Oklahoma law that prohibits a woman from getting an abortion unless she first has an ultrasound and the doctor describes

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: SigArms08
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: SigArms08
Too inconvenient?

The question is, do you support the government forcing you by law to do this?

My question to you is: Do you personally support the intrusive power of the state coercing its citizens to do this . . . and, if you do, exactly where does your support of coercive state control of a American citizen's private life end?

What's the bar, chief?

If they're in your girlfriend's belly, can they conduct a surprise search of your anus, you know, for the common good?

What is your anus hiding from America, and why is it more sacrosanct to you than your girlfriend's womb?

Well? :|

Why so angry, Perknose? Many choices that people make in a society are guided by the rule of law, even if it seems a bit inconvenient. If you do extensive work on your home, it needs to be inspected. If you'd like to operate heavy machinery, you need to be licensed. If you decide that you'd like to open up a business, there are plenty of hoops that you have to jump through. If you'd like to have an abortion in Oklahoma during the first part of a pregnancy, then undergo an ultrasound. Its a big decision to make (abortion), and Oklahoma is still allowing a choice. It sounds like they would like those women to make the choice with a clear understanding of what they are doing.

Of course the doctors at the abortion clinics don't want to provide an ultrasound, bit of a potential conflict of interest. They are paid to perform abortions, the last thing they want is for somebody to change their mind.

Do you consider having to send your children to school as a coercive power of the state? Obtaining a drivers license? Permit to buy a handgun? Permit to walk your dog in a park (http://www.ci.rochester.mi.us/...ents/dogparkpermit.pdf)? Yes, where do the coercive state controls over an American citizen's private life end?

She already made the choice. Get off her back about it.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: techs
http://ap.google.com/article/A...K9HkfzBmeDQvwD93NPSRO0

Okla. abortion ultrasound requirement challenged

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) ? An advocacy group is suing over an Oklahoma law that prohibits a woman from getting an abortion unless she first has an ultrasound and the doctor describes to her what the fetus looks like.

In the lawsuit filed Thursday in Oklahoma County District Court, the Center for Reproductive Rights says that the requirement intrudes on privacy, endangers health and assaults dignity.

The law, set to go into effect Nov. 1, would make Oklahoma the fourth state in the nation to require that ultrasounds be performed before a woman can have an abortion and that the ultrasounds be made available to the patient for viewing, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based health research organization.

The other states are Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Backers of the lawsuit say Oklahoma is the only state to require that the ultrasound screen be turned toward the woman during the procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus.

Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, said the Oklahoma law appears unique in that its intent is that the woman seeking an abortion view the ultrasound images.

Lawmakers overrode Gov. Brad Henry's veto to pass the anti-abortion legislation in April. Henry, a Democrat, said he vetoed the bill because it didn't exempt victims of rape or incest from the ultrasound requirement.



wtf? Without a doubt this is the strangest, most un-Constitutional law I have ever heard of.
Don't Republicans still value ANY of our freedoms?

I actually have no objection as long as it is a State funded mandate.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: JS80
Who's paying for this?

Well to be fair, the State should, and after further thought, also pay for her Doctor to perform the abortion in a hospital operating room, if the women makes that choice.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
My thoughts on abortion are two fold.
One. Right wing religious women do not agree with Roe vs Wade in theory.
Two. Women including right wing religious women would never really want to see this overturned.

Why?
Because... forget what Roe vs Wade is or does for a second, fact is this is a law pertaining to women rights. When you strip the law down to pure law, it is simply a law for women rights.
Women, anti abortion as some may be, would have problems with removing any law that addresses a women's legal rights. Even abortion rights.

That is why you have some like Cindy Mccain and Barbara Bush, right wing republicans, actually against reversal of Roe vs Wade. Its not that they are not certain on their feeling against abortion, it is that they object or have hard issues with the reduction of rights and laws for women.

While these women solidly reject abortion as an option, they can not imagine a woman, any woman, being jailed or arrested over this purely women's issue.
So I really do not believe anyone, any president, even Pat Robertson himself, would actually push reversal of Roe vs Wade. Women, both right wing and left wing, would tell the men to "leave the hell alone our women rights".

Politicians will forever give plenty of lip service to Roe vs Wade, but you will never see any physical action taken to reverse the law. Not by any president, not by any court.

So, instead of getting bent out of shape over Roe vs Wade, instead we need to address making abortion rare and unnecessary altogether.

Give all woman expecting an unwanted child, regardless of age, the options to birth the child and decide on adoption, or granting financial ability to help raise the child.
But to concentrate on Roe vs Wade is just a waste of lip service. This law will never be overturned as long as one women is alive in this country.
You may see a few flukes state by state limiting this or that i.e. abortion rights, but you will never see Roe vs Wade reversed or changed.
Women would never allow it. Even those most opposed to abortion.


 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: JS80
Who's paying for this?

Well to be fair, the State should, and after further thought, also pay for her Doctor to perform the abortion in a hospital operating room, if the women makes that choice.

I can see if the state forces her to do an ultrasound that it should pay for it, but why have the state pay for the abortion?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
This is just pathetic, you're fighting SO hard in the opposite direction of the UK.

This would not be legal in the UK PERIOD.

Then Anglican church has no public rights unless publically funded, liberals made it this way.

True liberals will lead even you dark thinking twats into the light.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: JS80
Who's paying for this?

