World

New Oklahoma Law Will Put Details Of All Abortions Online

by generaldecay | October 9, 2009 at 11:32 pm

156 views | 26 Recommendations | 8 comments

And we have yet another example of obstructionist legality on abortion which is, I have little doubt, introduced to prevent women accessing abortions, and to make abortions more difficult to practitioners to perform.

A new Oklahoma law will require the details of every abortion to be posted on a public website. Proponents say this will prevent abortion — apparently by shaming and burdening women and doctors. The law mandates that a 34-item questionnaire be filled out by abortion providers for each procedure.

And making abortions more and more cumbersome for the physicians to perform.

Now, while the law does not require that the personal details of women who have abortions are made available, the details that are required would make identification fairly easy.

The questionnaire doesn't include the woman's name or "any information specifically identifying the patient," but it does ask for age, race, level of education, marital status, number of previous pregnancies, and the county in which the abortion was performed, information which opponents of the bill argue would be enough to identify a woman in a small town.

Not only this, but the law will require information on the woman's reasons for having an abortion and the 'viability of foetus life' at the time of the procedure (the classic anti-choice argument).

The questionnaire also asks about the mother's reason for the abortion, her method of payment, and even what type of insurance she has, as well as whether the foetus received anaesthetic and whether there was "an infant born alive as a result of the abortion."

Let it also be noted for the record that information on the male half of this unwanted pregnancy is not required.

The required information astonishingly contains nothing about the man who caused the pregnancy.

This is nothing more than the age old naming and shaming of filthy sluts who dare to have sex. We might as well start taking them out into the town square again for flogging.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

Hugh Askew

at 02:54 on October 10th, 2009

Having been given the "choice", we have managed to abort 50,000,000+ babies in this country.

How do we excuse that? 50,000,000? That number puts Stalin's victim list to shame.

How do we excuse that? Is it that we no longer have a moral compass?

As to "the 'viability of foetus life' at the time of the procedure (the classic anti-choice argument).", how do we justify killing a child - one that is capable of surviving in this world - based upon nothing more than its position at the moment?

"This is nothing more than the age old naming and shaming of filthy sluts", except there are no names, no physical descriptions (except race). The claim that it makes it easy to identify those in small towns is specious.

generaldecay

at 02:55 on October 10th, 2009

How do we excuse that? We don't have to. It's not something that needs to be excused.

Killing a child? A foetus is not a child. My body, my choice.

No names? Read above. Small town America would have no trouble identifying names.

Hugh Askew

at 05:29 on October 10th, 2009

Find and name a single small town in Oklahoma that has an abortion clinic. (clue - there aren't any)

As to abortion killing children, if it is not a child, what is it? A duck, perchance a mule?

From Webster:

child: 1 a : an unborn or recently born person

Sputnic

at 03:04 on October 10th, 2009

Creating a situation where the "mother" can be identified is wrong. Then what, murder her ? Name the father too, would his family join in the witch hunt ? The numbers of abortions have got way out of hand, surely something has gone terribly wrong somewhere ? BIRTH CONTROL needs to be offered and publicised. How many of these people having abortions are girls ? Should they be sentenced to social death for a terrible mistake ? I made plenty as a boy.

Amy Judd

at 07:18 on October 10th, 2009

In my opinion an abortion must be a very difficult decision and not something that is undertaken lightly and must be so distressng to the mother as it is. This is really disgusting to me that Oklahoma would do this - why not put the father's details up there too then? Why does he get off scott free? He was there when the baby was conceived so he should also have his details there.

Abortion should never be used as a form of birth control but I think it shouldn't be something that becomes an excercise in shame. Until we know the reason someone has an abortion or decides that is the best thing for them, I think none of us can point fingers and say 'murderer'.

generaldecay

at 10:23 on October 10th, 2009

Amy, thanks for the comment and recommendation. In my opinion, the male's details are not not required because this is not about men and what they do; it is specifically targeting at women and making access to abortions as difficult for them as possible. This has become a recent trend in America (also, this).

politisite

at 08:47 on October 11th, 2009

Amy, I am not defending this law.. as I haven't read it. The issue with the man being identified in the paper would be a double standard. The man has no standing legally in the decision process. If the man does not want the woman to have an abortion, he has no rights. Now if the woman decides to have the baby he is responsible for support, even if he did not want the child. The mans information should not be published because he is not in control of whether a woman has an abortion or not. Having said that, if this law provides for publishing personal information about a woman having an abortion would violate federal privacy laws and would be overturned.

lazylu (not verified)

at 21:38 on October 24th, 2009

it's difficult either way. back off some people, it's a choice that one has to live with for the rest of their lives. Comparing it to other massacres only makes matters worse; why go ahead and remind people of their decision whether it was "good or bad"? Talk about freedom. Once the decision is made, it's final, there is no turning back and you know what? Probably the hardest decision to make ever. If the law is to shame people, then shame on whoever is doing this. If the law was made by a bunch of religios people, then they too are gonna burn in hell.....Isn't there something in the bible about pointing fingers and not respecting the neighbor and such things? Trust me on this, it goes both ways that either decision (pro/anti) should be taken as what it is and granted that there is disagreement, there is no room for not respecting the courage it takes to go either way!