PDA

View Full Version : Oklahoma Reproductive law



dnf777
04-29-2010, 03:03 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/28/carr.abortion.oklahoma/index.html?hpt=T2

Quick version: A doctor who lies or conceals information such as birth defects or other information that he/she feels may result in the mother having an abortion, is protected under this new law from lawsuits.

I did not get a chance to read the actual law, but does anyone, even the staunchest righties think it's OK for doctors to conceal infromation from patients to support thier ideologies? I personally think that premise fails EVERY ethical, moral, legal, or Hippocratic principle known to man! Don't agree with abortion? I completely understand that, and will support your right not to get one. But don't legalize the act of doctors concealing information from patients.

Gerry Clinchy
04-30-2010, 09:18 PM
I would have to agree with you, Dave.

As a woman, I was never faced with having to choose an abortion. I generally do not feel abortion should be used as a form of "birth control". If you've heard of abortion, you've heard of other means of birth control. The thought of near-term abortions is unthinkable to me unless the life of the mother is at stake. In such a case, choosing which life to save is a human decision, and it's a no-win decision no matter which life is saved v. which life is not saved.

But to conceal information from parents about their child's impending disability just does not seem reasonable. At the very least, advance knowledge will help the parents prepare for the needs of the child. Unless the doctor can read the parents' minds, how can they know how the parents would accept the news?

JDogger
04-30-2010, 10:04 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/28/carr.abortion.oklahoma/index.html?hpt=T2

Quick version: A doctor who lies or conceals information such as birth defects or other information that he/she feels may result in the mother having an abortion, is protected under this new law from lawsuits.

I did not get a chance to read the actual law, but does anyone, even the staunchest righties think it's OK for doctors to conceal infromation from patients to support thier ideologies? I personally think that premise fails EVERY ethical, moral, legal, or Hippocratic principle known to man! Don't agree with abortion? I completely understand that, and will support your right not to get one. But don't legalize the act of doctors concealing information from patients.

I agree with you dnf, but at first glance of the subject line, my immediate thought was, "God, I hope so..."

Terry Britton
05-03-2010, 12:33 PM
The ones against the law are the abortion doctors.

The measure would require women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound within an hour of the procedure and have its findings explained to her. The law went into effect immediately after the override last week.

Maybe they are afraid they will lose customers if the mom to be will see the baby they are about to kill? Why are they afraid of hiding information from the moms?

Franco
05-03-2010, 01:09 PM
The ones against the law are the abortion doctors.

The measure would require women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound within an hour of the procedure and have its findings explained to her. The law went into effect immediately after the override last week.

Maybe they are afraid they will lose customers if the mom to be will see the baby they are about to kill? Why are they afraid of hiding information from the moms?

I doubt that very seriously! I also doubt that they look at it as a money maker as much as they are providing a service that not many are willing to do.

Louisiana also just passed the same Draconian law. It is nothing more than the anti-abortion folks trying to push thier will on others hoping they might change thier minds.

There is no waiting list for black children by those waiting on adoption. They are more apt to adopt a foreign white or Asian child.

It is easy for those to talk since talk is cheap! How many anti-abortion self-rightious do-gooders have adopted black children? Yet, they want to force these poor black women to have more children so the state can take care of them in Foster homes.

dnf777
05-03-2010, 01:29 PM
The ones against the law are the abortion doctors.

The measure would require women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound within an hour of the procedure and have its findings explained to her. The law went into effect immediately after the override last week.

Maybe they are afraid they will lose customers if the mom to be will see the baby they are about to kill? Why are they afraid of hiding information from the moms?

First, you have your facts wrong. Second, your assumptions are wrong.

In addition to requiring an ultrasound, the law will protect doctors who choose to withold information from the patients. What about fetuses with lethal malformations? Is it not the parents right to have a priest or other clergyman present to baptize or bless their child? If there is a near 100% chance of being still born, should that be kept from them too? This is utterly absurd.

Terry Britton
05-03-2010, 02:02 PM
First, you have your facts wrong. Second, your assumptions are wrong.

