Oklahoma -- so much for medical ethics

Krista - posted on 04/27/2010 ( 50 moms have responded )

12,562

16

842

From the NY Times:



The Oklahoma Legislature voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to override vetoes of two highly restrictive abortion measures, one making it a law that women undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion.



Though other states have passed similar measures forcing women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, requiring a doctor or technician to set up the monitor where the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.



The second measure passed into law Tuesday protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects. The intent of the bill is to prevent parents from later suing doctors who withhold information to try to influence them against having an abortion.


_________________________________________



The first bill is shocking enough, but the second bill basically makes it legal for a doctor to lie to his patients. They are basically telling the woman, "No, you don't have the right to that information, because we don't trust you and what you might do with it."



Frankly, I'm disgusted -- and I would think that even women who would NEVER consider abortion would be appalled to find out that their doctor knew that the baby was deformed, but never told them.



Thoughts?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Mary - posted on 04/28/2010

3,348

31

119

You illustrate my point, the pro-choice community appears against educating these women, though I can’t see why. It IS education, there's no need for quotes. You are educating the women on exactly what they are taking out.




Christa, I'm sorry , but I have to disagree. A woman who has made the choice to abort, already knows what she is asking to have removed from her body. She doesn't NEED to SEE it to know that it is a fetus. They KNOW that they are eliminating the potential for a baby to grow inside of them...that is why they are choosing to abort. It's not as if these woman are showing up at planned parenthood, and saying "I feel nauseous all the time, my boobs are swollen and tender...not sure what's wrong with me, but could you scrape out the inside of my uterus so these annoying symptoms will go away?" Calling it "education" is a farce.

Amie - posted on 04/28/2010

6,596

20

408

The 1st bill sounds like it's set up specifically for late term abortions. The 2nd one, well that one is just stupid. It's a law written to protect doctors from lawsuits because they didn't tell their patients about birth defects. /:) So if your doctor wasn't going to tell you before, he definitely won't now with protection.

As for the 1st aspect of it. I really have no problem with this. A few of you already know I have had an abortion before. I should probably not even be posting but I will.

I HAD to get an ultrasound. I saw my babies heart beat, I saw his size and found out exactly how far along I was. It didn't sway me in my decision. It didn't scar me for life, nor would it for any woman who has made the decision and gone through the procedure. I had to see my doctor, a specialist, the u/s tech and a counselor. All of it happened within 2 weeks. It was hard, it was tiring (I had to travel since my hometown didn't have the facilities to do abortions) but I still went through with it. The pictures of the u/s don't haunt me. If they did it means I made the wrong decision. But they don't.. I knew full well what I was walking into with my eyes wide open. I saw my babies potential for life and I still chose to end it.

It is also standard here though for doctors to refuse to abort after 8 weeks, some will perform them up to 12 weeks but not many. Late term abortions are impossible to get without a reason. Which is where I think this bill is coming into play. During my u/s I didn't see limbs, I didn't see organs, I saw a little bean shape thing that had a blurb that was it's beating heart. If I had been farther along then yes I would have seen those things.

I also understand though that in the US you can get an abortion up to 24 weeks? That is unheard of here (again) without a valid reason. So for women sitting on the fence, if you're waiting that long because you can.... yes I think they should have to see exactly what it is you are doing. It is your child. It is a lot different to see your own child on a screen then to just theorize about what you are carrying. If you can get through that and still make the decision, then you're making the right one. If you can't, then you're making the right one to keep the child. You will know without a doubt that what you are doing is the right way for you.

I went through all of this as a teenager. It didn't sway me in any way to keep it, it didn't guilt me, it showed me exactly what I was going to be doing. If a teenager can get through it, an adult should be able too. And yes I expect a lot, my expectations are pretty high for any woman making this decision. While I am pro-choice it does not mean that I don't think the mothers should not have to run the gauntlet to make that decision. It is a huge life changing decision.

And for those of you who don't know. I'm Canadian. I live in Saskatchewan. It was 12 years ago but as far as I'm aware they haven't changed their procedures at all.

Mary - posted on 04/29/2010

3,348

31

119

I just wanted to point out to everyone that they do indeed perform an ultrasound at some point before an abortion is done. A blood test alone is not enough to confirm that there is, in fact, an intrauterine pregnancy(as opposed to an ectopic). A woman's statement of when her last menstrual period occurred is not reliable for dating. No reputable care provider in this country is going to perform an invasive, surgical proceudure without knowing, with certainty, what they are removing, and where it is.



The difference in the Oklahoma law is that they are mandating that the woman be subjected to a "detailed description of the fetus". Yes, people have diagnostic scans all the time, they just don't legislate that the sonographer makes sure you look at your gall bladder or appendix, or that they give you a detailed description of the relevant anatomy or foreign body.

Sara - posted on 04/28/2010

9,313

50

584

It's all about perspective. We should all keep that in mind when accusing the other side of being hypocritical.



I've said it before and I'll say it again, for me the issue isn't about whether or not abortion is ethically or morally wrong, which it seems to be for most pro-lifers. To me the issue is about whether or not the government (federal or state) has the right to limit a woman's choice to have an abortion or not. This law clearly is trying to punish a woman for making a LEGAL choice, and that's not "education".



And yes, doctor's do tell you things you don't always want to hear, WHEN IT IS DEEMED MEDICALLY NECESSARY. What is necessary about showing a woman an ultrasound of a fetus she is there to abort? This law is insulting to women, because it's basically saying "hey, we don't trust your judgement".

Isobel - posted on 04/28/2010

9,849

0

282

It's not my doctor's job to persuade me or dissuade me from doing anything...the very idea really upsets me.

What if my doctor were a Jehovah's Witness...would it then be ok for them to attempt to dissuade me from taking a blood transfusion?

I agree with Mary, offer a free ultrasound to women who want one and are on the fence, but don't try to force one on them.

This conversation has been closed to further comments

50 Comments

View replies by

Jaime - posted on 04/28/2010

4,427

24

196

Christa, not sure if you will be back to read this thread now that you've bowed out, but I'm still going to address this:

"You illustrate my point, the pro-choice community appears against educating these women"

In fact, the pro-choice community illustrates their beliefs perfectly in this situation, because we are not against educating women, we are against taking away a woman's choice (to have or not have an ultrasound done/to have or not have an abortion). Like I already said, if abortion is legal then it should be offered under the terms that legalize abortion alone...not under the terms of a specific political agenda.

Amie - posted on 04/28/2010

6,596

20

408

Ok thank you Sara. That's why I put the question mark. I remember hearing it somewhere but wasn't sure if it was true.

Sara - posted on 04/28/2010

9,313

50

584

Actually, Amie, in most states in the US you can only legally obtain an abortion in the first 12 weeks. Not many places offer second trimester abortions without a medical reason, but a handful of states do offer it in the second trimester without a medical reason.

Sharon - posted on 04/28/2010

11,585

12

1314

What bothers me is the with holding of information.



How in gods name can you get proper medical treatment for an infant if they don't tell you something is wrong?



Not only that - but I would most likely not bring a terminally ill child into this world. If I knew early on that things had gone horribly wrong, I would terminate. If something went wrong later I would try to carry as long as possible in order to give life from death via organ donation.



But to take the choice away from me? Honest to god, I have had issues with doctors all along.... if I were still thinking of having children, I'd not be inclined to not trust any of them ever.



I wonder if you can have your doctor sign a contract prior to treatment that he will always disclose pertinent information?



edited to add the word "not" to make a statement clearer and true.

Krista - posted on 04/28/2010

12,562

16

842

"They require and MRI or X ray or ultrasound for almost any major medical procedure to make sure they are doing the right thing. "



But that's diagnostic. It's to make sure that if they're going to remove your brain tumour, that there actually IS a brain tumour there. And the patient is not forced against her will to examine the MRI images to examine the exact size and shape of her tumour.



Under the intent of this law, the main reason for the ultrasound is to try to dissuade a woman from obtaining a legal medical procedure. Sure, offer one. But it is in no way, shape or form a medically necessary component of this procedure, and hence, should not be mandatory.

Erin - posted on 04/28/2010

6,569

25

232

"Provide a basic ultrasound before carrying out every abortion, as a medical requirement to check position of attachment. Offer every woman the option to see that baby. But force, NO.

No to invasive procedures. And definatly no to withholding invaluable information on the health of the baby".




This is precisely where I stand on this issue. Pelvic ultrasounds are routinely performed here prior to undergoing a termination. But it is for confirmation purposes rather than some underhanded attempt to pressure women to change their minds.



From the people I know who have had abortions, they have all looked at the u/s. But it was their choice to do so, and that is my problem with this legislation. The idea that government can dictate something as personal as you watching an ultrasound is appalling to me.

Charlie - posted on 04/28/2010

11,203

111

401

The simple fact is they are forcing women to do this AGAINST THEIR WILL .

