Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: Oklahoma to post women's abortion details online

  1. #1
    Super Moderator twitchy2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Milliways
    Posts
    55,265

    Default Oklahoma to post women's abortion details online

    Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2009 10:08 PDT
    The details of your abortion online?


    Feminists for Choice alerts us to a new Oklahoma law (yes, law, not "proposed legislation" or "some kind of sick joke") set to go into effect Nov. 1 that would collect detailed data about each abortion performed -- and post it all on a public Web site called ShameOnYouWhore.com. [just kidding]
    "They're really just trying to frighten women out of having abortions"
    Whether or not the law survives a current lawsuit, experts say, anyone tracking antiabortion legal strategy nationwide needs to keep a watchful eye on Oklahoma.

    According to proponents of the law, this extensive abortion data -- which will include the reason the procedure was sought -- will help health officials prevent future abortions. Yeah, I can see that. Because the requirement itself would scare the shit out of me. "They're really just trying to frighten women out of having abortions," Keri Parks, director of external affairs at Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma, told Broadsheet.

    The required questionnaire (see PDF of entire law), practically as long and elaborate as eHarmony's (and containing fishy questions such as "Was there an infant born alive as a result of the abortion?"), does not include the name, address or "any information specifically identifying the patient." But opponents argue that the first eight questions alone would be enough to out any woman in a town of 200 or smaller.

    Also, doctors failing to provide this information would face criminal sanctions and loss of their medical license.

    It isn’t unique for a state to post health data on its Web site. However, Oklahoma’s requirements are by far the most extensive as such. The law's supporters claim they want this information to be made public so it can be used for "academic research," but according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, its collection method makes it useless for that purpose. (If a woman sees more than one doctor concerning her abortion -- primary care and abortion provider, say -- the data, collected each visit, will appear to represent more than one patient.)

    The Center For Reproductive Rights has now joined forces with former state Rep. Wanda Jo Stapleton, D-Oklahoma City, and Shawnee, Okla., resident Lora Joyce Davis to prevent the law from going into effect. They have filed a lawsuit claiming that the law "covers more than one subject" and thus violates the Oklahoma Constitution. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the bill covers four subjects: 1) redefining various abortion-related terms used in state law; 2) banning sex-selective abortion; 3) creating reporting requirements; and 4) creating new duties for the Oklahoma State Department of Health, Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, and state Board of Osteopathic Examiners.

    If this seems like a peculiar procedural-only attack, well, it's an effective one. That is, it worked for the CRR last time around, when the organization helped defeat a statute (and the legal bundle it came with) that would have (among other things) made Oklahoma the proud home of the most severe ultrasound law in the nation, requiring doctors to verbally describe the image to a woman seeking an abortion even despite her wishes to the contrary.

    And in case you missed it above, this new law made Oklahoma the first state to pass a ban on (the straw man, in this case, of) sex-selective abortion. That in itself is an issue, as Jennifer Mondino, staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told Broadsheet: "The sex-selective bans in effect limit access to abortion because it may chill doctors from providing the service. It's difficult for a doctor to determine the reason why a woman is having an abortion. So it's yet another hurdle for doctors who are simply trying to provide a legal safe service. The legislature has chosen to pass this law rather than doing something that may actually combat a problem that may or may not exist in Oklahoma."

    Maintenance of the planned Web site, by Oklahoma's own accounting, would cost over $200,000 a year, which is money we presume they'll have left over after feeding and clothing all existing children in need and making sure all underserved women who want to carry to term have access to prenatal care.

    So, with any luck, the CRR, and the women and families of Oklahoma, should prevail in court again. That doesn't mean, however, that we should toss these wild salvos in the buncha-crazies bin of reproductive rights history. While the technique of bundling abortion restrictions together is not unique -- it's a way of passing harder-core laws by packaging them with more popular laws that a lawmaker doesn't want to oppose on record -- the Sooner State, of late, has been particularly creative. Call it the Oklahoma gambit: "Oklahoma serves as a sort of test case for new and extreme anti-choice legislation, and others in the anti-choice movement will watch what happens in that state to see if some strategy is successful," says Mondino. No matter what, these guys'll be back again, sowing stigma and straw men, wasting time and money -- and their allies will be watching, and learning. So should we.

    ― Lynn Harris
    The details of your abortion online? - Broadsheet - Salon.com
    "If you are not outraged, then you are not paying attention," Heather Heyer's facebook quote.

  2. #2
    Elite Member L1049's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chillin with my homeboy Xenu
    Posts
    2,435

    Default

    The only thing I can think of is WTF?!?
    I can't even muster a smart-ass remark.

  3. #3
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    i would sue a bitch
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  4. #4
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,552

    Default

    All I can do is shake my head, and send a check to the CRR.

    Fucking anti-abortion zealots. Argh.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  5. #5
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    The law's supporters claim they want this information to be made public so it can be used for "academic research," but according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, its collection method makes it useless for that purpose.
    I bet the anti-abortion squad would lose their shit if somebody suggested making their private medical information public for 'academic research.'

    It's nice to see the Bible Belt continuing to devolve.

  6. #6
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    but hey.. the south isn't stupid.... *cough*
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  7. #7
    Elite Member Honey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    59,616

    Default

    Why not just stamp their foreheads? Or brand them like cattle

  8. #8
    Super Moderator twitchy2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Milliways
    Posts
    55,265

    Default

    Don't give them ideas.
    "If you are not outraged, then you are not paying attention," Heather Heyer's facebook quote.

  9. #9
    Elite Member Nevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,888

    Default

    I just can't believe the whole "What? It's for research!!" when it's so BLATANTLY fear mongering.

  10. #10
    Elite Member Penny Lane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Over the hills and far away
    Posts
    21,646

    Default

    What the FUCK? How is this not a BLATANT invasion of privacy? This isn't some anti-abortion nutso seeking to harass or shame women into not getting an abortion this is a LEGALLY SANCTIONED PRACTICE?? What the fuck.. seriously.. just.. what the fuck.. I'm too shocked.

  11. #11
    Elite Member McJag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    42,527

    Default

    I'd say publish and be damned. Idiots.
    I didn't start out to collect diamonds, but somehow they just kept piling up.-Mae West

  12. #12
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,250

    Default

    This is just plain sick and stupid and unAmerican.

  13. #13
    Elite Member Jexxifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,172

    Default

    What complete and utter bullshit.

  14. #14
    Elite Member Wiseguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jexxifer View Post
    What complete and utter bullshit.
    Yeah, that. I'm literally gobsmacked.


  15. #15
    Elite Member Chilly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Trolltopia
    Posts
    29,139

    Default

    Oklahoma is quickly becoming my least favorite state.
    Hello mother fucker! when you ask a question read also the answer instead of asking another question on an answer who already contain the answer of your next question!
    -Bugdoll-



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 17th, 2006, 01:01 PM
  2. Madonna's world tour details leaked online
    By MaryJane in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 26th, 2006, 07:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •