# 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:** 4
**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, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/61 "2010-04-28T17:14:46Z")
The law about not being able to force a woman to undergo an abortion sounds superfluous. Informed consent is required for most medical procedures anyway (we make people sign a form for anything involving a needle or worse, pretty much - no, we don’t do vaccinations in my department but I’ve even had to sign a consent for that), and people are free to go against medical advice unless (IIRC) they’re found to be completely unable to make decisions for themselves… and even then I think that a pretty strict level of medical necessity is required. As provided in the other link, the transvaginal ultrasound requirement “where it would provide a clearer picture” is oddly worded; I would suspect that it would be clearer using that method regardless until the fetus was really far along and thus would now require transvag instead of typical ultrasound when the latter would be fine. But this isn’t my area. ---
**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, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/62 "2010-04-28T17:20:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Just one percent (1%), one out of a hundred, abortions are done as a result of rape or incest ([Cite.](http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html)) > > So to you, facts are disgusting. I’m actually not that surprised, given your apparent desire to avoid them at all costs. “We are going to stick an ultrasound, even though it is medically necessary, even against the woman’s wishes, into women who have been raped, because we don’t like abortion.” You agree with this comment. THAT’S disgusting. I don’t care if it’s 1, 1%, or 100%. The fact is disgusting. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/63 "2010-04-28T17:21:02Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > 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… Since I was one of the loudest voices on that pharmacy thread, I want to respond, but I don’t know what you want me to say. I’ve already said I think these are bad laws. And like I said about pharmacists, I think that providers should follow the law even if the law is bad. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/64 "2010-04-28T17:25:24Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > [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. > > 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! Wait a second – aren’t ultrasounds done before an abortion normally, so the doctor can see what’s going on inside? If that’s the case, then in early stages of pregnancy a transvaginal ultrasound is the normal procedure. Forcing the woman to view the ultrasound, or to be lectured in any way, is what’s wrong. ---
**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, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/65 "2010-04-28T17:26:20Z")
I just realized that the law even contradicts itself: > [@](#): > > “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.” So on the one hand, the physician must provide a medical description of the fetus, but on the other hand, e doesn’t have to inform the woman of any medical problems? How does that work? And even aside from what a law accomplishes, I’m quite comfortable saying that an internally inconsistent law is, by virtue of that fact if nothing else, is a bad law. ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/66 "2010-04-28T17:30:13Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > It is quite obvious. Your position forces you to the following “logic”: > > **A:** Failure to provide sufficient lifeboats on the Titanic was unconscionable. > **B:** So, if there had been enough lifeboats, crashing into an iceberg would have been OK with you? > **A:** Of course not! > **B:** So, you admit that your comment about lifeboats is a red herring. Got it – I think. The problem here is the fallacy of equivocation. "Bread crumbs are better than nothing. Nothing is better than a big juicy steak! Therefore, bread crumbs are better than a big juicy steak." Obviously, the speaker’s logic is unassailable, until you realize that he used “nothing” to mean two different things. Here, we have the same problem with the crash of the Titantic being “a bad thing.” When we speak of opposing a law, we generally mean we oppose its provisions. The law is entirely within our control. When we speak of a law being “a bad thing,” we generally mean that, on balance, we do not approve of its effect, an effect we created and are completely in charge of. When we speak of the crash of the Titanic as a bad thing, we think of both human and natural factors in play. There’s the poor luck of the iceberg’s position, the entirely normal (at the time) practice of maintaining normal cruising speed in iceberg territory, the lack of lifeboats, the lackluster wireless operator aboard the Californian. An argument about the Titanic’s sinking being “a bad thing” can easily lead off with the lack of lifeboats, because it’s central to the factors that we can control on future ships and a major factor for the great loss of life in the disaster. When we inveigh against the lack of rape/incest exceptions in an abortion law, however, we do NOT speak of something central to the factors leading us to oppose it. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/67 "2010-04-28T17:30:37Z")
It seems to also say that “the image is required to be visible for viewing by the pregnant woman” but “It is not required that the pregnant woman actually view these images.” ---