Thats what it all comes down to.

?? - posted on 04/28/2010

4,974

0

171

I think the option should be there. Being forced to do it is so cruel though. I don't think there's ANY reason why an ultrasound has to be mandatory.



The women I know who have had abortions, vary widely. 1 that I know of regrets it. And she doesn't regret having the abortion exactly, she regrets her behavior that put her in the position to feel as though she couldn't be a good mother.



They also all had ultrasounds and still made the choice. But they were optional. They went to their doctor and they discussed their options. They talked about it. They discussed what the baby was doing, how it was developing, the different growths that the baby goes through and they also discussed birth, and after birth.



The decision was never one that they made in the matter of minutes. They didn't go to the doctor and say "I want an abortion", laid down, spread em and that was done.



The fact that they feel the need to FORCE women to have the ultrasound just proves that they don't actually care about the patient or the child. The lawmakers ONLY care about their own personal views and it is down right, plain, absolutely, 100% WRONG for them to impose those views on an entire state of individuals.





If they really want to help those women, spend more time making the doctors, nurses, communities and information available to women. And help those infuencial people be positive encouragement. There are far too many influencial people (doctors, nurses, parents, people in support positions to individuals) these days saying "having a baby is REALLY hard and REALLY EXPENSIVE!!" But then walking away with giving them any hope of being able to accomplish something that IS hard and expensive but definitely NOT impossible. We need programs, education and information that make taking care of a baby seem less daunting... and more reasonable information available about the finacial aspect of having children, they're not completely unaffordable. Scaring people into having babies isn't going to do anything productive.

Rosie - posted on 04/28/2010

8,657

30

315

we differ greatly in the way that we think about this, obviously. :) i just don't see how it's not worth making sure that people know what their doing, cause of the 3 people i know who've had abortions 2 regretted it. i'd rather have someone not feel that pain, and regret of the what if's, cause i've seen it twice in my life, and trust me it was horrible to see, and hear my friends crying to me years later about their decision.

i also know from my best friends abortion that it was something she knew without the ultrasound. and has no regrets. i understand it can happen both ways, but i'd rather have someone not do something they can't take back, and if a simple ultrasound helps make that decision that it's worth it to me.

?? - posted on 04/28/2010

4,974

0

171

A simple ultrasound? If it were 'a simple ultrasound' there would be absolutely no need to force it upon women who state they would like to have an abortion.

Women can be informed, educated and given every single opportunity and venue to change her mind and evaluate her options without being FORCED to do anything.

Especially when the thing they are being forced to partake in makes something harder, more traumatic and emotionally damaging than the situations already naturally is.

Rosie - posted on 04/28/2010

8,657

30

315

i would think that people would be way more traumatized by the procedure of an abortion itself than a simple ultrasound. i really don't get what the big deal against this is (the ultrasound part). it's a simple utrasound for christ sake, they aren't taking out your tonsils or giving you a hysterectomy. they are showing you what you're aborting. if you're going to have bad dreams it'll be about the procedure itself, or the what ifs. if you're so sure what you want why would it make any difference to have an ultrasound? for some people it would make a difference of whether they aborted or not, thats why i think it's a good idea. it almost seems that you all want people to have abortions immediately if the thought comes into their head. i obviously know that's not true, but that's what it seems like from this discussion.

what is so wrong with people making an informed choice? nobody is taking away that choice.

?? - posted on 04/28/2010

4,974

0

171

But it's not too far of a reach, Christa. It might be a bit dramatic but it's not all that unlikely.

When women are guilted into keeping a baby because she's forced to hear the heart beat or see the lil heart flicker and she's told over and over and over "you're killing a person" when she KNOWS that but she's looked at with 'that look of disgust' because she's making a choice that someone else doesn't agree with... it's not a healthy situation for that woman or that child.

It's cruel. I can understand if a woman is on the fence... but if she doesn't want that 'attachment' in order to make the best decision for her, and the possible horrible standard of life that unborn child could get, it is NO ONE'S right or business to MAKE her deal with that.

I know that you think because I'm "pro-choice" you think that I support abortions... but I don't. I think that every woman needs to be VERY aware of what she is doing. I don't believe that abortion is a choice that MOST women make lightly.

And if it is a choice she's making on a whim, I don't think it really matters what you show her or tell her, it's NOT going to make the situation any better for her or that baby.

