# Strict Abortion Measures Enacted in Oklahoma



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

HOUSTON - The Oklahoma Legislature voted Tuesday to override the governor's vetoes of two abortion measures, one of which requires women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion.

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.

(see link for the rest of the article)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html

I can not adequately describe my anger about both measures, but especially the measure that allows doctors to LIE to their patients in order to dupe them into having a baby they would not otherwise have.


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

Yeah, the first ones bad enough, but the second? Its now OK for doctors to *LIE* to their patients??? As if we don't have enough issues with doctors and trust already....


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)




----------



## _ktg_ (Jul 11, 2008)

I can't even think coherent words in response to this ...


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

Throwing this out here.

Okay, what if the Doctor doesn't tell the woman the baby has a problem. A problem that requires a medical team in place as soon as the baby is born.

So the baby is born with the problem and then dies because the medical team is not in place. Can the Doctor be sued?

What about the emotional stress that is caused by the Doctor not informing the Mother. The Mother is unable to prepare herself mentally and emotionally and get support in place. Can she sue the Doctor for emotional anquish or something like that?

As a Mom of a child with special needs, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW! Not to have an abortion (though I believe in choice), but to prepare myself and my family. Educate myself, get Doctors in place!








I am so angry I am going to spit nails.

Just asking...


----------



## _ktg_ (Jul 11, 2008)

Katwrangler - I think you've hit the issue on the head, which is that politicians are dictating how doctors could handle their patients. I think any doctor would have to have it in teh notes about the problem with something that said - PATIENT DOES NOT KNOW!, but it would be very weird not to have the medical team in place during the delivery. Unless the mom up & decided to hb or had a very quick labor and did it unassisted.

I'm totally confused how this piece of legislation is not going to get overturned when the right case (which will probably be the first) comes up, as I'm pretty sure this flies in the face of the 14th amendment consitutionally. I see this one quickly moving through the federal courts...

Re: suit for emotional anguish/damage... I think the despite the law the first route would be malpractice - failure to practice medicine in accordance with accepted standards (this would include disclosing problems with a fetus). For instance if a woman had a quad screening and the results came back with possible indications for trisomy issues (21, 13 etc.) I'm not sure how a doctor in good faith hid or fail to disclose that to a patient, because it would hinder the consent process for the next set of interventions (CV sampling or amniocentsis)


----------



## KatWrangler (Mar 21, 2005)

So are they going to outlaw ALL prenatal testing and ultrasounds? I mean why have the tests if the Doctors aren't going to tell you the results?


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

The *only* good thing about this thread is the respect people have been showing and how it has *not* become an abortion debate.

Thank you all for that!


----------



## Kristine233 (Jul 15, 2003)

Yeah, I'm not seeing what the point of performing the tests is (and in many cases these are ELECTIVE tests) if the results can be lied about to the patients. You go in to the Dr for an Amnio to see if there are issues, if the Dr is allowed to lie to you what was the point of the test?

And how this relates to the first part is awful. A girl is raped by a relative, decides for her emotional well being that she can't go through with the pregnancy... then she has to be forced to watch the US... lets say she changes her mind but only barely and decides to go through with the pregnancy. But oh wait, the babe has a severe medical issue and probably wont survive. And guess what, the Dr knew about it during that fateful US. I mean, how much emotional trauma do they really need to inflict on the poor girl?


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Drs should always be required to give patients full disclosure as to their condition and health status. So, I do have big problems with the second law shielding Drs that withhold info. I don't have problems with the first one though. I see the first law as upholding full disclosure.

And I won't say anymore so that I stay within the UA.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

I don't have a problem with the first one, either. An ultrasound seems like it would be a good idea to not only access about how far along in pregnancy the woman is, but so that it's more realistic when she consents to the abortion. I actually thought that was done, anyway, as the women I can think of who have underwent one all had ultrasounds during at least one visit beforehand.