**Author:** ![rooostra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@rooostra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rooostra)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/68 "2010-04-28T17:31:04Z")
According to this site [http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?rgn=38&ind=463&cat=10](http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?rgn=38&ind=463&cat=10) there were 7,088 abortions performed in Oklahoma in 2006. If your statistics are true, 71 of them were performed due to rape. Is it your contention that the impact of the State requiring doctors to perform an invasive medical procedure against the patient’s will is trivial because there are only 71 of them? The rape exception is quite germane to a discussion of the effects of requiring the ultrasound. I do not think it is a red herring to argue that, on the one hand, it is bad for **anyone** to be subjected to an invasive medical procedure against their will, but is **even worse** for someone traumatized by rape to be subject to such a procedure. > [@Bricker](#): > > Just one percent (1%), one out of a hundred, abortions are done as a result of rape or incest ([Cite.](http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html)) > > So to you, facts are disgusting. I’m actually not that surprised, given your apparent desire to avoid them at all costs. ---
**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, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/69 "2010-04-28T17:31:27Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > “We are going to stick an ultrasound, even though it is medically necessary, even against the woman’s wishes, into women who have been raped, because we don’t like abortion.” > > You agree with this comment. THAT’S disgusting. I don’t care if it’s 1, 1%, or 100%. The fact is disgusting. How do you figure that I agree with that comment? ---
**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, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/70 "2010-04-28T17:34:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How do you figure that I agree with that comment? That’s what will happen under the law, and apparently in your world since “only” 1% of women who want an abortion were raped, that’s OK. You can weasel, but that’s what you said. ---
**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, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/71 "2010-04-28T17:37:08Z")
> [@rooostra](#): > > According to this site [http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?rgn=38&ind=463&cat=10](http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?rgn=38&ind=463&cat=10) there were 7,088 abortions performed in Oklahoma in 2006. If your statistics are true, 71 of them were performed due to rape. Is it your contention that the impact of the State requiring doctors to perform an invasive medical procedure against the patient’s will is trivial because there are only 71 of them? But that’s not the argument. The argument is that if there were a rape exception, then the invasive medical procedure against the patient’s will would be performed on 7,017 women instead of 7,088 women. THAT is the difference I say is trivial. > [@](#): > > The rape exception is quite germane to a discussion of the effects of requiring the ultrasound. I do not think it is a red herring to argue that, on the one hand, it is bad for **anyone** to be subjected to an invasive medical procedure against their will, but is **even worse** for someone traumatized by rape to be subject to such a procedure. No, you’re right about that. That is not a red herring. But, again, when you LEAD with that argument, making it central to your thesis, is when it becomes a red herring. You’re saying, in effect, “It’s bad for all, worse for rape victims.” Agreed. The initial argument had more the flavor of, “Look how bad this procedure is for rape victims!” ---
**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, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/72 "2010-04-28T17:38:09Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > That’s what will happen under the law, and apparently in your world since “only” 1% of women who want an abortion were raped, that’s OK. > > You can weasel, but that’s what you said. Quote me. Where did I say it was OK? I said I disfavor the law. That means: **“I am against it.”** It baffles me how you would get from that to “OK.” So I’m interested in the quoted post from me that will refresh my memory of when I said this was OK. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/73 "2010-04-28T17:39:10Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > Wait a second – aren’t ultrasounds done before an abortion normally, so the doctor can see what’s going on inside? If that’s the case, then in early stages of pregnancy a transvaginal ultrasound is the normal procedure. Ultrasounds done before abortions are not generally transvaginal. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/74 "2010-04-28T17:43:46Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > But apparently because someone mentioned “rape and incest”, your legal detector flashed into overdrive and you had to throw in a smug rhetorical question about “vanishingly small” numbers of rape and incest victims (you don’t have much of an idea how many women are raped each year, do you?). Because, hey, the thought of forcing a doctor stick an ultrasound up a raped woman is just another chance for you to flex your legal brains, eh? > > There’s one word for that: DISGUSTING. **Duke** , dial the hostility _WAY_ back. Attack **Bricker** ’s arguments all you want, but drop the personal comments like these and “FORMER counselor.” