Strict abortion law in OKLA blocked for now

[fl_dem]

One huge leap in the right directon, my faith in the lawmakers in OKLA has almost been restored. The true test is in Feb.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

A district court in Oklahoma on Friday blocked a new abortion law that would require women to provide detailed information about why they want the procedure. That information, names omitted, would then be posted on a state Web site.

Oklahoma Abortion Law 'Invasive,' Critics Say

Dec. 17, 2009 Judge Daniel Owens extended the temporary restraining order already in place, which means the law continues to be blocked for now. The measure includes more than 30 questions a woman seeking an abortion would have to answer, including details about whether she is having relationship problems or whether she can't afford a child.

"We are very pleased with today's ruling. This law is a profound intrusion on women's privacy and a waste of taxpayers' money," said Jennifer Mondino, staff attorney at the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, which is challenging the law. "Women in Oklahoma should not have to jump through hoops to access legal medical care and the government has no business violating the state constitution to impose those obstacles."

Anti-abortion groups say the law would help the state find out why women are seeking abortions and that could lead to changes in public policy.

The merits of the law were not discussed Friday. Instead, the center argued a procedural issue, saying it violates Oklahoma's single-subject rule because it includes a ban on gender selection and additional health department requirements.

The law remains on hold until Feb. 19, when the case will be heard.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121642505

[Orrex]

1. Every asshat legislator who voted for this should be required to disclose their own sexual histories

Not to embarrass them, of course. But rather to help the public understand why legislators can't keep their goddamn noses out of women's business.

[fl_dem]

3. the proposed law also requires

a woman to undergo a vaginal ultrasound (by a "wand") and be a captive audience to a dr explaining exactly what it is she sees on the screen. This is on top of answering a list of extremely personal questions that are put online (granted, your name will be removed first. Not much surprises me these days, but the audacity of this law sure did.
___________________________________________________________________________________

if you live in Oklahoma, i officially extend my condolences.

H.B 1595 is a new provision on Oklahoma abortion laws that now requires, among other restrictions and requirements, an official record and reporting system of all abortions occuring within the state. This report will be available for anyone in the world to view, as it will be made public on a website as of March 1st. The Dept of Health, who among others has supported these new provisions, has declared that since the name and “personal information” will not be reported, there is no cause for concern or protest in regards to privacy issues. However, in reviewing the actual text of the law, the first 8 questions that will be asked and reported could easily be used to identify any member of a smaller community.

1. Date of abortion
2. County in which abortion performed
3. Age of mother
4. Marital status of mother
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother
6. Years of education of mother
(specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
Live Births
Miscarriages
Induced Abortions
(OK state legislature website)

In addition, this website will cost upwards of “$281,285 the first year and $256,285 each subsequent year” (Tulsa World News) This is an extravagent cost for a state that is already suffering a budget crisis. ( However, for those of us living in California, we are well aquainted with this type of governmental behavior. ) Furthermore, this bill makes it illegal to have an abortion, or assist in the process of an abortion that is based solely on the gender of the fetus. Now, i am just against sexism, whether in the womb or not, as anyone else, and whether you believe that gender is an appropriate reason to terminate a pregnancy or not, the real problem lies in the government stepping in and placing restrictions on the “right” reasons for a woman to seek an abortion. It would not be a far step to assume that if the government can restrict the reasons for receiving and/or assisting in the process of an abortion, it could just as easily continue to build on these restrictions until we basically outlaw any and all reasons for seeking an abortion.

http://feministsforchoice.com/new-oklahoma-abortion-law-being-challenged.htm
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

heres a link for more info

[LiberalLoner]

2. Thank goodness for small miracles.....

[Bitwit1234]

4. I think that if a woman is required to give that information

she should name the father. Then he should have to answer a questionnaire concerning how many pregnancies he is responsible for. Did he contribute to the support of the child. Was it rape or was it consensual etc etc etc. That ought to set them back a notch. I don't understand why these laws always slam the woman involved. As far as people know it takes two to make a pregnancies. Doesn't it.

[Orrex]

5. Unfortunately, that would put the woman at risk of a civil suit

if she inadvertently identifies the wrong man as the father.


This is a law intended to punish women, pure and simple.

[tulsakatz]

6. exactly!!!

The original article said the purpose of the website is to determine why women have abortions......but that's a lie!

And btw, why do they think women have abortions? That should be obvious even to brainless christians who (mostly) rule this state.

Asking the questions would provide answers but that still doesn't explain the website. The only reason why they put it on the website is to try to shame women into changing their decisions.

At this moment, I'm feeling some shame myself! I am ashamed that this kind of thing is becoming typical of this backward, screwed up state!!!

[fl_dem]

7. you said it.

I left Okla years ago. I have many friends and family in the Tulsa area, many are closet democrats, I say closet because if they "come out" they fear ridicule and bullying from the right. Okla ranked 6th in the nation for teen pregnancy rates and 60% of all births are covered by medicaid. They should spend more time and money teaching sex education instead of abstinence, as they are failing the children miserably.

tulsakatz, I was pleased to see a democrat Governor and lieutenant governors elected in OKla, but I don't see what good has happened with it, have you?

[tulsakatz]

12. unfortunately I don't see much improvement.....

...and Tulsa used to have a democrat Mayor too! She was voted out about a month ago. Now we have a republican Mayor. But he seems to be ok. At least we didn't elect the crazy woman who wanted to do this.......

Republican mayoral candidate Anna Falling said Tuesday that putting a Christian creationism display in the Tulsa Zoo is No. 1 in importance among city issues that include violent crime, budget woes and bumpy streets.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090811_298_0_Rpbiaa274797

But really, there are just too many religious fanatics here to make any kind of progressive change. We are home to Oral Roberts University and Rhema Bible school is in Broken Arrow which is about 10 miles east of Tulsa. And there are bible churches all over the place!

These people will vote for anyone if you carry a bible and say you love jesus! And that's just not a good way to make decisions. Why else do we keep electing idiots like Inhofe and Coburn?

I'm not afraid for people to know I'm a democrat and I try to enlighten them if the subject comes up.....and I am hopeful that one day we may see some kind of change but to be honest, it's probably not likely to happen.

[LiberalFighter]

8. How many times has there been release of info and they forgot to omit prohibited data?

Like SSNs?

[fl_dem]

9. I could see that happening

but it more than likely wouldn't be in error. I can just see them chomping at the bit waiting and hoping this will pass. All they want to do is circumvent the system to get personal demographics of teens/women who have terminated their pregnancies, so they can fulfill their warped sense of morality by public condemnation. I liken it to a modern day "stoning".

edited due to typo.

[prole_for_peace]

10. There were some good comments on fark about this

Some said that in the "why are you doing this section" the woman should put "because the senator is making me. he doesn't want me to ruin his re-election chances" and "because the baby is possessed"

[fl_dem]

11. LOL....great answers

I just hope it doesn't come to that.

I'll never understand why the religious right are so overtly concerned about women/sex and reproduction.