The second one doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## _ktg_ (Jul 11, 2008)

My issue with the first is (again not looking at the law or how its described) the in depth description of the limbs, heart, organs etc, during the US. I think many of us remember US in which the tech takes measurements might point out some features (limbs, heart, etc.) It seems like this description process could be done in a very clinical process or if its written vaguely, it could be taken very overboard by an individual techinician or physician again pressing their beliefs (and in a position of power) onto an patient looking for and requesting a medical procedure.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

Aren't most abortions are performed very early on? It does seem odd that they would be able to share so much detail about the fetus unless the pregnancy had progressed into the 2nd trimester.


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife* 
Aren't most abortions are performed very early on? It does seem odd that they would be able to share so much detail about the fetus unless the pregnancy had progressed into the 2nd trimester.

You can measure a heartbeat as early as six weeks. Imagine "Your baby's heart is beating at 120 bpm, nice and strong and healthy. Your baby's arms are x mm long and her little fingers are growing."

If you are in for an abortion, what is the point of full disclosure here, but no disclosure of any deformities?


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

As someone who had a first trimester natural miscarriage at home and saw the fetus, I can assure you that it was pretty detailed looking. I won't go into specifics here, but it perfectly lined up with the photos I'd seen on fetal development. It wasn't just some blob that is indistinguishable.


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife* 
I don't have a problem with the first one, either. An ultrasound seems like it would be a good idea to not only access about how far along in pregnancy the woman is, but so that it's more realistic when she consents to the abortion. I actually thought that was done, anyway, as the women I can think of who have underwent one all had ultrasounds during at least one visit beforehand.

The second one doesn't make any sense to me.

No it's not done. An ultrasound is performed for viability, and location prior to an abortion, but the screen is not turned toward the patient and no information is given, unless the woman wants to know.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *geekgolightly* 
You can measure a heartbeat as early as six weeks. Imagine "Your baby's heart is beating at 120 bpm, nice and strong and healthy. Your baby's arms are x mm long and her little fingers are growing."

If you are in for an abortion, what is the point of full disclosure here, but no disclosure of any deformities?

The point is true informed consent. I can tell you that after I lost my baby to a natural miscarriage at home, my best friend who had had an abortion years ago was quite interested in the realities of what it looked like and asked me detailed questions. And yes the reality of it made quite an impact on her, even though over 15 years had passed.


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna* 
The point is true informed consent. I can tell you that after I lost my baby to a natural miscarriage at home, my best friend who had had an abortion years ago was quite interested in the realities of what it looked like and asked me detailed questions. And yes the reality of it made quite an impact on her, even though over 15 years had passed.

She always could have asked. They make it clear up front that you can ask any questions, as well as there is counseling done prior to an abortion. When I had one, I was young and very curious about at what stage of development the baby was, and asked very very detailed questions. I wanted to know everything, before I made up my mind.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Wow.


----------



## _ktg_ (Jul 11, 2008)

True informed consent...what is meant by this? Usually informed consent is encompasses the following information (this is just not for abortions, but any procedure - except in a medical emergency):

your condition
the procedure, a description, time involvement etc
the risks of the procedure, benefits
additional risks (like you will be sedated, require a driver, CTs etc)
alternatives to the procedure
Your consent - signature or LAR (typically)

I'm having a hard time understanding where a detailed description of the fetus plays into true informed consent, and I think that's why I'm having a hard time wrestling with the first law, because it may (again haven't seen the exact legal language) borderline on including nonclinical & personal beliefs into that description. I'll take Geek's earlier description example re: heartbeat:

Imagine "Your baby's heart is beating at 120 bpm, nice and strong and healthy. _Such a beautiful life_Your baby's arms are x mm long and her little fingers are growing _wiggling, waving_

Italics are little statements which may be allowed (again not sure per law) which could have powerful impacts given the power dynamics which occur between patients and physicians. I think unless its written very carefully (which I highly doubt) personal beliefs will begin to come into (again) the realm of healthcare.

Again I'll be waiting for the case which overturns this or gets taken to the federal courts to be challenged in terms of constitutionality


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

I'll just say I agree with Arduinna on both points.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna* 
As someone who had a first trimester natural miscarriage at home and saw the fetus, I can assure you that it was pretty detailed looking. I won't go into specifics here, but it perfectly lined up with the photos I'd seen on fetal development. It wasn't just some blob that is indistinguishable.

