![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A comment on the Oklahoma abortion laws
Apr. 30th, 2010 09:34 pmTwo new laws were passed into Oklahoma law over the Governor's veto.
The first, called the "informed consent" law, requires all women coming in for an abortion to undergo an ultrasound with the screen turned towards them and listen to a detailed description of the developmental stage of the fetus. Although there are reports of clinic patients bursting into tears at this, none of them have actually changed their minds.
So if the law is supposed to reduce abortions, it's a miserable failure. If, as its critics have been saying, it's supposed to humiliate and browbeat women (not to mention retraumatize rape and molestation victims, who are not exempted), it's working wonderfully.
The other law makes it legal for doctors to withhold information about the health of the fetus if they think that the mother would abort if they had that information. It also provides protection for these doctors against "wrongful life" lawsuits in the case of women who are blindsided by the discovery that their fetuses are unviable, have major congenital defects, or are otherwise impacted by information the doctor did not see fit to pass on. (I wish I could find the post I read when this law was first being discussed; it was by a woman who did not abort her fetus once she knew it had spina bifida, but instead took the gestation time as a chance to do research, line up a neonatal surgeon, and make arrangements to give birth in a properly equipped hospital. As she points out, this law doesn't just saddle women with children they may not want to have, it saddles the babies with the consequences of being born to women who are not prepared in hospitals which are not prepared... consequences which can be fatal in themselves for the baby. Aren't these laws supposed to save the babies?)
According to a state senator, "Our pro-life legislation protects not only the unborn child, but the mother as well, allowing her to have informed consent prior to an abortion." A key supporter says it will prevent psychological trauma to pregnant woman.
Except for the picky details that women ARE being traumatized, AREN'T getting information and DON'T consent.
The repeal lawsuits have already been filed. After all, the OK Supreme Court struck down a similar law as unconstitutional two years ago. (Bonus rage for another aborted OK law in that last article, the "2009 law that created a public web site where doctors would be forced to publish personal information on women who have had abortions (including their names and the reason for their abortions)" Golly, I can't IMAGINE why that would be ruled unConstitutional!)
The first, called the "informed consent" law, requires all women coming in for an abortion to undergo an ultrasound with the screen turned towards them and listen to a detailed description of the developmental stage of the fetus. Although there are reports of clinic patients bursting into tears at this, none of them have actually changed their minds.
So if the law is supposed to reduce abortions, it's a miserable failure. If, as its critics have been saying, it's supposed to humiliate and browbeat women (not to mention retraumatize rape and molestation victims, who are not exempted), it's working wonderfully.
The other law makes it legal for doctors to withhold information about the health of the fetus if they think that the mother would abort if they had that information. It also provides protection for these doctors against "wrongful life" lawsuits in the case of women who are blindsided by the discovery that their fetuses are unviable, have major congenital defects, or are otherwise impacted by information the doctor did not see fit to pass on. (I wish I could find the post I read when this law was first being discussed; it was by a woman who did not abort her fetus once she knew it had spina bifida, but instead took the gestation time as a chance to do research, line up a neonatal surgeon, and make arrangements to give birth in a properly equipped hospital. As she points out, this law doesn't just saddle women with children they may not want to have, it saddles the babies with the consequences of being born to women who are not prepared in hospitals which are not prepared... consequences which can be fatal in themselves for the baby. Aren't these laws supposed to save the babies?)
According to a state senator, "Our pro-life legislation protects not only the unborn child, but the mother as well, allowing her to have informed consent prior to an abortion." A key supporter says it will prevent psychological trauma to pregnant woman.
Except for the picky details that women ARE being traumatized, AREN'T getting information and DON'T consent.
The repeal lawsuits have already been filed. After all, the OK Supreme Court struck down a similar law as unconstitutional two years ago. (Bonus rage for another aborted OK law in that last article, the "2009 law that created a public web site where doctors would be forced to publish personal information on women who have had abortions (including their names and the reason for their abortions)" Golly, I can't IMAGINE why that would be ruled unConstitutional!)