Sara - posted on 04/28/2010

9,313

50

584

Uh, no. I most certainly do not think it's education. I really don't need you to tell me what I think. It's pretty obvious we disagree here. Thanksomuch.

Christa - posted on 04/28/2010

3,876

14

209

Go ahead and hide behind that Sara. It is education and deep down you know it.

I'll bow out of this one now because we have all been there done that. :-)

Christa - posted on 04/28/2010

3,876

14

209

I think that's a bit dramatic, Jo. No one is going to have a nightmare about an ultrasound. I do see your point on the difference between the appendix and a baby. But I don't think many women, particularly young women, really understand what is inside them. They hear it's not a baby it's just a clump of cells a lot, and that's just not true. We’ve all had that 8 wk ultrasound and seen our baby right there on the screen, beating heart and all. It’s definitely not a “clump of cells”. It's time we started educating people as to what they are really aborting and stop the "clump of cells" argument.

If an ultrasound can "guilt" a woman into having their baby, then they shouldn't be having the abortion in the first place. If a simple ultrasound can change those feelings then they aren't ok with killing their baby in the first place. I know some women who would have found that out before they went ahead and killed their baby.

?? - posted on 04/28/2010

4,974

0

171

The difference is when your appendix "might" be the issue, that's just it, it MIGHT be the issue. When you're pregnant, you know what it is. The woman already fully knows what it is. If she WANTS an abortion, putting her through FURTHER traumatic experiences isn't going to do anything but harm her.



What if she wants an abortion, she's decided, she's told she HAS to have the scan done, she sits through it... she decides to go forth with the abortion anyways and then 10 years down the road she has a dream about the ultrasound and she spirals into an alcoholic depression... all because she was forced to have this ultrasound... when if she HADN'T had the ultrasound she would never have that dream and be perfectly fine with her decision for the rest of her life.



The difference between a 'maybe' thing like your appendix MAYBE being the problem and a woman being pregnant are too varied to be comparable.



I think it even leans towards 'cruel and unusual punishment.' Or 'badgering the witness' in court. The same idea applies. It's unnecessary and has ramifications that can weigh the same as a few women who will feel guilted into keeping a baby they don't feel they can care for or just don't want, period.

Sarah - posted on 04/28/2010

5,465

31

331

Bit off topic.....but......i never got scanned before they took my appendix out. The suspected it was appendicitis, and i was in surgery a few hours later! My appendix was actually infected, but that's another story! lol

In regards to the OP, offer a scan, sure, but i don't think it should be made mandatory. :)

Christa - posted on 04/28/2010

3,876

14

209

Laura, that's a noble thought, but doctors try and persuade patients to their way of thinking all the time. I know of doctors who have encouraged women towards abortion and others who go the opposite way. Doctors are always biased one way or the other, some are better at hiding it then others.

Although this law has nothing to do with persuading it's just about getting an ultrasound so everyone is on the same page. Do with that information what you will.

Christa - posted on 04/28/2010

3,876

14

209

Sara, doctors "force" you to hear information you don't want to hear all the time. Any procedure they are going to tell you the risks and side effects. I don't see it as the gov't "forcing" anyone to do anything. It should just be standard procedure for anyone who WANTS an abortion. It should just goes along with the procedure. Like I said it's like them doing any other imaging test before a procedure. You wouldn't let them take out your appendix without confirming that's the problem right? So they scan your abdomen to make sure before they cut you open. Why not scan your abdomen before an abortion to make sure you of what you are taking out? It’s all the same.

You illustrate my point, the pro-choice community appears against educating these women, though I can’t see why. It IS education, there's no need for quotes. You are educating the women on exactly what they are taking out. IF that forces some women to change their mind isn't that a good thing? I don't think anyone is going to be "scarred for life" by having to get an ultrasound before this procedure that so many think is harmless and no big deal. If that were true there wouldn't be all this outrage. The pro-choice community is always saying they aren’t pro-abortion and they’d like to reduce the number of abortions performed, yet whenever anything comes out, whether it be legislation or the stupid Tebow Super Bowl ad, that is designed to educate people the pro-choice community freaks out. Why is that? I know what I think, but I’ll keep that to myself.

Sara - posted on 04/28/2010

9,313

50

584

Well, when a law forces a woman to hear information that may not be relevant to her medical care and also discounts her abilities to make healthy decisions about her own life by forcing her to hear information when she's objected and calling it "education" doesn't seem right to me. State policymakers should never mandate that a citizen be forced to undergo any medical procedure against their will, especially when it's a procedure that could cause physical or mental trauma. To do that seems to be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. So, it surprises me that someone who is conservative and advocates for smaller government would be one board with a law like this.