In addition to requiring an ultrasound, the law will protect doctors who choose to withold information from the patients. What about fetuses with lethal malformations? Is it not the parents right to have a priest or other clergyman present to baptize or bless their child? If there is a near 100% chance of being still born, should that be kept from them too? This is utterly absurd.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=17&articleid=20100503_17_0_OKLAHO434620

OKLAHOMA CITY - Oklahoma County District Judge Noma Gurich on Monday said she will sign an order putting a controversial ultrasound abortion law on hold.

Gurich said the plaintiffs and the state have agreed to put the law on hold pending the outcome of the case.

Reproductive Services in Tulsa and Dr. Larry A. Burns, who practices in Norman, sued the state following the Legislature's override of Gov. Henry's veto of House Bill 2780.

The measure would require women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound within an hour of the procedure and have its findings explained to her. The law went into effect immediately after the override last week.

Gurich said she anticipates a hearing on the lawsuit sometime in July. Plaintiffs allege the measure is unconstitutional.

Tony Lauinger, Oklahomans for Life state chairman, said he was sorry to see the implementation of the law be delayed.

"We believe women greatly benefit from the information an ultrasound provides,"
Lauinger said. "This has been a long process and apparently it will be a little bit longer."

Lauinger said he believes the law will withstand the legal challenge.

"The abortion industry would like to hide the truth from women about their unborn children," Lauinger said.

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=17&articleid=20100503_17_0_OKLAHO434620

dnf777
05-03-2010, 04:58 PM
What exactly is the "abortion industry"??
Do they run infomercials on late night tv?

That in no way addresses the despicable act of withholding important health information from parents and pregnant mothers.

Terry Britton
05-03-2010, 05:44 PM
What exactly is the "abortion industry"??
Do they run infomercials on late night tv?

That in no way addresses the despicable act of withholding important health information from parents and pregnant mothers.

That is a badly conceived law, and I don't think those that wrote it up thought of all of the unintended consequences. The anti-abortion side wants mom's to see the ultra sounds within an hour of the procedure hoping they will change their minds as well as having the doctor see who he will be killing before hand. Then other doctors will be protected from telling patients that they have a baby that will have birth defects.

I agree, important health information should not be withheld.

Hew
05-03-2010, 05:48 PM
There is no waiting list for black children by those waiting on adoption. They are more apt to adopt a foreign white or Asian child.

It is easy for those to talk since talk is cheap! How many anti-abortion self-rightious do-gooders have adopted black children? Yet, they want to force these poor black women to have more children so the state can take care of them in Foster homes.
In your zeal to attack pro-lifers (and by extension, the religious right whom you detest) you've invented facts that don't exist and pretend there's hypocrisy where there isn't.

- For starters, blacks are not nearly as likely as whites to give up their children for adoption to strangers (a cultural thing)
- The relatively small numbers of black mothers who choose adoption for their child almost always pick a black family to be the parents.
- There are way more waiting parents who want to adopt than there are babies to be adopted (black, white, brown, pink, orange, whatever) so the notion that there are black babies being born and then thrown into foster homes is absolute ignorant rubbish.
- Nearly every child in foster care is either involved in a legal issue that makes them unadoptable (and even more so for black children who are even less likely to be in foster care by their parents' choice) or sadly, they've languished so long in the system that they're beyond the age of realistically expecting parents to adopt them. It takes some special people with big hearts and bigger patience to adopt, say a 6 year old, who has a history of physical and emotional abuse; and there's not enough of them to go 'round.
- The most foreign adoptions are from China, and most of those children are Special Needs (typically a minor medical issue). A close second, and expected to eclipse China next year, is Ethiopia (they're black, you know). Haiti will have huge numbers this year for obvious reasons. So your notion that people who adopt are racists is as goofy as your notion that you can't be a non-hypocritical pro-lifer unless you have adopted 10 black children. You've worried and railed about the oil spill from behind the relative safety and comfort of a keyboard instead of from the helm of a volunteer cleanup boat. Does that make you a hypocrite?

subroc
05-03-2010, 05:55 PM
What exactly is the "abortion industry"??...

I believe the abortion industry is the ACLU, organizations like Planned Parenthood that advocate abortion on demand even late 3rd term. They lobby for laws that prevent notification of parents when a child will be undertaking the medical procedure, an abortion. Under the guise of pro choice/woman’s right to choose they would turn a blind eye to late tem infanticide.

