Okla. abortion ultrasound requirement challenged

Okla. abortion ultrasound requirement challenged

By RON JENKINS, Associated Press


OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — An advocacy group is suing over an Oklahoma law that prohibits a woman from getting an abortion unless she first has an ultrasound and the doctor describes to her what the fetus looks like.

In the lawsuit filed Thursday in Oklahoma County District Court, the Center for Reproductive Rights says that the requirement intrudes on privacy, endangers health and assaults dignity.

The law, set to go into effect Nov. 1, would make Oklahoma the fourth state in the nation to require that ultrasounds be performed before a woman can have an abortion and that the ultrasounds be made available to the patient for viewing, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based health research organization.

The other states are Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Backers of the lawsuit say Oklahoma is the only state to require that the ultrasound screen be turned toward the woman during the procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus.

Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, said the Oklahoma law appears unique in that its intent is that the woman seeking an abortion view the ultrasound images.

Lawmakers overrode Gov. Brad Henry's veto to pass the anti-abortion legislation in April. Henry, a Democrat, said he vetoed the bill because it didn't exempt victims of rape or incest from the ultrasound requirement.

Republican state Sen. Todd Lamb, said supporters of the law hope that it will curtail abortions in the state.

"I introduced the bill because I wanted to encourage life in society. In Oklahoma, society is on the side of life," Lamb said.

Lamb said he believes the lawsuit will stand a constitutional test. He disagreed with arguments that it forces a woman to view the ultrasound. The law says women may avert their eyes during the ultrasound.

>snip<

The lawsuit against the state was filed on behalf of Nova Health Systems doing business as Reproductive Services in Tulsa.

One provision of the law prohibits women from collecting damages based on claims that a baby born with defects would have been better off aborted. Abortion rights activists have said they fear the provision could allow doctors to withhold information about abnormalities in the fetus that could lead to complications after birth.

"Anti-choice activists will stop at nothing to prevent a woman from getting an abortion, but trying to manipulate a woman's decisions about her own life and health goes beyond the pale," said Stephanie Toti, staff attorney in the U.S. Legal Program of the Center for Reproductive Rights and lead attorney on the case.

"Governments should stop playing doctor and leave medical determinations to physicians and health decisions to individuals."

link

Hmm... looks like prochoice advocates are finally getting some balls about themselves again, in light of the fact that Obama will be our next president and will probably be appointing the next couple of Supreme Court justices.
I always maintained that Roe was safe and that we had nothing- nothing- to worry about, and now you see I'm right.
You're going to see these lame, arbitrary laws being reversed all over the country.
You're going to see eight years of "incrementalism" on the part of the antichoicers erased- washed away- in just a few months.
You are going to see a distinct change in the tone of this country, and neither chiseling away at women's reproductive rights nor pretending that abstinence is a feasible expectation for most biologically adult human beings will any longer be the order of the day.


Told ya. :mrgreen:

Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi... There's a lot people in those states that are a bit on the left side of the bell curve... Do they know what an ultrasound is?

lasix said:

Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi... There's a lot people in those states that are a bit on the left side of the bell curve... Do they know what an ultrasound is?

Click to expand...

God knows.
I'm in Texas (sort of in the middle of all those states) and we don't have this law here.
If we can live without it, I guess they can, too.

Have you noticed that since it's become clear that Obama will win in November, not only are people beginning to fight these pointless "obstacle" laws around the abortion issue, but gay marriage has been legalized in Connecticut?

When Obama is president, all the fringy fundamentalist bullies will be driven back into the shadows where they belong, and the mainstream will be empowered to take back America.

They made the mistake of thinking that "right" was what they were on all issues and not just the side of the political spectrum they were on.

But I'm sure they know what's best for me :roll:

I don't understand why that law exists, and I don't understand why people are challenging it. Can anybody help me out?

Kernel Sanders said:

I don't understand why that law exists, and I don't understand why people are challenging it. Can anybody help me out?

Click to expand...

It exists as one of numerous pointless "obstacle laws" intended to chisel away at women's rights; people are challenging for just that reason.

1069 said:

Okla. abortion ultrasound requirement challenged

He disagreed with arguments that it forces a woman to view the ultrasound. The law says women may avert their eyes during the ultrasound.

Click to expand...

.


You're not required by law to look at the ultrasound. That's big of them.

It's a horrendous law that hopefully will be overturned. As 1069 suggests - there's soon to be a new sheriff in town. Hope springs eternal here.