Christa - posted on 04/28/2010

3,876

14

209

Mary, to your last comment. They require and MRI or X ray or ultrasound for almost any major medical procedure to make sure they are doing the right thing. How is this any different?

Christa - posted on 04/28/2010

3,876

14

209

I think the second law is disturbing, and I'm one of the most pro-life people ever, but to withhold information about the health of the baby is flat out wrong.

I think the first law is great and I don't understand what the big deal is. Why shouldn't women fully understand what/who they are killing? Why shouldn't women be able to see that it's more then just a "clump of cells" it is a baby with a beating heart that you can see? On the "invasive medical procedure" it's not anymore invasive then a pap smear. I've had those many times while pregnant and it's totally quick and painless. Those who say it's violating are grasping at straws. It would be no more uncomfortable for a rape victim then the pelvic exam or anything else. Those poor women are going to have a hard time regardless of what's going on down there, I know the pelvic exam is hard for them. But shouldn't they also know what they are doing too? There are too many women out there who rush into/are pressured into abortions who later regret it for their entire life. Why not make sure they are sure?

Imagine a woman who is not fully informed, making the decision to abort then later with her next wanted pregnancy going to that 8 wk ultrasound and realizing that she killed her baby NOT a clump of cells. It happens all the time. That guilt never goes away.

I don't understand the Pro-choice community that says they are not pro-abortion, but anytime people are trying to increase education the pro-choice community gets all wound up. This bill does nothing towards making abortion illegal. It's all about increasing education and awareness. So why all the fuss??

ME - posted on 04/28/2010

2,978

18

190

I would be ok with them offerring a free ultrasound to any woman contemplating abortion...some women might be on the fence, and might appreciate more information...but such a test cannot be REQUIRED...

ME - posted on 04/28/2010

2,978

18

190

I was teaching Medical Ethics last night and asked my students a very similar question...I don't see how this can possibly stand up in court...either bill for that matter. You cannot force someone to have an unnecessary medical procedure, and you cannot withhold information from a patient, at least, not info like this...I'm horrified by both of these!

I can't imagine what must go through someones head when they decide to require a victim of rape to go through an unneccesary, vaginally invasive medical exam...were they just not thinking...or do they really think they've accomplished something good here? I'd really like to know...because I cannot begin to figure it out on my own!

[deleted account]

In regards to the abortion bit i do agree with it for those who arent victims of rape simply because they made my mother have an ultrasound before she went through with an abortion. If they hadnt i wouldnt be here because it made her change her mind. As for the doctors hiding the truth about abnormalities that is wrong.

?? - posted on 04/27/2010

4,974

0

171

It's scary to think that if my sister was in Oklahoma while she was pregnant with my neice, they might not have told her about the malfunction of her heart valve growing and ended up killing my neice in my sisters stomach because she wouldn't have gotten the pre-natal care she needed to ensure the survival of the baby. And if the baby had survived to birth she would have been in a shit hole hospital like where I live (2 hrs away from where they lived) instead of in Edmonton hospital with the BEST possible doctors for the care she NEEDED to live directly after birth there, prepared and ready to go straight into open heart surgery.............. all because they'd be afraid she'd have an abortion instead.......

I don't even know... that is just... horrific... irresponsible and unethical.

Jaime - posted on 04/27/2010

4,427

24

196

If abortion is legal then the procedure should be performed WITHOUT all of the bells and whistles.

These laws being passed are just the legal loop-holes that politicians are taking to regain the 'upper hand' so-to-speak. This anti-abortion-abortion platform, is not only breaching ethical barriers, but individual freedoms. Women have the right to obtain an abortion...any attempt to dissuade a woman against her decision is in direct violation of the law that protects that right. So how are these new laws that are being passed, not being called out as a direct contradiction to their own terms? WTF?

These new laws have reduced abortion to nothing more than a political brow-beating...you can have an abortion, IF you make it through all of the mental and physical anguish that we will use to make sure you change your mind...and then if you still don't change your mind, we can and will withhold information from you that you are entitled to have.... Ya, thanks for taking 'rights and freedoms' seriously douchebags!

Krista - posted on 04/27/2010

12,562

16

842

Add that to the fact that they're legally allowing doctors to lie to their patients, and I'm really tasting that refreshing hint of psychopathy from Oklahoma, no?