Okay, I went through the same thing.. natural miscarriage at home, first trimester. All I did see was a plum colored blob.
Not trying to belittle your experience. I just wanted to point out that not all miscarrying moms see the same thing you did. Loosing a kid sucks. I'm sorry any of us have to go through that.

Back to Oklahoma, I'm glad I don't live there. I'm hoping these actions will overturned somehow. For a doctor not to give full disclosure to a patient should be criminal in my opinion.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KatWrangler* 
Throwing this out here.

Okay, what if the Doctor doesn't tell the woman the baby has a problem. A problem that requires a medical team in place as soon as the baby is born.

So the baby is born with the problem and then dies because the medical team is not in place. Can the Doctor be sued?


Yes. From the text of the bill I downloaded from here:

Quote:

This section shall not preclude causes of action based on claims that, but for a wrongful act or omission, maternal death or injury would not have occurred, or handicap, disease, or disability of an individual prior to birth would have been prevented, cured, or ameliorated in a manner that preserved the health and life of the affected individual.


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Yeah, the law seems pretty specific to allowing doctors to withhold information to prevent an abortion. It might well affect many people who will be shocked to find that their baby didn't develop normally (though not medically life threatening), the doctor knew and didn't tell them, and now they have no legal right to sue for withholding that information.


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom* 
I'll just say I agree with Arduinna on both points.

I want to know an opposing thought process on this, unless of course it is based in the belief that abortions shouldn't occur in the first polace. I am to understand that that particular topic is a no-no. Which makes sense. It's the same thing as arguing with an Objectivist if you're a follower of Iris Murdoch. It is fundamentally different. It's an a priori thing, and it won't change.

But I really would like to hear sound rationales on why it's a good thing to force women to view and listen to a detailed recital of the ultrasound before an abortion. All questions about development are already covered with a trained counselor prior to the procedure. The U/S is only for viability and location.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Well, I don't have a problem with the first law (not entirely sure about the second).

First of all, I would imagine that abortion clinics where the u/s would take place prior to the abortion would have very very strict rules on what exactly could be said, and techs would not be allowed to speak about the baby except in the most unemotional way. They would not be actively trying to get women to not have an abortion or else they'd lose their job.

Also, if a medical description of the baby and a fuzzy u/s picture would change a woman's mind about having an abortion, then doesn't that say something about that woman's choice (as in, it's the wrong one for her)?

I imagine this situation: A woman is facing an unintended pregnancy and decides that she should terminate, and she tells the counselor at the clinic that she'd rather not know anything about the baby's development because she doesn't want to be swayed by her emotions or just would rather not have to deal with her emotional reaction to knowing the full extent of what she was doing. In other words, she sticks her head in the sand in order to go through with it. Then days, weeks, years later she finds out the details she declined to hear before the abortion and truly regrets having it done. I think that it's a good thing for the medical professionals to insist that the woman make a truly informed decision instead of being allowed to go through with the procedure _that she would not have done_ had she not been given the opportunity to opt out of knowing all the facts.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *philomom* 
Back to Oklahoma, I'm glad I don't live there. I'm hoping these actions will overturned somehow. For a doctor not to give full disclosure to a patient should be criminal in my opinion.

I am from there, it is a nice place. But uh...yeah ITA it should be criminal not to fully disclose medical information to a patient.


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Purple Sage* 
Also, if a medical description of the baby and a fuzzy u/s picture would change a woman's mind about having an abortion, then doesn't that say something about that woman's choice (as in, it's the wrong one for her)?


We don't go into details about surgeries or most other major medical procedures because, frankly, I think it would scare people off. Shoudl we do that to ensure that people completely understand what happens pre intra and post op during a CABG? Believe me, you don't wanna know. Or, if you do, you'll ask.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

huh? My husband has had bypass surgery you can bet we knew exactly what they were going to do and what recovery should be expected before he consented. That is a part of full informed consent.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

Purple Sage, I couldn't figure out how to word my thoughts, and deleted my post earlier - but you said it well.


