Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Reproductive Justice and Gender

New Oklahoma Law: Women Seeking Abortions Must Have Ultrasounds Against Their Will

By Dana Stone, AlterNet. Posted April 26, 2008.


Anti-choicers in Oklahoma have pushed through a bill that requires doctors to perform invasive ultrasounds, even if the patients say no.

The Oklahoma State Legislature is playing doctor again. Last year they dictated how specialists at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center may care for pregnant women who have medical complications. This week, despite intense lobbying efforts and the Governor’s veto, the legislature passed Senate Bill 1878, which mandates invasive and unnecessary medical testing for women.

Under the guise of obtaining informed patient consent, this new law requires doctors to withhold pregnancy termination until an ultrasound is performed. The law states that either an abdominal or vaginal ultrasound, whichever gives the best image of the fetus, must be done. Neither the patient nor the doctor can decide which type of ultrasound to use, and the patient cannot opt out of the ultrasound and still have the procedure. In effect, then, the legislature has mandated that a woman have an instrument placed in her vagina for no medical benefit. The law makes no exception for victims of rape and incest.

By existing law, women already must be told where to find information about fetal development and referred to locations for a free ultrasound before a termination can be scheduled.

Physicians learn to protect the doctor-patient relationship throughout medical training. We learn that this interaction is for the patient’s benefit, that the patient sets the agenda for the encounter, and the patient is entitled to refuse any treatment or testing. We are not there to impose judgment or our own beliefs on the patient. These protections are vital to maintaining the therapeutic nature of the relationship.

This new law inserts the government directly into the doctor-patient interaction and promotes the legislators’ personal values rather than the best interest of the patient. This sets a dangerous precedent that could be extended into other aspects of patient care, especially other controversial areas of medicine.

In a further reversal of standard medical practice, this bill defines failure to perform this unnecessary medical procedure as "unprofessional conduct" and suggests that the state medical board may remove the physician’s license. Failure to perform the ultrasound also leads to fines beginning at $10,000 and increasing to more than $100,000. By comparison, the highest fine for negligent homicide or driving under the influence in Oklahoma is $1,000.

This "Big Brother" assault by minority special interests on the doctor-patient relationship should repel all Americans. We must hold our legislators accountable for this very literal government intrusion into women’s bodies. Advocates for women’s health need to watch for similar legislation in their own states.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: anti-choice, abortion, pro-life, pro-choice, ultrasound, reproductive justice

Dana Stone, M.D., FACOG

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Limited Government
Posted by: JSquercia on Apr 26, 2008 4:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are the ASSHOLES who constantly talk about Limited Government EXCEPT of course when it comes to your SEX life . Just as they were for States Rights until the Florida Supreme Court wanted to (GASP) count the votes in the 2000 Presidential Election THEN it was OK to
go to the Supreme Court to STOP the counting and select Dubya to be the Resident . And just for good measure the Supremes decided that this decision should be a ONE TIMER and did NOT establisha precedent . I guess they were worried some later court with those Judicial Activists might be able to appoint the wrong kind of President .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Limited Government Posted by: gingersnap674
» RE: Limited Government Posted by: cab
That's outrageous
Posted by: Cruella on Apr 26, 2008 4:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...but your article seemed to shy away from saying what it was really getting at (so allow me). There is a word I know that describes the insertion of an object into a woman's vagina without her consent. That word is RAPE. This law effectively leaves women seeking an abortion subject first to rape by the state. That is disgusting.

The UK has a much better track record although we are watching on-going attempts to erode women's reproductive rights. The next is a potential amendment to the Human Cloning and Embryology Bill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That's outrageous Posted by: 23skidoo
» RE: That's outrageous Posted by: meeneecat
» RE: That's outrageous Posted by: 23skidoo
» RE: That's outrageous Posted by: EJ
» RE: That's outrageous Posted by: meeneecat
» RE: That's outrageous Posted by: YogiBear
"Invasive" ultrasound?
Posted by: Q30 on Apr 26, 2008 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really? I thought that the selling-point of ultrasounds is that they're NOT invasive.

As for this being against the women's will, is it too burdensome to require a woman to sign one or two forms before the abortion? I mean, she might not WANT to sign the forms. Isn't requiring her signature forcing her to do something against her will?

Oh, and she might be required to lie-down during the procedure. Maybe she doesn't WANT to lie-down? Isn't requiring her to lie-down forcing her to do something against her will?

Golly, it's almost as if it's a BS-filled argument we're being handed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Invasive" ultrasound? Posted by: Ayla87
» My wife had this done Posted by: supercrisp
» RE: My wife had this done Posted by: 23skidoo
» RE: My wife had this done Posted by: aerdrie
» RE: My wife had this done Posted by: 23skidoo
» 23skidoo, why don't you leave. Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: My wife had this done Posted by: arthurread
» RE: It's a BS argument, indeed! Posted by: Voicedude
» RE: It's a BS argument, indeed! Posted by: squarerootof2
Gag
Posted by: Grandma Crabby on Apr 26, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a horrible law. Sounds like Okie-homa!