Tax payers are paying for the institution of religion, iow a Jesus statue, there isn't much argument that that is a very specific endorsment of a religion, is there?

Fucked up twats want to have their way everywhere, in the UK too, fortunantly our constitution is all encompassing and we don't have to wait for rulings, it's just not happening.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: Perknose

If you truly believe in the rule of law then I ask YOU what LEGAL justification you might have for the Oklahoma law in light of Roe v. Wade being the law of the land.

I OPPOSE the Oklahoma law that imposes the legal requirement on even an unwilling doctor and his or her private patient that screen be turned toward the woman during the procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus, as their is no LEGAL victim under our rule of law in this procedure.

Do you?

And if not, why not? Under what legal justification under the rule of law (in which you believe) don't you?

roe v. wade isn't really the law of the land anymore. casey v. planned parenthood is.



Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
This is just pathetic, you're fighting SO hard in the opposite direction of the UK.

This would not be legal in the UK PERIOD.

Then Anglican church has no public rights unless publically funded, liberals made it this way.

True liberals will lead even you dark thinking twats into the light.

i haven't kept up, but isn't sharia law coming into vogue over there in blighty?
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Originally posted by: techs
http://ap.google.com/article/A...K9HkfzBmeDQvwD93NPSRO0

Okla. abortion ultrasound requirement challenged

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) ? An advocacy group is suing over an Oklahoma law that prohibits a woman from getting an abortion unless she first has an ultrasound and the doctor describes to her what the fetus looks like.

In the lawsuit filed Thursday in Oklahoma County District Court, the Center for Reproductive Rights says that the requirement intrudes on privacy, endangers health and assaults dignity.

The law, set to go into effect Nov. 1, would make Oklahoma the fourth state in the nation to require that ultrasounds be performed before a woman can have an abortion and that the ultrasounds be made available to the patient for viewing, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based health research organization.

The other states are Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Backers of the lawsuit say Oklahoma is the only state to require that the ultrasound screen be turned toward the woman during the procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus.

Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, said the Oklahoma law appears unique in that its intent is that the woman seeking an abortion view the ultrasound images.

Lawmakers overrode Gov. Brad Henry's veto to pass the anti-abortion legislation in April. Henry, a Democrat, said he vetoed the bill because it didn't exempt victims of rape or incest from the ultrasound requirement.



wtf? Without a doubt this is the strangest, most un-Constitutional law I have ever heard of.
Don't Republicans still value ANY of our freedoms?

If you can regulate the 2nd amendment you can regulate abortion.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: techs
http://ap.google.com/article/A...K9HkfzBmeDQvwD93NPSRO0

Okla. abortion ultrasound requirement challenged

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) ? An advocacy group is suing over an Oklahoma law that prohibits a woman from getting an abortion unless she first has an ultrasound and the doctor describes to her what the fetus looks like.

In the lawsuit filed Thursday in Oklahoma County District Court, the Center for Reproductive Rights says that the requirement intrudes on privacy, endangers health and assaults dignity.

The law, set to go into effect Nov. 1, would make Oklahoma the fourth state in the nation to require that ultrasounds be performed before a woman can have an abortion and that the ultrasounds be made available to the patient for viewing, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based health research organization.

The other states are Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Backers of the lawsuit say Oklahoma is the only state to require that the ultrasound screen be turned toward the woman during the procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus.

Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, said the Oklahoma law appears unique in that its intent is that the woman seeking an abortion view the ultrasound images.

Lawmakers overrode Gov. Brad Henry's veto to pass the anti-abortion legislation in April. Henry, a Democrat, said he vetoed the bill because it didn't exempt victims of rape or incest from the ultrasound requirement.



wtf? Without a doubt this is the strangest, most un-Constitutional law I have ever heard of.
Don't Republicans still value ANY of our freedoms?

If you can regulate the 2nd amendment you can regulate abortion.

It is Regulated, but this is just stupid.
 

db

Lifer
Dec 6, 1999
10,575
292
126
Let's get to the bottom line:
this is about imposing beliefs on others by making it law, and that
women are property; spawn being more important then property (women don't matter).
And the refusal to accept anything other than abstinence as birth control (b/c sex is BAD).
Some people think it's their job to punish those who disobey THEIR imposed religious laws.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: JS80
Who's paying for this?

Well to be fair, the State should, and after further thought, also pay for her Doctor to perform the abortion in a hospital operating room, if the women makes that choice.

I can see if the state forces her to do an ultrasound that it should pay for it, but why have the state pay for the abortion?

The Roe v Wade court already decided that it doesn't have to.
 

SigArms08

Member
Apr 16, 2008
181
0
0
Originally posted by: db
Let's get to the bottom line:
this is about imposing beliefs on others by making it law, and that
women are property; spawn being more important then property (women don't matter).
And the refusal to accept anything other than abstinence as birth control (b/c sex is BAD).
Some people think it's their job to punish those who disobey THEIR imposed religious laws.

Having someone undergo an ultrasound prior to making such a significant and pernament decision like abortion is "imposing beliefs" and "punishing"? Seems more like providing a chance to make a decision based not only on facts, but to include other human factors like emotion/feelings.

Also, being that the state has already made this one of their laws, it would seem only reasonable for the state to also include/have included a strong support structure and a comprehensive adoption program (one option). Didn't Obama touch on something like this during the last debate?