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna* 
huh? My husband has had bypass surgery you can bet we knew exactly what they were going to do and what recovery should be expected before he consented. That is a part of full informed consent.

You don't know all of the ugly stuff that happens. Look, I am part of giving consent for these procedures, I'm there explaining to families things and we gloss over the ugly side of things. We don't talk about never recovering from post pump delirium or when they go septic we don't give you the minutia of details about what happens to the body.

It's a need to know thing only.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

I can tell you that I'm the person in the hospital reading not only my own chart when I was admitted but also my husbands the numerous times he has been in hospital.

We both have been in hospitals where it it was very likely we could die. I'm all for full and complete informed consent ironically I've found my Drs to be the ones that give the fullest informed consent, whereas the nurses tend to try and gloss it over unless directly asked. Which is why I also get my info from the surgeons themselves, and the anesthesiologists.

Personally I can't stand the patronizing attitude some HCP have that they have to protect us for our own good from the realities of life. It's my life on the line, not the Drs, you bet your you know what I expect full and complete disclosure.


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Which is why I said unless they ask? You sound a little miffed or something?

In any case, every doctor I have ever worked with, in every instance of informed consent, has not gone over every detail, unless asked. I have worked in five hospitals in four states and even more units, so it isn't that I am only exposed to one cultural climate. It may sound like informed consent, and it IS, in that you know what you need to know about the basic risks and benefits, the basic outline of what the surgery entails and what you can expect from recovery, but details? How many mm we resects or how terrible it is to get someone on and off the pump isn't explored in detail. What's the point, other than for it to be a scare tactic.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *geekgolightly* 
You don't know all of the ugly stuff that happens. Look, I am part of giving consent for these procedures, I'm there explaining to families things and we gloss over the ugly side of things. We don't talk about never recovering from post pump delirium or when they go septic we don't give you the minutia of details about what happens to the body.

It's a need to know thing only.

I'm following this thread, and I'm curious at the double standard for withholding information. Don't get me wrong-- I think withholding information for the purpose of manipulating someone into not having an abortion is wrong. But I find withholding information for the purpose of manipulating someone into having another procedure equally wrong.


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
I'm following this thread, and I'm curious at the double standard for withholding information. Don't get me wrong-- I think withholding information for the purpose of manipulating someone into not having an abortion is wrong. But I find withholding information for the purpose of manipulating someone into having another procedure equally wrong.

The time it would take to fully explain most medical procedures would be very expensive. Nothing is left out per se, but unnecessary detail isn't covered.

And we would never over explain something by force, which is what this law proposes.


----------



## lovebeingamomma (Mar 16, 2007)

We have no idea what the US techs believe...they are just doing the US...it's not like they are hiring pro-life techs and having a pep talk beforehand telling them how to describe the baby is such a way as to make the woman feel so guilty that she cannot bare to abort. In fact do they even know why the woman is coming in for the US? I'm asking because I don't know, perhaps they are just told "6 week patient coming in, give a routine early US".


----------



## _ktg_ (Jul 11, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *geekgolightly* 
Which is why I said unless they ask? You sound a little miffed or something?

In any case, every doctor I have ever worked with, in every instance of informed consent, has not gone over every detail, unless asked. I have worked in five hospitals in four states and even more units, so it isn't that I am only exposed to one cultural climate. It may sound like informed consent, and it IS, in that you know what you need to know about the basic risks and benefits, the basic outline of what the surgery entails and what you can expect from recovery, but details? How many mm we resects or how terrible it is to get someone on and off the pump isn't explored in detail. What's the point, other than for it to be a scare tactic.

Thank you geek for directly pointing out the difference between what is usually informed consent (a discussion between a patient and doctor re procedure & risks) and what this first law proposes which may be overly detailed information being touted as IC but is really a scare tactic.