What next? The ultra sound pictures will be edited together with lullaby music and you have to watch it 100 times with your mother and mother-in-law both in the room. Then you have to unravel homemade baby booties with your teeth while a group of elderly nuns poke you with their knitting needles. Then, you must throw a baby blankie into a lit fireplace to remind you that the burning embers of hell have your name held in reservation.

THEN you can have that abortion you slut.

Now who could object to this little routine?


VideoProductionTips = Learn Internet Video

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gag Posted by: 23skidoo
» RE: Gag Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Gag, I'm gagging too. Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: Gag Posted by: koolwoman
What are you really afraid of?
Posted by: pfeifer999 on Apr 26, 2008 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody who's ever seen an ultrasound can argue in good faith that it's "invasive."

You're saying that some gel on the tummy, a couple of minutes of look-see is "invasive", but shoving forceps into the vagina to tear out the unborn baby is not? You can't possibly be serious.

What are you really afraid of?

Abortion promoters don't want women knowing that there's a formed baby in their womb. They don't want them knowing that in a dismemberment abortion, the baby's limbs are torn off with forceps one at a time, the baby's head is crushed, and the pieces of its broken body end up in a landfill.

They don't want them to know about post-abortion trauma, or the possibility that inter-uterine injury might prevent them from getting pregnant again.

No, they want women ill-informed, confused, and frightened, because the entire abortion lobby knows that a woman who really knows what an abortion is is unlikely to go through with it. And with all that money and political power at stake, they need to keep the abortions rolling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks Jill Posted by: pfeifer999
» sickening name? Posted by: pfeifer999
» Hey pfeifer999... Posted by: Quannah
» Hey Quannah: Posted by: pfeifer999
» Hey pfeifer: Posted by: Arlene
» RE: Hey pfeifer: Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Hey Quannah: Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Hey Quannah: Posted by: pfeifer999
» Sounds good to me Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Sounds good to me Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Sounds good to me Posted by: pfeifer999
Vaginal ultrasound IS invasive
Posted by: dhp1029 on Apr 26, 2008 9:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For all of you morons who are apparently too illiterate to read the article or just too stupid to understand the terminology, vaginal ultrasound involves sticking a rather large probe into the vagina to get an image through the cervix of the reproductive organs. I had this done for ovarian cysts and it is most certainly very invasive. I can't imagine how horrifying it would be for a rape or incest victim. Unfortunately this is the best way to get an image during the first trimester when the vast majority of abortions are done. Abdominal ultrasound is generally not considered useful until the second and third trimesters. Inserting an object into a woman/girl's vagina against her consent is rape by object. And now mandated by the state of Oklahoma.

Quote from the article for those who didn't bother to read it: "The law states that either an abdominal or vaginal ultrasound, whichever gives the best image of the fetus, must be done. Neither the patient nor the doctor can decide which type of ultrasound to use, and the patient cannot opt out of the ultrasound and still have the procedure. In effect, then, the legislature has mandated that a woman have an instrument placed in her vagina for no medical benefit. The law makes no exception for victims of rape and incest."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Who's the moron? Posted by: 23skidoo
» RE: Who's the moron? Posted by: dhp1029
» RE: Who's the moron? Posted by: Jill
» RE: Who's the moron? Posted by: aerdrie
» RE: Who's the moron? Posted by: 23skidoo
» RE: Who's the moron? Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Who's the moron? Posted by: kvfitz
» RE: Who's the moron? Posted by: dr_dredd
» RE: Who's the moron? Posted by: gingersnap674
» RE: Who's the moron? Posted by: EJ
» RE: Who's the moron? Posted by: 23skidoo
» RE: Who's the moron? Posted by: MelStL
» RE: Who's the moron? Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Who's the moron? Posted by: Pax99
» RE: Who's the moron? Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Invasive Enough For You? Posted by: meeneecat
» RE: Invasive Enough For You? Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Invasive Enough For You? Posted by: crashgrab
» Did anybody wonder..... Posted by: pfeifer999
This is flagrently unconstitutional.
Posted by: gingersnap674 on Apr 30, 2008 2:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first woman who is forced to have a vaginal ultrasound against her will needs to file a lawsuit against the state of Oklahoma for infringing upon her fundamental right to privacy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's the matter with OK and KS and TX?
Posted by: Cathyblj on Apr 30, 2008 4:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm getting pretty sick of the misogyny and racism of the Bible Belt, and the attempts to push us back to the 18th century.

