Judge reverses Oklahoma abortion law
A judge reversed an Oklahoma state law yesterday that required women seeking abortions to receive ultrasounds and a physical description of their "fetus" from their doctors. But that's not all. In overturning the law, Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki Robertson also reversed conscience protections that allowed doctors, nurses and other health care providers to refuse to participate in an abortion on moral or religious grounds.
Although the original law was passed in 2008, legal battles have prevented it from being put into practice. Judge Robertson struck down the law citing "constitutional requirements that a legislative measure deal only with one subject." According to a story in the Los Angeles Times, she did not offer a ruling on "the validity of the ultrasound provisions."
Here's an interview from that story with a representative of one of the usual pro-abortion camps:
"Stephanie Toti, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Oklahoma was the only state to mandate that a physician both conduct an ultrasound and describe the images to the patient.
"'The ultrasound provision takes away a patient's choice about whether or not to view an ultrasound, and it requires physicians to provide information to their patients that the physicians do not believe is medically necessary,' Toti said. 'It's an affront to women's autonomy and decision-making power, and it's also an intrusion to the physician-patient relationship.'"
Try to imagine for a moment the outrage we would hear -- and rightly so -- if, for instance, someone suggested that people undergoing treatment for colon cancer not be burdened with a look at their colonoscopy results, or that it is intrusive for a doctor to suggest a woman look at the films of a questionable mammogram. Or imagine the reaction if pregnant women planning to carry their babies to term were told they didn't need to see their growing children on ultrasound, no less capture 4-D images suitable for framing. Isn't it interesting how what is standard medical procedure in one instance becomes "an affront to women's autonomy and decision-making power" when the procedure in question might remind them -- and the rest of us -- of the baby growing in the womb? [reference]
NARAL Pro-Choice America's director of government relations once called the Ultrasound a "weapon." No doubt reality is a scary thing for supporters of abortion. It is hard to talk about "tissue masses", and "biological material" when it has a beating heart. All of the euphemisms the pro-abortion side employ fall in the face of the reality the ultrasound shows. This is why they launched an attack on emergency pregnancy centers using ultrasounds and any state law requiring them. Though they are not against use of ultrasounds since them use them before performing the abortion, they just don't want the women to have that information. They call themselves pro-choice, yet are in no way pro-informed-choice.
Known as 
Hmm....the republicans are outraged that health care reform is being pushed by the current administration, yet they are advocating prescribing useless procedures (ultrasound for a fetus that is going to be removed). They claim that the only way to pay for Obama's health care is to kill off seniors that require care, yet this is a perfect example of unnecessary spending that accomplishes nothing other than making pro-lifers think they can save a few unborn fetuses. Unbelievable. Thank goodness for judges like judge Robertson. This is one of a million reasons why health care needs reform. Ridiculous spending for useless procedures.
'It's an affront to women's autonomy and decision-making power...."
Yes, because there are few gestures of autonomy greater than being able to make an uninformed decision.
I guess you could look at it as a sort of freedom from patronization, but that strikes me as a pretty anemic sort of liberty.
As for "useless procedures," I at least am more concerned about procedures that won't be covered for very old or otherwise terminally ill people who could receive a real benefit from some relatively expensive or difficult procedure. The imminent death of a 95-year old or someone with stage IV pancreatic cancer is no less a foregone conclusion than the death of an unborn child whose mother still has a choice to exercise.
Really Ed Pie...please point to the part of the bill that will deny coverage for the very old or otherwise terminally ill? Waiting....still waiting. Oh wait, it isn't in there.
Oh, and by the way, most of the very old are covered by Medicare...which, surprise, surprise, is Govt. run healthcare.
Oh, and by the way, most of the very old are covered by Medicare...which, surprise, surprise, is Govt. run healthcare.
Yeah, and how is Medicare running these days? If that's the way it'll work for all of us, it's no wonder so many people are protesting. Go back to HuffPo.
Jake, I refer you to the state of Oregon, and challenge you to watch things not move in that direction.
Lydia McGrew answered well at her blog:
If there's one thing I get tired of...okay, there are lots of things I get tired of. I can't pick one. But one of the things I get tired of in listening to liberals and pseudo-conservatives talk about health care is the exceedingly stupid argument, "We already have that." For example, "Your HMO already sets reasonable and customary costs, so we already have rationing." So how does it make it better to have one committee making all such decisions for the whole country? This is beyond me. At least now, if an employer gets fed up with the HMO he has for his employees, he can, you know...change! Or if, like some friends of mine, you are self-employed, you can buy catastrophic-only insurance. Or even, shocking thought, live for a while without health insurance and try to stay healthy. People have options. Nationalized Obamacare means way fewer options. Saying that we already have some micromanaging bureaucrats messing with our health care on an HMO-by-HMO basis is hardly an argument for going much, much farther in the same direction and putting everybody under a single health care Kommissar.
Or how about this one? "If your employer's insurance company pays for abortion and you have to pay part of your premiums, you are already paying towards other people's abortions in some sense, so why shouldn't federal government money cover abortions?" Um, because there is now at least the possibility for some people to get out of this. If you own your own business, for example, or have a say in the health care plan you choose or that your employer chooses, you can maybe get one without abortion coverage. Federal coverage means no options. It's that simple.
This week also saw another blow to the concept of fetal "personhood." The Chief Judge in South Dakota's Federal District Court struck down parts of a South Dakota law that required abortionists to tell pregnant mothers that abortion would break their relationship with their unborn child.
This is covered in Lifenews.com and the Alliance Defense Fund's website, as well as my blog this week: http://tonykolenc.blogspot.com/
Tony
Toti's argument has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. How the heck did she pass the bar? Having more accurate information somehow makes you have less choice? What an idiot.
Jake: It's only useless if you think there is no life at stake, which I take it, is how you view it. But even then, the ultrasound would be a wise procedure for the abortionist to do so she can properly prepare. So the ultrasound takes place anyway. It doesn't cost another dime to share that info with the patient.
Having more accurate information somehow makes you have less choice?
Perhaps Toti is afraid people are, at heart, intellectually honest, and would be compelled to pursue what we normally refer to as objective truth, instead of, ah, other objectives.