The best analogy I can think of is cancer, some patients want to know every detail, every risk, every side effect. Others maybe 50/50, and others still a general idea with the basics of informed consent covered to make sure they are "making" an informed decision. Informed consent is for many procedures a really delicate matter between patients and physicians.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

I am going to step in here and remind all to please phrase your replies with respect and to follow the UA. This is a heated topic, which leads to other heated topics.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *geekgolightly* 
We don't go into details about surgeries or most other major medical procedures because, frankly, I think it would scare people off. Shoudl we do that to ensure that people completely understand what happens pre intra and post op during a CABG? Believe me, you don't wanna know. Or, if you do, you'll ask.

I think there is a distinct difference between an abortion and a CABG. The reason a woman would change her mind about an abortion from viewing an u/s is because she would find herself morally opposed to it, not because she'd be scared of the operation itself.

Maybe I'm taking a more holistic approach to medical decision making than some people think is right or necessary, but I think that a woman should be given all the information needed to make a decision that not only affects her body but also her conscience. I know I would want to be informed of the moral considerations of any medical procedure, not just this one, so that I could make a decision that is in line with my conscience. I don't see this as a scare tactic, quite the opposite. It is empowering the woman to make the right moral decision for herself.

A woman might be perfectly okay with having an abortion at 6 weeks based on what she sees on the u/s but not be okay with it at 12 weeks. This is a decision only the woman can make, but she needs full disclosure to make that choice.


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Purple Sage* 
I think there is a distinct difference between an abortion and a CABG. The reason a woman would change her mind about an abortion from viewing an u/s is because she would find herself morally opposed to it, not because she'd be scared of the operation itself.

Maybe I'm taking a more holistic approach to medical decision making than some people think is right or necessary, but I think that a woman should be given all the information needed to make a decision that not only affects her body but also her conscience. I know I would want to be informed of the moral considerations of any medical procedure, not just this one, so that I could make a decision that is in line with my conscience. I don't see this as a scare tactic, quite the opposite. It is empowering the woman to make the right moral decision for herself.

A woman might be perfectly okay with having an abortion at 6 weeks based on what she sees on the u/s but not be okay with it at 12 weeks. This is a decision only the woman can make, but she needs full disclosure to make that choice.


Let me know if I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that it would be ok to force someone against their will to hear information they have decided they don't want or need.


----------



## Sarah W (Feb 9, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna* 
Drs should always be required to give patients full disclosure as to their condition and health status. So, I do have big problems with the second law shielding Drs that withhold info. I don't have problems with the first one though. I see the first law as upholding full disclosure.

And I won't say anymore so that I stay within the UA.

I agree with this!

My issue with the first measure is that I don't think it's designed to give all information, I think it's to emotionally bully women who want abortions.

I find that these two measures conflict with each other. So, you have to listen to a detailed description...unless the doctor doesn't want to pass information on to you.


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *geekgolightly* 
Let me know if I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that it would be ok to force someone against their will to hear information they have decided they don't want or need.

I've been thinking a lot about this, and I do think that it is okay. I think there is some information that a person should know before any procedure whether they want to know it or not. I don't think it is coercive; it is giving all the medical facts to the woman so that she can make her decision fully informed. In the case of abortion, this also means the woman must make a moral decision, so she must be fully aware of the moral decision she's making. I don't think it is fair to the woman to have a very important aspect of her (her conscience) ignored when giving the information to decide to have an abortion or not.

Please, don't get me wrong here. I am and have always been in favor of keeping abortion legal. I've been reluctant to post this because it is personal, but I have had a very early elective abortion myself, so I am well aware of what I'm talking about. I just think it does a disservice to women to not give her all the information she needs to make sure she is not doing something against her conscience that she will later regret.


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

I do not think it's ok to force someone to "learn" about the measurements of a fetus that is about to be destroyed. I think it's highly immoral, unethical and dictatorial.


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sarah w* 
i agree with this!

My issue with the first measure is that i don't think it's designed to give all information, i think it's to emotionally bully women who want abortions.

