# 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:** 2
**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, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/21 "2010-04-28T07:04:05Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > 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. But do the people who passed this law actually know that? And for that matter, they may consider it worth the effort just because it mandates that the woman get a probe stuck up her and in general harassed. She’s guaranteed to find it humiliating, and probably outright traumatic for the rape and incest victims; that’s a plus for these people. ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/22 "2010-04-28T07:10:59Z")
I read an article once where a woman who had had an abortion later on saw a picture of a fetus at the age she had the abortion and said this made her ‘realise’ that she had killed a human being and intensely regretted the abortion as a result and would have done it differently if she’d seen it before the abortion. But it was a highly detailed photograph of a fetus rather than a blobby ultrasound for a start. I suspect in practise this was probably wishful thinking after the fact rather than something that would really have changed their mind at the time. I suspect stories like this are not uncommon amongst anti-abortion converts, so the hope it that will really make a difference. I also suspect its people transferring their experience of what it was like to see the first ultrasound of a baby they actually wanted and thinking this will be the same as seeing one that well, isnt. Stuff like that. ---
**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, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/23 "2010-04-28T07:13:00Z")
> [@choie](#): > > 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? > > \ > > 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? The doctors don’t have to take care of babby. They’re forcing a lifelong obligation on the woman and perhaps the birth of a child with major league defects. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Aren’t there existing laws which forbid doctors from witholding medical information from their patients? Hippocratic Oath? ---
**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, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/24 "2010-04-28T07:17:08Z")
> [@Darryl\_Lict](#): > > The doctors don’t have to take care of babby. They’re forcing a lifelong obligation on the woman and perhaps the birth of a child with major league defects. Or a dead baby, and risking the mother’s health. I can just see some woman with medical issues struggling though a pregnancy, suffering permanent damage only to give birth to a dead baby that the doctors knew was doomed or already dead, but refused to tell her. But hey, the slut suffers so it’s all good. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/25 "2010-04-28T08:14:41Z")
What if the pregnant woman is blind? Is she forced to feel a relief-map of a printout of the sonogram? ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/26 "2010-04-28T09:23:20Z")
The text says this: “The introduced version of HB2780 requires an obstetric ultrasound at least one hour prior to an abortion. The physician must provide an explanation of the ultrasound depiction, including a medical description of the embryo/fetus, and the image is required to be visible for viewing by the pregnant woman. It is not required that the pregnant woman actually view these images, however, it is required that the woman provide written certification that the above measures have been taken.” The ‘at least one hour’ in itself could be argued as a backdoor cooling off period couldnt it? Not sure what the precedents are on that area. Otara ---
**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, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/27 "2010-04-28T10:29:18Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > The ‘at least one hour’ in itself could be argued as a backdoor cooling off period couldnt it? They already have a twenty four hour “waiting period”, complete with a lecture where they try to browbeat her into not getting an abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/28 "2010-04-28T10:53:59Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > 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. I’ve seen a vaginal ultrasound as it was performed on me, and I could barely even identify my own body’s structures on it, much less whether there was anything unexpected in there. (It was done to look for polyps/growths/whatever, rather than fetuses.) And yes, the vaginal ultrasound is pretty much what you’d expect - very phallic probe about the size of the classic vibrator, condom-like sleeve on it, the tech slides it up into the vagina (well, in my case she asked me to help with insertion, probably to make it easier and less embarrassing) and readjusts position as needed during the scan. Plus often the tech just does the setup, and you’re sitting there with your feet in the stirrups and butt scooched down just past the very edge of the exam table until the doctor comes in to actually do the scan. (In my case I talked with him about the neat imaging equipment that my own department in the hospital has, but I can imagine that women seeing a doctor in Oklahoma pre-abortion might not be quite so relaxed about the whole thing.) ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/29 "2010-04-28T15:12:18Z")
It also creates a financial burden on the clinics to provide all this specialized equipment (that they technically don’t need) and to deal with the hassle of all the paperwork, because you know that the anti-choice people are going to try and shut down clinics by alleging non compliance with the laws. \*\*Der Trihs \*\*is right. This law is meant to harass and hurt women, and the people providing abortions. It’s sickening. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/30 "2010-04-28T15:26:59Z")
