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.
“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.
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.
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.
I just realized that the law even contradicts itself:
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.
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.
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.”
According to this site 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.
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.
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!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.