I find that these two measures conflict with each other. So, you have to listen to a detailed description...unless the doctor doesn't want to pass information on to you.

ita


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

I respectfully disagree, Purple Sage. I think if a patient has indicated that he or she doesn't want to know the intimate details of a surgery or procedure, then medical staff should be able to non-disclose beyond basic information. to me, limiting information on request about the details shows respect for the patient's needs. I do consider abortion to be a medical procedure, so that may affect my pov of course. I just think there is a big difference between saying to a client 'Yep, there's the uterus, there is the embryo-fetus, & i estimate that the pregnancy is around X weeks in duration' as opposed to 'look at the little arms, you can almost see the fingers forming & wow, look at that heartbeat!'. The first statement is clinical, the second statement is emotional. In my opinion, patients deserve clear clinical information. The emotional stuff they are perfectly capable of working out according to their own personal needs when it comes to elective procedures. They don't need someone to tell them what they should feel or see.

I hope that doesn't sound harsh, I don't mean it to be. And I am somewhat confused by the distinctions between the two OK laws. I guess I just don't like to see any patient coerced, emotionally or otherwise, into a decision that they don't agree with.

Informed consent is very tricky territory.

With respect to all.....


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemum* 
I respectfully disagree, Purple Sage. I think if a patient has indicated that he or she doesn't want to know the intimate details of a surgery or procedure, then medical staff should be able to non-disclose beyond basic information. to me, limiting information on request about the details shows respect for the patient's needs. I do consider abortion to be a medical procedure, so that may affect my pov of course. I just think there is a big difference between saying to a client 'Yep, there's the uterus, there is the embryo-fetus, & i estimate that the pregnancy is around X weeks in duration' as opposed to *'look at the little arms, you can almost see the fingers forming & wow, look at that heartbeat!'.* The first statement is clinical, the second statement is emotional. In my opinion, patients deserve clear clinical information. The emotional stuff they are perfectly capable of working out according to their own personal needs when it comes to elective procedures. They don't need someone to tell them what they should feel or see.

I hope that doesn't sound harsh, I don't mean it to be. And I am somewhat confused by the distinctions between the two OK laws. I guess I just don't like to see any patient coerced, emotionally or otherwise, into a decision that they don't agree with.

Informed consent is very tricky territory.

With respect to all.....

I understand where you're coming from, but I also respectfully disagree. The part I bolded simply would not happen. The description would be worded as unemotionally and medically sterile as possible at any abortion clinic. I think that going to this extreme is making a false emotional claim about this law - it is unrealistic and fear-mongering.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

I don't know, purple sage, I haven't read the wording of the law to be honest. I just can't see where there would be safeguards against moral opinion being used as medical opinion in this situation. especially considering abortion history in the US, and in this particular case, Oklahoma.

I don't want to fear-monger, but the history of legal abortion in the US is a bit... of a concern (searching for a diplomatic word).


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

I think it's important to remember that the medical description and u/s would be taking place at the place where the abortion is to be performed, not at a place where people are actively trying to keep women from getting abortions. I don't know about Oklahoma, but I've been to an abortion clinic in Texas (not your most liberal state!) and the people working there were all 100% pro-choice. The safeguards for employees not injecting their moral stance into the discussion would be provided by the medical establishment performing the abortion. I have no doubt that the rules would be very clear and very strict that employees not say anything that is not of the utmost medically sterile jargon and only as much as the law requires. I would imagine the wording to be such as "upper extremities measure 2mm, lower extremities measure...."


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

fair enough. But what if a woman goes to a pregnancy clinic or a doctor's surgery, somewhat uncertain about her decision. If abortion service providers are already providing clinical information, why is there the need to codify it in law? I just don't see the restriction to keep medical-patient dialogue to a clinical level in the current proposal.

Again, I haven't read the current legislation in OK. But I can just see so many loopholes where personal can cross the professional line here.

I grew up in the US & lived there until I was 26, if that gives me any currency in this discussion. So yeah, I do know that Texas is not the most liberal state, & I hear where you are coming from. Just wondering why these disclosure laws are being enacted....


