...Unintended Pregnancies?  Ha!  You mean, I didn't know that would happen if he did that to me dad, honest!  The article sympathizes with people AFTER they have made the mistake.  I sympathize with them too, but just like a guy paying child support, I feel sorry for him for about 1.7 seconds.  Should have listened to grandma I guess if mom and dad aren't telling you the consequences.  For that link I get to post one too!  World Summary of World-wide Abortions
They show a total of 756,695,000 REPORTED abortions and 944,935,000 actually expected.  

Oh, and for context, I am AGAINST the death penalty.  That may help you see my motives CF.  
[][]

[guido911]

MrHaskell and IP:  I do not think I have ever read  such well reasoned and articulated positions on this issue.

It sure beats the sh*t out of the "It's my body, it's my choice" mantra.

[mrhaskellok]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

MrHaskell and IP:  I do not think I have ever read  such well reasoned and articulated positions on this issue.

It sure beats the sh*t out of the "It's my body, it's my choice" mantra.

Thanks, I never really got that argument or "mantra"...we lock people up for wanting to commit suicide, we need to lock them up for infanticide too.  Poor kids...

[iplaw]

I just want someone to answer my questions.  I have now had THREE separate people allege that we're just ill informed, or ignoring science, or avoiding information, and on and on, without providing me with that information when I have repeatedly asked them to provide it.

I have now asked on three separate occasions for any information, statistic or scientific information that I'm apparently unaware of.

Maybe I missed it?