In my view, the objections concerning no exceptions for victims of rape and incest are red herrings. To test this proposition, let me ask: is there anyone who disfavors this law, but would favor or become neutral to it if a rape and incest victim exception were added? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/31 "2010-04-28T15:30:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, the objections concerning no exceptions for victims of rape and incest are red herrings. To test this proposition, let me ask: is there anyone who disfavors this law, but would favor or become neutral to it if a rape and incest victim exception were added? I would find it _less_ distasteful if the exception were in there. Before you claim that I am weaseling, answer this: _If you had no choice in the matter_, would you rather be kicked once, or twice? ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/32 "2010-04-28T15:32:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, the objections concerning no exceptions for victims of rape and incest are red herrings. To test this proposition, let me ask: is there anyone who disfavors this law, but would favor or become neutral to it if a rape and incest victim exception were added? Ah, the **Bricker** rhetorical question. I wondered how long it would take to show up. **Bricker** : Who gives a flying donut about that? You’re pulling the argument away from the fact that this is a stupid, potentially damaging law. You’re a smart guy, and I wish you’d shy away from these high-school debate club tactics. It’s a cheap shot, something you specialize in in these anti-abortion threads because you don’t have a better argument. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/33 "2010-04-28T15:32:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, the objections concerning no exceptions for victims of rape and incest are red herrings. To test this proposition, let me ask: is there anyone who disfavors this law, but would favor or become neutral to it if a rape and incest victim exception were added? I think the answer to that is pretty much “no” but it is especially sickening to think about forcing a woman who has been raped to undergo a vaginal probe, and it lends a lot of credence to the idea that this law is mainly to hurt women and abortion providers, not to “save babies”. I mean, you can still ague about it (and I suspect you will) but it’s compelling evidence nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/34 "2010-04-28T15:56:11Z")
Let’s call the ultrasound requirement what it is: Oklahoma state law requires any woman requesting an abortion to be sodomized. Let’s call the indemnity provision what it is: Oklahoma state law now says that parents have no right to determine the financial, emotional or physical futures of their families. ---
**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, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/35 "2010-04-28T16:10:57Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > Let’s call the ultrasound requirement what it is: Oklahoma state law requires any woman requesting an abortion to be sodomized. > > Let’s call the indemnity provision what it is: Oklahoma state law now says that parents have no right to determine the financial, emotional or physical futures of their families. Let’s call those arguments what they are: Ill informed hyperbole. I know it’s an emotional, hot button issue, but arguments like that are non-starters. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/36 "2010-04-28T16:17:28Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. Oh, balls. It’s possible that many of them are simply assholes, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/37 "2010-04-28T16:24:07Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I would find it _less_ distasteful if the exception were in there. Before you claim that I am weaseling, answer this: _If you had no choice in the matter_, would you rather be kicked once, or twice? Once, but why is my opinion relevant if I have no choice in the matter? And I can tell you this: if I were marshaling arguments against being kicked, I wouldn’t lead with how bad the second kick was. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/38 "2010-04-28T16:24:33Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Let’s call those arguments what they are: Ill informed hyperbole. What’s hyperbolic about it? You know the definition of sodomy. In what way is forcing a woman to have a device put into her vagina without medical necessity anything other than sodomy? And in what way is withholding pertinent information about potential birth defects not a direct assault against the right of a family to plan their future? ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/39 "2010-04-28T16:25:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, the objections concerning no exceptions for victims of rape and incest are red herrings. To test this proposition, let me ask: is there anyone who disfavors this law, but would favor or become neutral to it if a rape and incest victim exception were added? I agree with you. If someone is pro-life, how the life is created is irrelevant. Even with a rape/incest clause - I am against these laws. These are laws made to try to convince the mother not to have an abortion, by making the mother face the “life” as much as possible. While they MIGHT have a small impact on the number of abortions done (or the number of people changing their minds), I think that the more accurate outcome will be greater mental trauma for the mothers, and some abortions put off until their is a higher risk to the mother. None of that matters to the pro-lifers. They believe that it is a life, and they will do anything that they can to save that life. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/40 "2010-04-28T16:26:10Z")
I’m sure all the pro-life people will be here soon to argue against these laws. After all, in the threads about pharmacists dispensing morning after pills, the pro-life people argue passionately that a medical professional should not be forced to do anything if it goes against their moral values. Since a doctor could very well have a moral objection to shoving a probe up a rape victim’s vagina, or feel that describing a fetus in detail to a woman an hour before aborting it is poor medical practice, I’m sure all these same people who argued so eloquently for the pharmacists rights will be along any second now to argue the same on behalf of the doctors, right? Right? Hmmm… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572.md?page=3)