----------



## _ktg_ (Jul 11, 2008)

I was going to respond with the debate about informed consent and etc. but
I tried to look up the law in OK - still with no success, and instead found an article by ABC news which discusses some of the other laws in OK regarding abortions mainly:

From the article:

Quote:

Under Oklahoma law, they must be read a typewritten script over the phone 24 hours prior to the procedure, one that describes complications and risks and the gestational age
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/okla-ab...0507849&page=1

So getting back to this law - it might be very repetative of what OK has already in place. Apparently they also have women filled out an extensive & very personnal questionnaire prior the procedure. Finally the legislation attempted to pass a law to post information regarding women who have undergone abortions on a public website - luckily this got struck down.

I am in a bit of shock (again can't confirm per law) but the article references the US and description must occur within 1 hour prior to undergoing to procedure. I'm sorry but with respect to persons, and their autonomy to make a decision as considered in realm of bioethics this law does not uphold any of that. In my mind this is where the state and legislative bodies are choosing to ignore the fact this is a legal medical procedure and making it extensively difficult for someone to choose.


----------



## _ktg_ (Jul 11, 2008)

On a completely unrelated note - I want say thank you to everyone as this topic however timely has cemented in my mind what I will be writing on for my final paper for my law & bioethics class for my master's program


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemum* 
fair enough. *But what if a woman goes to a pregnancy clinic or a doctor's surgery, somewhat uncertain about her decision.* If abortion service providers are already providing clinical information, why is there the need to codify it in law? I just don't see the restriction to keep medical-patient dialogue to a clinical level in the current proposal.

Again, I haven't read the current legislation in OK. But I can just see so many loopholes where personal can cross the professional line here.

I grew up in the US & lived there until I was 26, if that gives me any currency in this discussion. So yeah, I do know that Texas is not the most liberal state, & I hear where you are coming from. Just wondering why these disclosure laws are being enacted....

I think this is entirely the point - if a woman goes into the clinic somewhat uncertain and hearing a clinical description and seeing an u/s causes her to decide it is against her conscience to undergo the procedure, then it was most definitely in _her_ best interest to not have the abortion. In my opinion, a woman's conscience is as much a part of her as her uterus.

I also have full confidence that abortion providers will make certain that the description is as clinical and unemotional as possible.


----------



## dogmom327 (Apr 19, 2007)

I wonder why they couldn't just as the patient if she wants to hear a detailed description and then respect her decision? She is an adult (or in the case of a teenager, able to give consent)--isn't that just basic respect for other people? Seems extremely paternalistic particularly when this isn't information that impacts the medical risk of the procedure (isn't that really the purpose of informed consent?).

ETA: On the second part of the law, I wonder if doctors would decide to lie at first then disclose later in the pregnancy when it's too late to abort? Maybe they would feel that covers them on the issues of giving parents time to prepare? I'm utterly disgusted either way.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Purple Sage* 
In the case of abortion, this also means the woman must make a moral decision, so she must be fully aware of *the moral decision* she's making. I don't think it is fair to the woman to have a very important aspect of her (her conscience) ignored when giving the information to decide to have an abortion or not.

What if the woman does not view abortion as a moral decision? Does she still need to be informed in the manner prescribed, then?


----------



## Purple Sage (Apr 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2* 
What if the woman does not view abortion as a moral decision? Does she still need to be informed in the manner prescribed, then?

I don't mean this to sound flip, but why would she have a problem with hearing a clinical description and viewing an u/s if the issue is not a moral one to her? It would be just one more step in the process of consent and prep for the procedure, just like any of the others.


----------



## _ktg_ (Jul 11, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Purple Sage* 
I don't mean this to sound flip, but why would she have a problem with hearing a clinical description and viewing an u/s if the issue is not a moral one to her? It would be just one more step in the process of consent and prep for the procedure, just like any of the others.

For me - this additional review and description is on top of the already discussed informed consent process, along with a 24 hour prior telephone call describing risks and the gestational age of the fetus. Plus double checks by the staff & doctors to ensure she's still in agreement with her decision.

I'm struggling with this graphic, though it may be clinical description being required for 1 type of medical procedure, but then the bar is lowered for others.


----------

