NP Rank:
Strict Abortion Measures Enacted in Oklahoma
It is quite amazing that people who rail against government, and argue in favor of less intrusion by government in our every day lives would enact such draconian measures under the color of law. The Oklahoma State Legislature overrode the governor's veto and enacted into law two measures that will force women to submit to procedures that may not be medically necessary, and will shield doctors from lawsuits for withholding medical information.
If this law withstands court challenge, it will now be permissible for doctors in the State of Oklahoma to make reproductive health care decisions for patients without the patient's consent.
Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.
A second measure passed into law on Tuesday prevents women who have had a disabled baby from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects while the child was in the womb.
NowPublic on Facebook
Crowd Power
-
nanute
New York, United States



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (8)
at 12:47 on April 29th, 2010
Nanute: Many people don't look at abortion as simply "reproductive health care". They see it in terms of a human life being destroyed simply because it's more convenient to dispose of the fetus than to go to term. It doesn't make them bad or evil. They just view things from a different perspective.
at 12:55 on April 29th, 2010
What different perspective? Women don't have reproductive rights? You've got a daughter. Would you like the government making choices for her? I never said people with a different "opinion" were bad people. Misguided, and judgmental, maybe.
at 14:51 on April 29th, 2010
The new health care law will be making choices for us. Our United States government will now be making health care decisions for my daughters and my sons. It will be making health care decisions for me. Is that misguided and judmental, maybe? We will all be losing many of our rights. Why should "reproductive rights" be treated differently than the health care rights of a senior citizen?
at 15:24 on April 29th, 2010
Sorry Judith. Private health insurance companies will be making health care choices for your daughters and sons. Just like it is now. If you are OK with your daughter losing her reproductive rights, I'm OK with it. I wasn't aware that senior citizens have any concerns regarding personal reproductive rights.
at 17:10 on April 29th, 2010
nanute,
There is a new bureaucracy provided for in this bill, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. This bureaucracy will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (read pgs 442, 446). This bureaucracy will determine if a certain procedure you may wish to have is practical and cost effective. If you are a senior citizen, spending money on your health may not be deemed as cost effective if they feel you may only have another 5 years to live. Seniors have many concerns with this bill.
The "reproductive rights" cliche is really just an excuse to promote abortion. Many girls and women have been talked into abortions and later regretted having them. Women have a right to know exactly what they are getting into if they decide to have an abortion and this law doesn't prevent them from having an abortion.
Do you fear that some women may decide they don't really want an abortion after they see the ultra sound? Do the choices other women make really effect you? Do you believe that women, especially young women, may not fully understand what an abortion is all about and how they may feel about it emotionally once they have had one? Do you think it is morally wrong to afford them the opportunity to be totally sure it is what they want to do BEFORE they do it? I don't see the problem with this law.
at 13:25 on April 29th, 2010
The government makes choices for us all the time. That doesn't mean that I like it. Some states aren't as "progressive" as other states. If it were up to me, I'd allow the states to make their own decisions on abortion and any number of laws that the Federal Government imposes upon them. :)
at 13:39 on April 29th, 2010
Does that mean you are not a proponent of the equal protection clause? Can state law trump rights protected by the US Constitution? We've been down that road before, and it didn't work out very well. If Florida decided that your daughter couldn't make a choice regarding her personal, private health, you'd be OK with that?
at 07:15 on April 30th, 2010
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS! MINCHIA! It's called abortion! JEEZ!
National Health Care Nullification – As of March 2010[update], 30 states have introduced legislation which would declare certain provisions of any proposed national health care bill to be null and void within the state; the legislation passed in Arizona, Idaho, Utah, and Virginia.[13] Such provisions include mandatory participation in such a system as well as preserving the right of a patient to pay a health care professional for treatment (and for the professional to accept it) outside of a single-payer system. Arizona's legislation passed as a proposed constitutional amendment, to be submitted to the voters in 2010.[14] On February 1, 2010, the Virginia Senate took a stand against a key provision of a proposed federal health care overhaul, passing legislation declaring that Virginia residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance. On March 17, 2010, Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed a bill requiring the Attorney General to sue the Federal Government if Idaho residents are required to buy health insurance.[15]