# Oklahoma law: doctors can't be sued for hiding birth defects from parents **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 27, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572 "2010-04-27T22:53:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/1 "2010-04-27T22:53:28Z")
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: > [@New York 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. > > Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, vetoed both bills last week. The ultrasound law, he said, was flawed because it did not exempt rape and incest victims and was an unconstitutional intrusion into a woman’s privacy. He painted the other measure as immoral. > > “It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient,” Mr. Henry said. > > The Republican majorities in both houses, however, saw things differently. On Monday, the House voted overwhelmingly to override the vetoes, and the Senate followed suit at 10:42 a.m. Tuesday, making the two measures law. … (snip) > > ([Full article is here](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html?emc=eta1).) 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? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/2 "2010-04-27T23:08:36Z")
> [@choie](#): > > 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. 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. > [@choie](#): > > And how in God’s name is it conscionable to allow doctors to hide birth defects from the parents? 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. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/3 "2010-04-27T23:38:13Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/4 "2010-04-28T00:49:18Z")
Aren’t there existing laws which forbid doctors from witholding medical information from their patients? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/5 "2010-04-28T01:01:53Z")
[A related story](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gN0Ufc6xuI3YRfJtMegelAkR5JcwD9F93JM00); written earlier, after the veto but before the veto was overriden, which is why it uses terms like “would be” referring to the law. > [@](#): > > Under the ultrasound legislation, doctors would have been required to use a vaginal probe in cases where it would provide a clearer picture of the fetus than a regular ultrasound. Doctors have said this is usually the case early in pregnancies, when most abortions are done. > > \< snip \> > > Henry did sign one abortion bill into law Friday: one requiring abortion clinics to post signs stating it is against the law for anyone to force a woman to have an abortion, and that an abortion will not be performed until the woman gives her voluntary consent. > > Earlier this month, Henry signed three other abortion-related bills, including a ban on abortions based on the gender of the child and tighter restrictions on the use of the RU-486 abortion pill. > > At least two other abortion measures are pending in the Oklahoma Legislature including one that would require pregnant women to complete a lengthy questionnaire before receiving an abortion. Yeah, that’s right; let’s force a probe up a rape victim’s vagina just so we can more clearly show her what the rapist did to her! ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/6 "2010-04-28T01:39:24Z")
> [@](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/7 "2010-04-28T01:40:41Z")
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_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._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. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/8 "2010-04-28T03:01:22Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/9 "2010-04-28T03:07:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Lots of work for lawyers. I think the State has some pretty good arguments, but I’d rather represent the inevitable plaintiffs. You want to see some lawyers at work? Wait until the first children are born with conditions that might have been addressable with prenatal treatment. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/10 "2010-04-28T03:19:12Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Aren’t there existing laws which forbid doctors from witholding medical information from their patients? Not, apparently, in Oklahoma. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/11 "2010-04-28T03:30:10Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/12 "2010-04-28T03:31:24Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > You do? Really? What state interest is served by any of the referenced laws? 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? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/13 "2010-04-28T03:37:12Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/14 "2010-04-28T03:51:00Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > From the State’s point of view, the ultrasound requirement could be argued as being necessary to ensure the woman gives informed consent. Yeah, because women are so very stupid that they need to have a probe shoved up them and to be [lectured](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/oklahoma.html) about what awful people they are. > [@](#): > > A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided. The “State’s interest” in this is nothing more than the persecution of women, period. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/15 "2010-04-28T04:06:30Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The “State’s interest” in this is nothing more than the persecution of women, period. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/16 "2010-04-28T04:10:09Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > 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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/17 "2010-04-28T04:13:35Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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? WTF do you want me to say? I’ve posted some arguments the State may raise in defense of the statutes. I haven’t endorsed the laws. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/18 "2010-04-28T04:15:46Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > 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. 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!” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/19 "2010-04-28T06:47:14Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Darryl\_Lict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7cd45c/32.png) [@Darryl\_Lict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darryl_Lict)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/20 "2010-04-28T07:03:50Z")
God damn! I’m broke, but I’m donating a hundred bucks to Planned Parenthood tomorrow. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572.md?page=2)