An advocacy group is suing over an Oklahoma law that prohibits a woman from getting an abortion unless she first has an ultrasound and the doctor describes to her what the fetus looks like.

Click to expand...

Its almost insulting as it assumes a female is unaware of what is an aborton and what a foetus is.

Laila said:

Its almost insulting as it assumes a female is unaware of what is an aborton and what a foetus is.

Click to expand...

That's true, and also because it assumes that seeing a blurry image on a scanner is going to cancel out all the reasons that women seek abortion and replace them with a big ole' "Look at teh baybeeee!"

It's the flip side of the bloody foetus photos. Ultrasounds are meant to over-ride all rational thought on the because they're "cute", the foetus pics are meant to work by over-riding rational thought because they're so "gross".

Pretty lame on behalf of the lifers, but when scientific enquiry and rational thought have shown that there's no logical basis for your cause, I guess you'll try anything.

If i was having an abortion i would not want no doctor attempting to influence me or my decision. I'd want it to be done quickly as its not like its easy to begin with.

Frankly, it's an appeal to emotion - but I don't see a problem with it.

Macintosh said:

Frankly, it's an appeal to emotion - but I don't see a problem with it.

Click to expand...

It would work if i had any regarding emotion.

This is definitely an appeal to emotion through social engineering. As if the decision to get an abortion is not already difficult enough, now the woman has to see the fetus that will be aborted. What an insult. I hope this gets struck down.

Orius said:

This is definitely an appeal to emotion through social engineering. As if the decision to get an abortion is not already difficult enough, now the woman has to see the fetus that will be aborted. What an insult. I hope this gets struck down.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I think it's much more than that. It's also a delaying tactic, eating up days, perhaps weeks, and making a safe abortion more difficult. Also, it forces increased costs on the woman, which for many will create a financial hardship. Face it, ultrasounds are not cheap, and with so many physicians being intimidated from doing abortions, it's very difficult for many women to find and reach a clinic to receive help in the first place.

I hate this law and hope it is overturned.

I bet if this were challenged according to Roe vs. Wade, this law would be thrown out as it obstructs a woman's ability to seek an abortion, and there is no medical justification for it.

DiAnna said:

I agree, but I think it's much more than that. It's also a delaying tactic, eating up days, perhaps weeks, and making a safe abortion more difficult. Also, it forces increased costs on the woman, which for many will create a financial hardship. Face it, ultrasounds are not cheap, and with so many physicians being intimidated from doing abortions, it's very difficult for many women to find and reach a clinic to receive help in the first place.

I hate this law and hope it is overturned.

Click to expand...

Well, here (in Texas) they routinely do ultrasounds anyway.
They have to, to figure out how far along the pregnancy is. This is for the safety of the patient.
I can't imagine it would be responsible for them to go in and start doing an abortion without knowing 1. if the pregnancy was far enough along, 2. if it was too far along, and 3. whether the patient was really even pregnant at all.
They will do an ultrasound before proceeding with a D&C.
But in my state, there's no requirement that the patient look at the ultrasound. Nobody told me to. Nobody told me not to.

It shouldn't necessarily delay things any (unless the patient is then required to go home and think about it for a certain amount of time); I just dislike the coercion aspect of it. Forcing patients to look at things. If the patient is pregnant, then she's an adult, and she'll look if she feels like it.
We don't pass laws requiring obstetricians to force women to view images of deformed infants, tantruming toddlers, out-of-control teenagers, episiotomies, stretched-out vaginas, sagging breasts, and c-section scars before allowing them to decide whether to continue with their pregnancies.

1069 said:

Well, here (in Texas) they routinely do ultrasounds anyway.
They have to, to figure out how far along the pregnancy is. This is for the safety of the patient.
I can't imagine it would be responsible for them to go in and start doing an abortion without knowing 1. if the pregnancy was far enough along, 2. if it was too far along, and 3. whether the patient was really even pregnant at all.
They will do an ultrasound before proceeding with a D&C.
But in my state, there's no requirement that the patient look at the ultrasound. Nobody told me to. Nobody told me not to.

It shouldn't necessarily delay things any (unless the patient is then required to go home and think about it for a certain amount of time); I just dislike the coercion aspect of it. Forcing patients to look at things. If the patient is pregnant, then she's an adult, and she'll look if she feels like it.
We don't pass laws requiring obstetricians to force women to view images of deformed infants, tantruming toddlers, out-of-control teenagers, episiotomies, stretched-out vaginas, sagging breasts, and c-section scars before allowing them to decide whether to continue with their pregnancies.