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/75 "2010-04-28T17:46:39Z")
**Bricker** , what is your view of the liability shield for physicians who deliberately fail to disclose birth defects to mothers? As loathesome as such a thing is, I suspect **Oakminster** is correct, and that this law is constitutionally permissible. States routinely modify, or even eliminate, common-law torts. I do wonder, though, if this law would survive “rational basis” scrutiny. Rational basis is a low bar to hurdle, but it _is_ there - and it’s hard to see a rational nexus between “we don’t want doctors sued for failing to recomment abortions” and the much broader liability shield offered by the law. ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/76 "2010-04-28T17:49:36Z")
**Bricker** : Well, let’s see. You could have started off your first comment here with, “This is a bad law, but I think it’s disingenuous for opponents to use the lack of rape and incest exceptions to attack it.” Or maybe, “I’m against abortion, and I agree with the intent of this law, but I don’t agree with medically invasive procedures without the consent of the patient.” But, instead, here’s your first comment in full: > [@](#): > > ``` > 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? > > ``` Nothing about whether the law is right or wrong, just a throwaway non-sequitur about “red herrings.” Then you started throwing useless comments about “vanishingly few” rape victims (and who gives a shit, honestly, WHO GIVES A SHIT how many women it affects, only that it affects any at all) the law might **doubly** violate. There was not one damn thing from you about what you believed, until you were rightly challenged by it. What are we supposed to believe, former counselor? The only thing disingenuous is your _post facto_ attempt to cover your ass. ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/77 "2010-04-28T17:49:44Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > 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? Sodomy is a sexual act. An ultrasound is a medical procedure, and as noted elsewhere in this thread, normally conducted during pregnancy. I’m not a doctor, but my understanding is that the woman would likely have an ultrasound whether she was getting an abortion or not. The question then becomes whether requiring one immediately prior to an abortion poses an undue burden on the woman. Under _Casey_, it appears at least arguable that the requirement does not pose an undue burden. The malpractice shield does not require medical information to be withheld. It says a doctor can’t be held liable for malpractice if withholds such information. Medical malpractice suits are complicated, and I’m pretty sure most people don’t include speculative damages from litigation in their family financial planning. Note for the third time that I am not condoning these laws. I would prefer to challenge them, representing the plaintiffs. Personally, I am staunchly pro choice. However, the legal issues involved are not as cut and dry as the pro choice crowd might wish. Judging merely by the things quoted in this thread, it appears to me that some degree of thought has gone into crafting abortion restrictions that are allowable under existing law. Whether those efforts will ultimately be successful will likely be determined in Court. ---
**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, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/78 "2010-04-28T17:50:46Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **Duke** , dial the hostility _WAY_ back. Attack **Bricker** ’s arguments all you want, but drop the personal comments like these and “FORMER counselor.” Marley, I’m sick of it. Maybe I’m sensitive to rape victims being violated again, and people like **Bricker** letting it pass because of his stance on abortion. Sue me, I’m out of here. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/79 "2010-04-28T17:51:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, you’re right about that. That is not a red herring. But, again, when you LEAD with that argument, making it central to your thesis, is when it becomes a red herring. You’re saying, in effect, “It’s bad for all, worse for rape victims.” Agreed. The initial argument had more the flavor of, “Look how bad this procedure is for rape victims!” Actually, if you re-read the OP (which I will assume is the “initial argument” you reference, you will see that **choie** specifically mentions all women, and that rape/incest victims are a subset of that. She highlights the rape victims, but does not lead with them. See for yourself (bolding mine): > [@choie](#): > > 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? She goes on to highlight rape victims later in the OP, but she clearly leads with all women. So what initial argument are you disagreeing with again? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/80 "2010-04-28T17:52:55Z")
Help me out if I’m missing something The new OK law forces women to look at the fetus and hear about it so they can give informed concent to the abortion. HOWEVER, the doctor can withhold info (like birth defects) that the woman needs in order to give informed concent to the abortion. Is that about right? FWIW: I’m not a real Republican because I’m pro-choice. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572.md?page=5)