Hot Topic (8/20): Law requiring ultrasound before abortion overturned
Abortion Law Backers Vow Oklahoma Appeal
HOUSTON — A day after a judge struck down an Oklahoma law requiring women seeking an abortion to see an ultrasound of the fetus and listen to a description of its attributes, the state said it would appeal the ruling, and Republican lawmakers vowed to pass the law again in a different form.
While advocates of abortion rights celebrated the victory in court, they acknowledged the fight against one of the most sweeping anti-abortion laws in the country was likely to continue for months in the Legislature and before the State Supreme Court.
“It is one battle in the war, but the war shall continue,” said Martha Hardwick, a Tulsa lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights.
On Tuesday, Judge Vicki L. Robertson of the Oklahoma County District Court ruled the omnibus abortion bill — which lawmakers passed over the veto of Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, in 2008 — violated a clause in the State Constitution requiring that bills deal with only one subject. Judge Robertson did not rule on whether the law, which rolled together five separate anti-abortion measures, violated constitutional protections of privacy and freedom of speech.
Charlie Price, a spokesman for Attorney General W.A. Drew Edmondson, said Wednesday that an appeal would be filed with the State Supreme Court. The state will argue that the law does not violate the single-subject rule, because all its parts are germane to abortion, Mr. Price said.
In recent years, several states have passed laws requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before an abortion and at least three — Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi — require doctors to offer the woman the chance to see the image.
But Oklahoma’s Legislature went further. The law would have required the doctor or technician to set up the ultrasound monitor where the woman could see it and then talk her through the procedure, describing the heart, limbs and internal organs.
The woman would be allowed to “avert her eyes,” the law said.
In early stages of pregnancy, when the fetus is tiny, the law would have required the ultrasound to be done vaginally to get a clear image, providers said. No exceptions were made for rape and incest victims.
“Before that mother goes through the procedure, we believe it is positive public policy to give her as much information as possible about that baby,” the bill’s sponsor, Senator Todd Lamb, a Republican from Edmond, said. “She might just change her mind and, who knows, that baby could be a future Nobel Prize winner.”
Opponents of the law, however, said it marked a state intrusion into the private decision making of a woman and her doctor. “Even if you don’t look at the picture, you have to listen to the description,” said Anita Fream, the head of Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma. “It almost reaches the stage of seeming cruel to me.”
The law never went into effect because of the legal challenge.
Beyond mandating ultrasounds, the law would have allowed doctors to refuse to take part in an abortion for religious reasons, required signs in clinics saying abortions cannot be coerced and prohibited “wrongful-life lawsuits,” in which a plaintiff argues that a disabled child would have been better off not being born. It also put restrictions on the morning-after pill.
Judge Robertson ruled the Republican majority in both houses had bound up too many different measures in one bill, violating a constitutional provision intended to protect lawmakers from the common problem of having to vote for a provision they dislike to pass a bill they support.
Republican legislative leaders said that if the state did not win on appeal, they would break the law into five bills and pass them in the session that begins in February.
* * *
Do you think a woman seeking an abortion should be required to see an ultrasound of the fetus and listen to a description of the fetus?
What do you think of this proposed law? How do you feel about it being overturned?
Bravo - it was overturned. It should never have been passed. How dare some lawmaker interfere with what is between a woman and her doctor.
"I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit."
I'm glad it was overturned.
My stance isn't up there. You can be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. I always resent that saying you are "pro-choice" seems to indicate that you are "anti-life"...not the case at all.
I'm not saying either way. I only know my entire family wanted me to have an abortion...At nine weeks, I had my first ultrasound. I saw my child's beating heart and his/her arms and legs flailing everywhere. I don't see how anyone could look at something so beautiful and be able to make that decision. I'm glad I didn't listen to my family. Good thing at least the daddy's side of the family was super supportive.
I think that they should require an ultrasound. I was always told, you gonna play you gonna pay! I think they should see the consquences of their choice that they are going to be making. I am pro life. I think that a baby is a baby at conseption. with that view, yes, i think that abortion is killing a baby! So if you want an abortion, you should see what you are doing, and know what you are doing. also, abortions, are really not safe procedures. I know many women who have been harmed during them, physically for one, but always emotionally too! So you should always know what a procedure is giong to do to you and your body, and know what you are doing before you go through it.
but I do know that with obama in office, it wont go through.....
Of course we all have a choice about what we do with our bodies, and with the baby inside. I just don't understand why an ultrasound would be something to fight against. Is it so hard to admit that it's a baby, and it's a life? Does it make it any less of a baby if we can't see it? Why would pro-choice activists be so worried if a mother should change her mind and decide not to abort? Who's choice is it, exactly? Is the choice to keep the baby not a choice, in their eyes?