Charlie - posted on 04/27/2010

11,203

111

401

Its way more uncomfortable than a penis and not inserted in the same context as a penis , its completely different .

As for choosing to abort its a hard decision for most women the fact they have to go through the abortion alone is hard enough but to force a woman especially a rape or incest victim to view the fetus is adding on that extra overwhelming sadness and guilt on top of what she is already feeling , its a little sadistic IMO.

Rosie - posted on 04/27/2010

8,657

30

315

i agree, my best friend had an abortion and she knows without a doubt that what she did was definitely right for her. i've also known 2 other women that regretted it. i'm not trying to say that everyone who has an abortion, doesn't have a clue what they're doing. obviously there are very intelligent well informed women, but there are alot of those who aren't either.

Rosie - posted on 04/27/2010

8,657

30

315

no, i dont think it's any more intrusive than a penis. i've had at least 7 trans-vaginal ultrasounds,no big deal. wasn't nearly as horrible as forcibly opening my cervix, and sticking sucking instruments up there.

Jodi - posted on 04/27/2010

26,476

36

3891

Kati, I think you will find that most people who have an abortion really do find it a difficult decision. Sure, there are those who don't, but every person I have ever known who has had an abortion has never found it easy to decide. I don't believe they should be guilted into it further, when the decision they have had to make is already a difficult one.

Jodi - posted on 04/27/2010

26,476

36

3891

Well it is far more intrusive than a penis, don't you think?

Anyway, I guess this is another way of putting an abortion debate. I just don't see that it is necessary to put a woman through this. The fact that there are no exceptions for victims of rape or incest is just disgusting. My opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Rosie - posted on 04/27/2010

8,657

30

315

you don't think people should be really aware of what they're aborting? we all know what an ultrasound looks like, but you know very well that it's different when it's your own child. how is making sure that they're sure a bad thing? i do agree with the rape victims not having it done, i will give u that one. but the other part, nah.

Rosie - posted on 04/27/2010

8,657

30

315

i'm confused. i didn't say it penetrated the cervix, i said teh instruments used in the abortion did. a transvaginal ultrasound feels like a penis, or tampon or something. not nearly as intrusive as an abortion.

Krista - posted on 04/27/2010

12,562

16

842

Because whatever vaginal insertions that take place as part of an abortion are medically necessary components of the abortion procedure.

A vaginal transducer is not a medically necessary component of the abortion procedure. It is being put in place for the sole purpose of trying to dissuade the patient from going through the procedure, and the patient is not to be given the choice to opt out of this component, nor even to opt for an abdominal transducer. That is the difference. I'm thinking that with a rape victim, if we can avoid forcibly sticking things up her vagina, then maybe that's what we should be doing?

Rosie - posted on 04/27/2010

8,657

30

315

aren't they already having a very intrusive instrument stuck up their vagina anyway? i've had a d& c and i can tell you a vaginal ultrasound is the least intrusive thing ever. they have to stick a needle up there numb your cervix, dialte your cervix, and then stick the wand thing up there to suck it out. how is a vaginal ultrasound, similar to a penis, more intrusive than that?

Sharon - posted on 04/27/2010

11,585

12

1314

That I'm damn glad I don't live in a fuckhole like Oklahoma.. shit.

Krista - posted on 04/27/2010

12,562

16

842

The thing is, Kati, is that part of that first bill is this:

Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly;

They’ve mandated an intrusive medical procedure. We’re no longer just talking collecting an image from without. They have mandated that rape victims have probes inserted into their vaginas against their will, simply because THEY are opposed to abortion and want to throw up as many roadblocks as possible.

And really, who DOESN'T already know what an embryo looks like by now? Is it really necessary to put them through this?

Rosie - posted on 04/27/2010

8,657

30

315

i agree with the second law, that's completely fucked up. the first one i feel is great. i hope i'm reading it right, lol! i feel women should be informed, and educated and see what they are about to abort. i think too many women are just going out there and using abortions as a form of birth control, and i find that sad. i am very pro-choice, i just believe people shouldn't take this lightly at all.

Krista - posted on 04/27/2010

12,562

16

842

I know. It's despicable. If the baby has problems, you need to be ready to deal with these problems at the time of birth, and most small community hospitals just are not staffed for that. Not to mention the fact that the parents will not have had the chance to prepare, either practically or emotionally, for such a child.

So every time the life quality of a baby with Down Syndrome or complex heart defects is even more compromised because the right numbers of nurses or other specialists weren’t on hand at their birth, they'll have the legislators of Oklahoma to thank.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms