# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![A.Selene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3ec8ea/32.png) [@A.Selene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Selene)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/81 "2010-04-28T17:54:15Z")
> [@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. > > 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. I’ve been around the Dope long enough to realize that these kind of comments from **Der** are often ignored, but someone has to call you on this shit once in a while. I don’t agree with this law either, and support a woman’s right to choose. But the idea that the pro-life/anti-abortion movement is “ultimately a hate movement against women” is ridiculous. Do some of the people involved hate women? I’m sure some do. But most are concerned with what they see as a human life, and protecting that life, however misguided you and I might think that concern is. The majority are not trying to hate on women; most do not think that women are evil. I know you feel strongly about this, but having read other posts of yours, I also know you to be an intelligent person. Think for a moment before you keep spouting this nonsense. ---
**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, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/82 "2010-04-28T17:54:48Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > **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. I think it would pass constitutional muster. It’s bad public policy for the reasons I mention above, but of course _constitutional_ is not a synonym for “good idea.” Rational basis review is satisfied if the court can conceive of a rational basis that would relate to the law under consideration. They need not adopt the “we don’t want doctors sued for failing to recommend abortions” rationale; they could assume that the legislature wished to encourage medical personnel to offer ultrasounds by removing the fear of liability, that the importance of widely available ultrasound providers outweighed the loss to society in removing the tort. ---
**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, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/83 "2010-04-28T18:01:03Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > **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: > > 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. Actually, I said: > [@Bricker](#): > > The introduction of rape and incest victims is a ploy; they are a vanishingly tiny percentage of abortion-seeking women… Now, I notice you have declined the opportunity to quote me directly, but have characterized me (using quote marks, even!) as saying that a vanishingly few rape victims are affected. So was it your righteous outrage on behalf of rape victims that caused you to transform my correct statement about tiny _percentage_ into a callous statement about “vanishingly few rape victims?” Or was it something else? ---
**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, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/84 "2010-04-28T18:03:54Z")
> [@ShadowFacts](#): > > 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): > > 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? Her first argumentative sentence emphasizes the rape and incest victims, 1% of all abortion seekers. There are ten ways to write that sentence. Any neutral reader would, if asked, say that the focus of it was the rape and incest victims; they were clearly the attention-grabber of the line. ---
**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, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/85 "2010-04-28T18:05:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think it would pass constitutional muster. It’s bad public policy for the reasons I mention above, but of course _constitutional_ is not a synonym for “good idea.” > > Rational basis review is satisfied if the court can conceive of a rational basis that would relate to the law under consideration. They need not adopt the “we don’t want doctors sued for failing to recommend abortions” rationale; they could assume that the legislature wished to encourage medical personnel to offer ultrasounds by removing the fear of liability, that the importance of widely available ultrasound providers outweighed the loss to society in removing the tort. A question, though. There were two laws passed - one mandates ultrasounds, the other provides the liability shield. Given that the first law _requires_ ultrasounds, could the court plausibly accept that the purpose of the second law is to “encourage” ultrasounds? My understanding is that the rational basis the court can conceive of still needs to be more than a fanciful or far-fetched one. Note: Since this is an emotional subject, I feel a need to point out I’m not making a dig at **Bricker** , or anyone else who wants to weigh in here - I’m just trying to play these concepts out, see where they go. ---
**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, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/86 "2010-04-28T18:06:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Her first argumentative sentence emphasizes the rape and incest victims, 1% of all abortion seekers. There are ten ways to write that sentence. Any neutral reader would, if asked, say that the focus of it was the rape and incest victims; they were clearly the attention-grabber of the line. Since you addressed me after I said I was gone, I’ll address this point. You had any number of ways to phrase your first post. You started it by emphasizing the “disconnect” (which **choie** and countless others said was not an issue) between the lack of exceptions and those who attacked this law. Your attention-grabber was that. Is this a good law or not? Do you defend this law being used against even one rape victim. Yes or no, they’re small words. Then I withdraw from this thread. ---
**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 28, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/87 "2010-04-28T18:07:14Z")
Oh for chrissake. This is why I don’t start GD threads. (And you can parse “GD” either way.) Personally I don’t see a problem with my pointing out the inclusion of rape/incest victims in this nauseating law – not because people who “disfavor” the law will suddenly favor it by removing rape/incest victims, but because it’s quite possible that some who _favor_ the law _without_ rape/incest victims might realize just how _even more_ fucking awful and wrong and cruel this requirement is when applied to rape/incest victims. But since it caused a hijack, I apologize. (Admittedly, any tiny space that a mite can crawl into is a wide enough space for some folks to drag things into a Grand Canyon of a hijack.) I’ll add, btw, that affecting ~70 rape/incest victims doesn’t seem like “vanishingly small.” What if it were your sister, wife or daughter, **Bricker** , who was one of the seventy? Or if, imagine this… it were _you_? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/88 "2010-04-28T18:15:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Her first argumentative sentence emphasizes the rape and incest victims, 1% of all abortion seekers. There are ten ways to write that sentence. Any neutral reader would, if asked, say that the focus of it was the rape and incest victims; they were clearly the attention-grabber of the line. I disagree. It was a parenthetical. It wasn’t “emphasized”. It’s not like it was underlined or anything. But this whole tangent is really distracting from the overall argument. ---
**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, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/89 "2010-04-28T18:20:38Z")
I’m pretty sure that was the point. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/90 "2010-04-28T18:32:40Z")
Of course it was. No need to be surprised when the sun rises for the billion trillionth time. ---
**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, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/91 "2010-04-28T18:33:41Z")
> [@A.Selene](#): > > I’ve been around the Dope long enough to realize that these kind of comments from **Der** are often ignored, but someone has to call you on this shit once in a while. > > I don’t agree with this law either, and support a woman’s right to choose. But the idea that the pro-life/anti-abortion movement is “ultimately a hate movement against women” is ridiculous. Do some of the people involved hate women? I’m sure some do. But most are concerned with what they see as a human life, and protecting that life, however misguided you and I might think that concern is. The majority are not trying to hate on women; most do not think that women are evil. I know you feel strongly about this, but having read other posts of yours, I also know you to be an intelligent person. Think for a moment before you keep spouting this nonsense. Meh, six of one, half a dozen of the other. If you can’t distinguish the actions of those motivated by their hatred of women from the actions of those trying to save a life, the difference between them is just semantics, as far as the results for womens’ rights are concerned. Regardless of their motivations, they are acting exactly the same as someone who hates women would be expected to act. I’m sure it makes no difference to the woman whose rights are being trampled. ---
**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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/92 "2010-04-28T18:39:54Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > A question, though. There were two laws passed - one mandates ultrasounds, the other provides the liability shield. Given that the first law _requires_ ultrasounds, could the court plausibly accept that the purpose of the second law is to “encourage” ultrasounds? My understanding is that the rational basis the court can conceive of still needs to be more than a fanciful or far-fetched one. > > Note: Since this is an emotional subject, I feel a need to point out I’m not making a dig at **Bricker** , or anyone else who wants to weigh in here - I’m just trying to play these concepts out, see where they go. A statute is presumed to be valid if the classification drawn by it is “rationally related” to a “legitimate state interest.” United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980). “[The rational-basis standard] is true to the principle that the Fourteenth Amendment gives the federal courts no power to impose upon the States their views of what constitutes wise economic or social policy.” ibid, quoting Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chicago. And it’s “…entirely irrelevant for constitutional purposes whether the conceived reason for the challenged distinction actually motivated the legislature . . . [the] legislative choice is not subject to courtroom fact-finding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.” FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/93 "2010-04-28T18:40:18Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > Meh, six of one, half a dozen of the other. If you can’t distinguish the actions of those motivated by their hatred of women from the actions of those trying to save a life, the difference between them is just semantics, as far as the results for womens’ rights are concerned. Regardless of their motivations, they are acting exactly the same as someone who hates women would be expected to act. I’m sure it makes no difference to the woman whose rights are being trampled. Well, someone who hated woman might want to make them wear a scarlet letter, or force them to be publicly shamed in some way. Someone who hated women might want to do all sorts of things beyond what this particular law does. This law is trying to play at the emotions- it’s pretty clear that they think if only the woman can see the “unborn baby” and hear its heartbeat, that will make her emotionally reject the idea of aborting the fetus. One might argue that it insults a woman’s intelligence, but I don’t see the obvious implication of them acting just liek woman-haters would. ---
**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 28, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/94 "2010-04-28T18:40:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I disagree. It was a parenthetical. It wasn’t “emphasized”. It’s not like it was underlined or anything. Thank you, and others who correctly divined my OP’s point. If anything was emphasized, it was the part I put in italics, which is also the subject line of the OP, and also also is the subject of my post’s final questions. Doctors hiding vital information and/or lying (through omission) to their patient(s). To address something mentioned elsewhere in the thread, how does this get past the Hippocratic Oath? Can doctors have their licenses revoked for this, or does the law make this impossible too? ---
**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, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/95 "2010-04-28T18:43:34Z")
I see a lot of people saying bad law, mean anti-abortion people, dumb, stupid, icky-poo. What I do not see is anyone calmly laying out a reasoned argument for how the ultrasound law violates existing law, preferably with citations to supporting authority. I’ve laid out the basics of arguments the State may raise in defense of the laws, albeit with minimal cites–I mention only _Casey_. Anyone care to do the same (or better) for the Plaintiff’s side? ---
**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, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/96 "2010-04-28T18:43:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Her first argumentative sentence emphasizes the rape and incest victims, 1% of all abortion seekers. There are ten ways to write that sentence. Any neutral reader would, if asked, say that the focus of it was the rape and incest victims; they were clearly the attention-grabber of the line. Yes, if you focus only on that one sentence (1% of the OP, perhaps :p), rape and incest victims is the attention grabber. Unfortunately for your argument, the title of the OP is “Oklahoma law: doctors can’t be sued for hiding birth defects from parents” and the OP clearly brings up more than just rape and incest, and clearly refers to all women and all parents. YOU are the one that has focused on the rape stuff to make a side point about how these laws are being responded to. ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/97 "2010-04-28T18:48:20Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I see a lot of people saying bad law, mean anti-abortion people, dumb, stupid, icky-poo. What I do not see is anyone calmly laying out a reasoned argument for how the ultrasound law violates existing law, preferably with citations to supporting authority. > > I’ve laid out the basics of arguments the State may raise in defense of the laws, albeit with minimal cites–I mention only _Casey_. Anyone care to do the same (or better) for the Plaintiff’s side? This is a thread about laws, but that does not mean that only lawyers can reply, or that only legal arguments are valid. There are medical and moral questions involved as well, and I think those that have weighed in intelligently on those issues would be annoyed to have their thoughts dismissed as you’ve just done, counselor. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/98 "2010-04-28T18:50:06Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I see a lot of people saying bad law, mean anti-abortion people, dumb, stupid, icky-poo. What I do not see is anyone calmly laying out a reasoned argument for how the ultrasound law violates existing law, preferably with citations to supporting authority. > > I’ve laid out the basics of arguments the State may raise in defense of the laws, albeit with minimal cites–I mention only _Casey_. Anyone care to do the same (or better) for the Plaintiff’s side? If the ultrasound is required, medically, prior to the abortion, and this law only adds the requirement that the woman see the results, then maybe it isn’t an “undo burden”. I suppose it makes sense that some sort of ultrasound is needed for the doctor to know what he or she is doing. Can any of our medical professionals weigh in on that? As for the part about withholding information about birth defects… that seems much more like a medical ethics issue than a legal one. I can’t imagine the AMA condoning such a practice. ---
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/99 "2010-04-28T18:50:11Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > Since you addressed me after I said I was gone, I’ll address this point. > > You had any number of ways to phrase your first post. You started it by emphasizing the “disconnect” (which **choie** and countless others said was not an issue) between the lack of exceptions and those who attacked this law. Your attention-grabber was that. Yes, that’s true. But I wasn’t presenting an argument. I was rebutting a portion of the argument that was presented for debate. I didn’t take a position on the larger issue because my position was in accord with the OP’s. > [@](#): > > Is this a good law or not? Do you defend this law being used against even one rape victim. Yes or no, they’re small words. Then I withdraw from this thread. I don’t defend this law being applied to one person, rape victim or not. So: no. It’s not a good law, so: no. ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572/100 "2010-04-28T18:51:27Z")
> [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Yes, if you focus only on that one sentence (1% of the OP, perhaps :p), rape and incest victims is the attention grabber. Unfortunately for your argument, the title of the OP is “Oklahoma law: doctors can’t be sued for hiding birth defects from parents” and the OP clearly brings up more than just rape and incest, and clearly refers to all women and all parents. YOU are the one that has focused on the rape stuff to make a side point about how these laws are being responded to. That was the only part of the OP’s argument I was rebutting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oklahoma-law-doctors-cant-be-sued-for-hiding-birth-defects-from-parents/537572.md?page=6)