I wonder if it's partly about the dollar...maybe they're afraid that if mothers see the baby, they won't require their services, and their abortion clinics will suffer.
If you're going to get abortion, that's your business - you're not breaking the law. But why lie about what it is? It's a baby. Call it a fetus - it's still a baby. I don't understand what the big deal would be to see it in an ultrasound. What would be wrong with that? How would that hurt? They'd still be allowed to get their abortion.
Quoting Shiiloe:
So, government should stay out ouf health care except when you want it involved with health care. Gotcha.
That kind of gets me too. Here's my question: should the government PAY for these ultrasounds?
Anyway, I think of myself as proPREVENTION. So couldn't vote.
If I CHOSE to have an abortion and MY DOCTOR felt it was medically appropriate to have an ultrasound first, I would absolutely have an ultrasound first. I would not be afraid that seeing the ultrasound would suddenly change my understanding of fact and science.
Quoting MinstrelMommy:Of course we all have a choice about what we do with our bodies, and with the baby inside. I just don't understand why an ultrasound would be something to fight against. Is it so hard to admit that it's a baby, and it's a life? Does it make it any less of a baby if we can't see it? Why would pro-choice activists be so worried if a mother should change her mind and decide not to abort? Who's choice is it, exactly? Is the choice to keep the baby not a choice, in their eyes?
I wonder if it's partly about the dollar...maybe they're afraid that if mothers see the baby, they won't require their services, and their abortion clinics will suffer.
If you're going to get abortion, that's your business - you're not breaking the law. But why lie about what it is? It's a baby. Call it a fetus - it's still a baby. I don't understand what the big deal would be to see it in an ultrasound. What would be wrong with that? How would that hurt? They'd still be allowed to get their abortion.
Ok, take it from me - I HAVE had an elective abortion. An ultrasound would not have changed my mind in any way. I was on drugs, drinking, partying, and MARRIED. My then husband (now my XH, thank the Gods) did not want to have a child. We had miscarried 3 months before, I was devastated. Then we got pregnant again, and I was on anti depressants, Xanax, smoking, drinking, smoking weed, taking ecstasy, drinking absinthe, basically anything that I could do, I did because I was in such a miserable place (and I was like this BEFORE the FIRST pregnancy - but had found out in time to stop everything). By the time I found out I was pregnant (8 weeks along), I felt I had already done irreparable damage to the fetus (aka baby) that was inside me. So I chose to abort rather than risk that it would have no quality of life, which was probably going to happen. This baby would have had FAS, been a drug baby, and I didn't want to see it die after birth, or be forced to stay in a nursing home because there was no way that I could have taken care of it. I have since cleaned up my act, and while I do occasionally drink, I have not had a DROP since I found out I was pregnant again. While I would smoke pot again for anxiety if it were legal, I would NEVER do it knowing that I was pregnant now.
I am not physically harmed - I had my son 3 years ago, and am currently expecting another in March of 2010 with my new husband.
I am not emotionally scarred. I know that I made the right choice. I sometimes think about what would have happened, but I did what was best for everyone considering the situation. So you need to think about this: for the majority of women, seeing a fetus/baby on an ultrasound will not change their minds. It wouldn't hurt, but there should be no law requiring it.
Besides, have YOU ever had a transvaginal ultrasound???? They are not pleasant experiences. I have had SEVERAL and I'm telling you, it is uncomfortable at the best, and feels like a violation at the worst. I would NEVER advocate a rape or incest victim being forced into this procedure.
Quoting MinstrelMommy:Of course we all have a choice about what we do with our bodies, and with the baby inside. I just don't understand why an ultrasound would be something to fight against. Is it so hard to admit that it's a baby, and it's a life? Does it make it any less of a baby if we can't see it? Why would pro-choice activists be so worried if a mother should change her mind and decide not to abort? Who's choice is it, exactly? Is the choice to keep the baby not a choice, in their eyes?
I wonder if it's partly about the dollar...maybe they're afraid that if mothers see the baby, they won't require their services, and their abortion clinics will suffer.
If you're going to get abortion, that's your business - you're not breaking the law. But why lie about what it is? It's a baby. Call it a fetus - it's still a baby. I don't understand what the big deal would be to see it in an ultrasound. What would be wrong with that? How would that hurt? They'd still be allowed to get their abortion.
Check out some of the top posts today in Groups:
Eight Year Old Girl Given "Catastrophe Award" By Teacher
- Cafe GroupAdmin
on Aug. 20, 2009 at 1:54 AM