This may belong in the Pit. I’ve never started a GD thread before, so apologies in advance.
According to a veto override by the Oklahoma Legislature, not only must women seeking an abortion – and this includes rape/incest victims, by the way – see the ultrasound and hear the fetus described in detail by their doctor, but Oklahoma also is now saying it’s a-okay for doctors to avoid malpractice suits for hiding the fetus’s birth defects from the parents. Because if the doctors don’t want the parents to consider an abortion, why would they tell them that their fetus is pitifully malformed?
Segment of article:
It’s entirely possible I’m misunderstanding this law. Just sounds from my basic reading that they’re making things as traumatic as possible for rape/incest victims to undergo a medical procedure that is, last time I checked, legal. And how in God’s name is it conscionable to allow doctors to hide birth defects from the parents? Is this common procedure? And should it be?
Exactly. The anti-abortion movement is ultimately a hate movement against women; they see this as an opportunity to torment women while they are most vulnerable.
Because tricking women into giving birth to defective or dead babies traumatizes the women, and women are all evil and deserve it. At least, that’s how these people see it.
You can’t expect anything from these people, except the most monstrous behavior they think they can get away with. Behavior like this, for example.
So the idea is, like Darth Vader, these baby killers have a kernel of goodness in them which seeing their unborn on a fuzzy gray monitor will reawaken? Or something.
Well, I can see both sides. I DO think that parents should have the right to know, so they could maybe “withdraw life support” in the case of profound birth defects like anacephaly. (and in the case of profound birth defects, abortion IS pretty much withdrawing life support)
However, in a lot of cases the parents are always " boo hoo hoo! My child isn’t “perfect”" They equate something like a mild cleft palate with something like profound mental retardation.
I have interacted with a lot of parents of special needs kids…and it does seem like initially they can be very superfical and unaccepting about disabilty/difference. And we’re talking about kids with MILD issues, not nessarily the ones who are profoundly intelellectucally disabled with ten million medical problems.
Well, on the upside, there’s going to be lots of work for lawyers in Oklahoma. I think the sign law can probably pass constitutional muster, along with possibly the restrictions on RU-486 and the questionaire, depending on the details.
The ultrasound law seems to be testing the limits of “informed consent”, which was upheld in Casey according to Wiki. I am very much not going to wade through that case tonight to see if wiki is correct.
The malpractice shield for doctors that chose to conceal birth defects is interesting. I would think that actually doing that would probably violate medical ethics, and if it doesn’t, I think it probably should. That said, I think a State may be able to enact such shields without violating the Constitution.
Yup. Lots of work for lawyers. I think the State has some pretty good arguments, but I’d rather represent the inevitable plaintiffs.
You do? Really? What state interest is served by any of the referenced laws?
This is nothing but the modern Christian religion acting as the state. Theocracy, thy name is Oklahoma.
That’s not the point. That’s not the doctor’s call to make. If a woman does not want to have a baby with a birth defect the woman has the right to end the pregnancy.
Anything else is a gross violation of her civil rights. I certainly hope any doctor who does so is held fully accountable for the costs of caring for said child.
FYI, my mom’s a retired special education teacher so I’m not exactly unaquainted with that particular world either.
From the wiki link I posted:
*
The plurality recognized viability as the point at which the state interest in the life of the fetus outweighs the rights of the woman and abortion may be banned entirely "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
The plurality also replaced the heightened scrutiny of abortion regulations under Roe, which was standard for fundamental rights in the Court’s case law, with a lesser “undue burden” standard previously developed by O’Connor in her dissent in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health.[3] A legal restriction posing an undue burden was defined as one having “the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” *
From the State’s point of view, the ultrasound requirement could be argued as being necessary to ensure the woman gives informed consent. Casey allowed the informed consent regulation in Pennsylvania to stand under the undue burden test.
The sign requirement does not appear to pose an undue burden.
Need more information about the questionaire and RU-486 laws.
As for the malpractice shield, what constitutional right is violated?
It is not hard to understand. There are people outside your family who know better than you how you should live your life. If you get pregnant, it is none of your business if the child is defective. They will make the decision for you. They know so much better than you do. As a bonus ,you get to raise a kid you are not ready for, do not want, can not afford or has birth defects.
When you get appointed to SCOTUS, and persuade 4 of your brethren to agree in an appropriate case, that will become the law of the land. Until then, it’s an argument. Period.
And note that I don’t particularly like these laws. As I posted once already in this thread, I’d rather represent the plaintiffs challenging the laws.
Persecution is persecution, whether or not the law has deigned to notice. Was segregation any less unjust before the courts saw fit to admit that it was? Was it any less rape to rape your wife back when doing so was legal?
Yes, there may be parents like that, but what is the alternative? The doctor deciding that this defect isn’t serious enough to warrant an abortion and just not telling the parent? Is the doctor going to only tell them in cases where they think it’s really serious? As has been noted, not their call to make. It’s the job of the doctor to give the information to the parents–well, the pregnant woman, really–so that she can ultimately make the best choice for herself.
And I have no idea what the rationale behind the vaginal probe ultrasound is. Do you really need to see what it looks like before you get the abortion? If I were to get pregnant now for whatever reason, my abortion wouldn’t be based on what the embryo looked like–it would be based on the fact that I’m in an insanely bad place to have a child and the fact that I don’t want to put my body through it. Stupid question, though–I get that the answer is, “But then she’ll feel bad! Cute baby!”
Frankly, I don’t understand the purpose of the law in the first place. I’m guessing it’s supposed to be something like “Oh, if she just sees that that’s a little baby in there, then she’ll decide against having an abortion”. Except, I’ve seen ultrasounds, and they don’t look remotely like anything humanoid. Sure, a trained doctor or imaging technician can point to spots on the blob and say “There’s the head, there’s the arms and legs, and there’s the penis, congratulations it’s a boy”, but those of us without such training just need to take their word for it, because it all just looks like a blob.
Now, if you want to try to provoke an emotional response in the pregnant woman, then you could show her photographs of a fetus at the same level of development as hers. In photographs, a fetus past a certain point really does look like a baby, and prompts the “Ooh, cute!” reaction in adults. That would make a certain sort of sense. But ultrasounds? I don’t see the point.