That is what the “abortion industry” is in my view.

dnf777
05-03-2010, 06:39 PM
Quite the contrary. Late term abortions are performed legally for the protection of the mothers life. (pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, HELPP syndrome, etc) For some mysterious reason, the pro-life camp would rather watch a mother seize or stroke and die, often with the fetus, rather than allow a life-saving procedure so that she may go on to have healthy pregnancies in the future. I can't for the life of me figure that out????

As for parental notification laws, I would think in most circumstances that parental notification is wise and warranted, however, not everyone lives in our world Subroc. There are fathers who rape and impregnate their own daughters, while their mothers watch. I can see that girl coming to a clinic with her parents??? That is who that law is for. There are parents who would assault and abuse a girl for becoming pregnant, even if she was raped. Not everyone has two loving parents who look out for them. Depending on the state, girls who become pregnant or give birth are emancipated minors, and are therefore not subject to parental consent. Not saying I agree with that, and it sure as hell ain't for my girls, but not all girls are as lucky as mine and yours.

subroc
05-03-2010, 06:49 PM
so lets see no asprin administered in school but a major medical procedure is ok because some child may have been impregnated by a parent? There are laws in place for those cases. There are laws for chils rape. He!!, a 18 yearold student can't date a 16 year old student for just those reasons. should we ignore rape laws and just keep it hush hush? So, in your view, a child that is living in that situation should continue? Have an abortion and just go home and let dad or the dad figure have his way with her?

I just don't get it.

dnf777
05-03-2010, 06:59 PM
No, I don't subscribe to any of the scenarios you outline. But if you think a girl who is impregnated by rape can wait for the courts to help her, that fetus will will be a young adult by the time a case is resolved. Like I said, I don't agree with those situations, and if everyone was good parents, they would be MUCH less common, but this is the world we live in.

I could counter your scenario that I obviously don't condone with an equally ridiculous one parallelling your position, by invoking the FLDS and Branch Davidians who force their raped daughters to have their kids at 12 and 13, then raise their daughters/grandkids (one in the same) in a good Christian home. Now I won't do that, because I know you don't believe that either.

I didn't mean for this thread to evolve into a bizarre incest topic! Rather just highlight an unjust, immoral law which protects doctors who choose to withhold crucial information from their patients out of religious ideology and what their patient MIGHT do with that information. That's all.

Franco
05-03-2010, 07:15 PM
- For starters, blacks are not nearly as likely as whites to give up their children for adoption to strangers (a cultural thing)
- The relatively small numbers of black mothers who choose adoption for their child almost always pick a black family to be the parents.
- There are way more waiting parents who want to adopt than there are babies to be adopted (black, white, brown, pink, orange, whatever) so the notion that there are black babies being born and then thrown into foster homes is absolute ignorant rubbish.
- Nearly every child in foster care is either involved in a legal issue that makes them unadoptable (and even more so for black children who are even less likely to be in foster care by their parents' choice) or sadly, they've languished so long in the system that they're beyond the age of realistically expecting parents to adopt them. It takes some special people with big hearts and bigger patience to adopt, say a 6 year old, who has a history of physical and emotional abuse; and there's not enough of them to go 'round.
- The most foreign adoptions are from China, and most of those children are Special Needs (typically a minor medical issue). A close second, and expected to eclipse China next year, is Ethiopia (they're black, you know). Haiti will have huge numbers this year for obvious reasons. So your notion that people who adopt are racists is as goofy as your notion that you can't be a non-hypocritical pro-lifer unless you have adopted 10 black children. You've worried and railed about the oil spill from behind the relative safety and comfort of a keyboard instead of from the helm of a volunteer cleanup boat. Does that make you a hypocrite?

The facts do not support your arguement.

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-foster-care-1999.html

Race/Ethnicity - Approximately 64% of children waiting in foster care are of minority background; 32% are White. 51% of all foster children waiting for adoption are Black, 11% are Hispanic, 1% are American Indian, 1% are Asian/Pacific Islander, and 5% are unknown/unable to determine.

In regards to you last comment; I have never worried and railed about the oil spill in the gulf! If anything, I've been the lone voice of calm and confidence in everyone working to get the well secured.

Hew
05-04-2010, 07:47 AM
The facts do not support your arguement. If you think that link somehow refutes my argument then you don't understand what my argument is. Your previous post insinuated racism by both parents who adopt internationally and by pro-lifers. With respect to pro-lifers, your "logic" appears to be: there are lots of black kids in foster care, therefore, any pro-lifer who doesn't adopt them is a hypocritical racist.

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-foster-care-1999.html

Race/Ethnicity - Approximately 64% of children waiting in foster care are of minority background; 32% are White. 51% of all foster children waiting for adoption are Black, Yeah, so what? From the same link 46% of all kids in foster care are black...about the same number as those in foster care and waiting for adoption. Where's the racism? I never claimed there weren't a lot of black kids in foster care. I'm claiming that your insinuations that because there's a lot of black kids in foster care then that must mean that a) anyone who adopts internationally must be racist and b) pro-lifers who don't adopt black kids are racist hypocrites are both insulting and unsupported by your link. 11% are Hispanic, 1% are American Indian, 1% are Asian/Pacific Islander, and 5% are unknown/unable to determine.

In regards to you last comment; I have never worried and railed about the oil spill in the gulf! If anything, I've been the lone voice of calm and confidence in everyone working to get the well secured. I just assumed that your 15 or so posts on the gulf spill thread indicated some concern on your part. My bad.

OK, in more applicable terms.... if you don't own a kennel full of shelter dogs does that make you a hypocrite if you're against animal abuse?
...............

badbullgator
05-04-2010, 10:11 AM
What exactly is the "abortion industry"??
Do they run infomercials on late night tv?

That in no way addresses the despicable act of withholding important health information from parents and pregnant mothers.



Ding, ding.....right.
What about those with multiple gestations that truly need selective reduction (abortion) of one of the gestations either for the health of the mother and/or the other gestation(s)? Are they going to be forced to watch an ultrasound of the “child’ they must abort for health reasons.
Withholding information in the sense described in this law is unethical at best and criminal at worst.
Not all abortions are equal regards

badbullgator
05-04-2010, 10:21 AM
In your zeal to attack pro-lifers (and by extension, the religious right whom you detest) you've invented facts that don't exist and pretend there's hypocrisy where there isn't.

- For starters, blacks are not nearly as likely as whites to give up their children for adoption to strangers (a cultural thing)
- The relatively small numbers of black mothers who choose adoption for their child almost always pick a black family to be the parents.
- There are way more waiting parents who want to adopt than there are babies to be adopted (black, white, brown, pink, orange, whatever) so the notion that there are black babies being born and then thrown into foster homes is absolute ignorant rubbish.
- Nearly every child in foster care is either involved in a legal issue that makes them unadoptable (and even more so for black children who are even less likely to be in foster care by their parents' choice) or sadly, they've languished so long in the system that they're beyond the age of realistically expecting parents to adopt them. It takes some special people with big hearts and bigger patience to adopt, say a 6 year old, who has a history of physical and emotional abuse; and there's not enough of them to go 'round.
- The most foreign adoptions are from China, and most of those children are Special Needs (typically a minor medical issue). A close second, and expected to eclipse China next year, is Ethiopia (they're black, you know). Haiti will have huge numbers this year for obvious reasons. So your notion that people who adopt are racists is as goofy as your notion that you can't be a non-hypocritical pro-lifer unless you have adopted 10 black children. You've worried and railed about the oil spill from behind the relative safety and comfort of a keyboard instead of from the helm of a volunteer cleanup boat. Does that make you a hypocrite?