Click to expand...

This bill goes farther, it requires most women to have vaginal ultrasounds. This bill is not designed to make sure women have all the information they need to make a decision, it is plainly designed to discourage women by making the procedure more difficult, more expensive to obtain, and also to discourage doctors by increasing the time required and more importantly, the liabilities incurred.
New Oklahoma Law Forces Ultrasounds | Reproductive Health | RHRealityCheck.org

"both the Oklahoma State Medical Association and the Oklahoma chapter of the Association for Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) opposed on the grounds that it is invasive (on both a literal and figurative level) for both patient and physician, paves the way for more lawsuits, punishes physicians with outrageous fines, legislates that the providers post signs and even mandates what the signs must say, and forces the doctors to use certain language when talking to their patients about what they are seeing in the ultrasound.

More specifically, the law requires physicians to perform a vaginal ultrasound (if that option provides the best image, which it almost always does for pregnancies in the first trimester) one hour prior to an abortion on women who seek an abortion and to point out features like the heartbeat as well as fetal development - even if the woman has been a victim of rape. Yes, you read that correctly. The bill kindly allows that a woman may "avert her eyes" while receiving the vagina probe but there is no option, according to Dr. Dana Stone, chair of the state's chapter of ACOG, to "opt out of the procedure."

Now, not only do we have legislators mandating what kinds of information women receive but also what kinds of medical care they should receive. But the bill goes farther than that - much farther.

The law levies extreme fines against physicians who fail to comply. And also allows for new avenues for doctors to be sued. If a physician fails to send a written explanation of any adverse reaction to a medication abortion a woman experiences to her or his State Board of Medical Licensure the physician can be fined anywhere from $10,000 to more than $100,000. In addition, both the father of the baby and the maternal grandparents are given the right to sue the doctor for violating the new law. "

This bill goes farther, it requires most women to have vaginal ultrasounds.

Click to expand...

Good lord.
I don't even think I know what that is.
It must be new.
What's wrong with the kind where they rub the goop on your tummy?
I'm not being able to envision how they'd get a better one by going up through your vagina with it.

1069 said:

Good lord.
I don't even think I know what that is.
It must be new.
What's wrong with the kind where they rub the goop on your tummy?
I'm not being able to envision how they'd get a better one by going up through your vagina with it.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't think the TRUE goal of the bill is to get a better ultrasound, but more likely to make the procedure more distasteful to the woman.

OKgrannie said:

Well, I don't think the TRUE goal of the bill is to get a better ultrasound, but more likely to make the procedure more distasteful to the woman.

Click to expand...

I doubt many abortion practitioners would be complicit in that.
If it's left to the discretion of pratitioners whether or not a vaginal ultrasound would yield a "better" image, I trust and hope that most would simply claim that in their opinion, it wouldn't, and thereby avoid exposing patients (especially rape victims!) to needless invasive procedures.

Still, what a dreadful law.

Counter Flack

"Counter Flack"

OKgrannie said:

Well, I don't think the TRUE goal of the bill is to get a better ultrasound, but more likely to make the procedure more distasteful to the woman.

Click to expand...

Has the pro-choice agenda sought to add to the informed consent rules that sentience is non-existent prior to the formation of thalamocortical cells, which do not occur until the end of the second trimester, and abortion is synonymous with removal of a benign growth?

Re: Counter Flack

Monk-Eye said:

"Counter Flack"
Has the pro-choice agenda sought to add to the informed consent rules that sentience is non-existent prior to the formation of thalamocortical cells, which do not occur until the end of the second trimester, and abortion is synonymous with removal of a benign growth?

Click to expand...

I haven't heard of any efforts to add that information to the required list, mostly pro-choicers just try to defeat the bill. That's a good idea though.

Absolutely.
Maybe the time has come for prochoice to play offense, rather than defense.

Thanks to both 1069 and OKgrannie for the information. I did not realize that ultrasounds were done as a part of the abortion process. I presumed it would be a separate step that had to be scheduled.

And wow, the Oklahoma law sounds even more hideous than I had believed. I agree that the prochoice agenda has been coasting much too long now, allowing anti-choice legislation to chip away at women's rights until soon the right to choose will be nothing more than lip service.