John I might be missing your point, but I can say from experiance (we work with a lot of adoptions both conventional as well as embryos and egg donors) that people want children that look like them or as close as possiable. Racist....I doubt it in the truest meaning of the term, but I will tell you light skined people (white, asian, even hispanic) want light skinned children in the majority of the cases and the dark skinned people want dark skinned babies. A white person is far more liely to adopt a hispanic or asian child than a black child and blacks are far more likely to adopt a black child or none at all than a light skinned child. Does that make them racist? Not in my book. Far more at play here than just skin color

Hew
05-04-2010, 03:22 PM
John I might be missing your point, but I can say from experiance (we work with a lot of adoptions both conventional as well as embryos and egg donors) that people want children that look like them or as close as possiable. Racist....I doubt it in the truest meaning of the term, but I will tell you light skined people (white, asian, even hispanic) want light skinned children in the majority of the cases and the dark skinned people want dark skinned babies. A white person is far more liely to adopt a hispanic or asian child than a black child and blacks are far more likely to adopt a black child or none at all than a light skinned child. Does that make them racist? Not in my book. Far more at play here than just skin color
I'll posit to you that what you wrote about is based upon your anecdotal experience. My wife owns/operates a not-for-profit adoption agency and has been intimately involved in more than a thousand domestic and international adoptions. I have learned a lot about that field (whether I wanted to or not ;-)). Who whites adopt has almost nothing to do with skin color and almost everything to do with a host of other reasons; age of the child, timeframe for concluding the adoption, ease/simplicity of adoption, costs of the adoption, etc. Some random thoughts/facts:

- For most, adoption is their second choice (couldn't have bio children).
- I admit that for some, having a child who looks like them is important. Since you're in the IVF field, I would contend that you probably see a skewed amount of those types as you're dealing with someone who has/will shell out $20k to $60k because they wanted a biological child who looked like them. You could say that their committment level to that premise has already been pretty well-demonstrated. ;-)
- People generally want to adopt younger children (infants on up to 2 or 3 years) for obvious reasons.
- The desire to adopt younger children precludes many from adopting a child from foster care as most of those children cannot be legally adopted until many years after their placement in foster care. There are not many people lining up to adopt 7 year old children of ANY race from out of foster care. 9 out 10 kids in foster care at any given moment are unadoptable because of a legal issue that is awaiting resolution (eg severance of parental rights of the bio parents typically). So much for Franco's assertion that it's because whites won't adopt black kids.
- Adopting out of foster care is scary to many people because there have been some sensationalized cases of a birthmom/father showing up years after the fact and claiming custody.
- Because the system is so screwed up, adopting out of foster care isn't an option for many and they turn to domestic adoption...ie, finding a pregnant birth mother who wants to place their child for adoption.
- A pregnant black woman is less likely to place her child for adoption than a white woman (a cultural thing). When they do, they're more likely to give the child to a friend or relative than is a white woman. For that reason, there are not lots of black babies babies being placed for adoption.
- So for all of the above reasons (and more) there are not lots of black children being adopted by white parents. By and large, it's not because of race or prejudice.
- Domestic adoption can be a very arduous process. Birthmothers often change their mind and decide to keep their baby than hand it over to the people whom they'd previously agreed to adopt their child to (even after the adoptive parents have paid for medical expenses, living arrangements, stipends, etc.). This happens more than 50% of the time.
- Domestic adoption can be very expensive and there's often an open-ended financial committement and additional birth mother expenses.
- Birthmothers often request some form of visitation with their child.
- For all of those above reasons, many people opt for international adoption...generally there's set fee that won't fluctuate (and it is usually less than the costs of a domestic adoption), a set timeframe for when they can expect a child, no worries about a birthmother changing her mind or wanting visitation.
- The country of origin of internationally adopted children has almost nothing to do with race/ethnicity and everything to do with availability. China was popular for many years; not necessarily because white people wanted Asian babies, but because it was relatively fast, inexpensive, and a trustworthy program. China was embarrassed by the large number of children adopted to foreign countries (mostly to the US) and so within the past few years has slashed the number of children they've allowed to be adopted. Same for Guatamala. Russia always has a lot each year to the US, but many of those kids are ethnic and not blond haired/blue eyed mini Ivan Dragos. Ethiopia is fast becoming the country of choice for American adoptive parents. You ever see an Ethiopian child? They're blacker than most American blacks. So no, race isn't an issue in international adoption either.
- Most people who adopt can't have biological children. They just want a child to love and to raise and share their life with and they don't give a hoot what color/race the child is. Franco's insinuation was a crass slap to all of their faces.

If you read all that then thanks.