JSquercia above mentioned the control freaks who want limited gov't -- this is because they want to maintain their own power, continuing to have plenty of freedom; and make sure that women (esp. poor women) continue to have none.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Endgame Posted by: Dboy
and in Central America...
Posted by: jcutler9 on May 3, 2008 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This law is not a far remove from those of some Central American countries, I believe Nicaragua and El Salvador. There, if a doctor even suspects that a patient of his has had an abortion, he is required to report her to the government. The government then sends a forensic specialist with a search warrant (really, a search warrant) to examine her and if he determines she has, indeed, had an abortion she is charged and brought to trial. On the forensic specialist's testimony only she can go to prison for 10 or 15 years. No matter if she has seven children at home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: and in Central America... Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: and in Central America... Posted by: crashgrab
More scraps to the conned masses....
Posted by: CatDad on May 3, 2008 4:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Right has to throw their conned "values voters" some scraps every few years (which invariably co-inside with election cycles).

The cronies on the Supreme Court know that it would be a disaster to overturn Roe. v. Wade....They are on the court to do the bidding of those who put them there...To keep up the illusion of progress...every once in a while the Right will hand the "values" voters peripheral "victories" while keeping widespread access to abortion legal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's force them to have a colonoscopy
Posted by: packofwolves on May 3, 2008 4:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think all politicians who are electred into office ought to have a colonoscopy before they take their oath. Get rid of all the sh** beforehand. That ought to work, don't ya think? How dare any branch of government pass a worthless, self-indulging law like this. Are we going backwards in time or what? We have got to start voting these self-righteous idiots out of office even if we have new representatives all the time. It's the only way we can send them a loud and clear message. We must separate religion and politics and we need to get special interest out of government. We need to send a message to this these idiots and stop electing them into office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» With the biggest available 'scope Posted by: hurricane hugo
Terrifying
Posted by: bonzi on May 3, 2008 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, the great "Land of the Free" is definitely turning into an interesting combination of plutocracy and theocracy. I like your country, and I find an average American remarkably kind and hospitable, but I will limit my visits to absolute minimum.

Granted, situation was even worse in 40's and 50's, but while virtually all of the rest of the world is moving towards more freedom, more democracy and better respect for human rights, USA is regressing.

On the brighter note, it is nice to see that AlterNet is not exclusively preaching to the choir: judging by the comments, your readership includes quite a number of ultra-right and other kinds of nutcases. Vive la différence!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Terrifying Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: Pax99
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: cab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: Quannah
» Give us a break! Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: isnamthere
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: buzzsaw
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: cab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: cab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: cab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: cab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: cab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: cab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: cab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Terrifying Posted by: cab
Heckova Job NOW! and Hillary!
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 3, 2008 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is why I no Longer listen to the lies of such antiquated, BS organizations like NOW.And am pissed everytime I hear Hillary claim she has Done anything for women in the last 35 yrs.We still only make $0.77 to a man's $1.00. Roe v Wade has been Raped!Our daughters generation has 1 in 4 suffering from a STD, 'Honor killings' have reached our country in the form of "Cheaper to Kill her than to Divorce her' mentality. then to look at How little has been done to improve the lives of our children.
All Rhetoric No Action- So instead of re upping a memebership to that self promoting 'Orgnaization' I support Planned Parenthood with my action and money ( when I can afford it). And I will NOT Support Hillary- not just for these reasons , but becasue she has proven her allegeince to the Cheney Doctrine- her Actions and INACTIONS while in the Senate and More Directly on the Armed Services Com (con)- She should be run OUT of the Dem Party, the Senate and be facing Dereliciton of Duty Charges - if not Prosecuted along with the Corp Operatives like Cheney, Bush,Rummy, Wolfie, Rice.. for Treason ,War Crimes and Crimes against Humantiy! She's No Dem norr even a Real republican- she's a corporationist who is obviously NOT an AMERICAN, by their own doctrine and mission

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Get a grip, purple! Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
let's take this abortion thing one step further...
Posted by: ellie on May 3, 2008 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you have to endure rape by the state via probe, is it also part of the law that you VIEW AND COMMENT on the results of the ultrasound? if the state requires it, then bring your ipod or something and also turn your head and say you do not want to see what you are being forced to endure... refuse to view the ultrasound... until this idiotic portion of the law is over ruled by some federal court...

the more important issue is what happens after the forced birth... does OK have a no questions asked law for turning over a newborn to state custody without retaliation like many states do? or, are you physically forced to take the newborn home with you? deliver, refuse to sign birth paperwork and leave the hospital empty armed by choice...

they may force you to carry a pregnancy to term, but they can't force you to raise it if you know the law... relinquish all parental rights and let the state then deal with raising this unwanted child...

what will happen is a return to the bad old days of the underground abortion business, which I bet is shaping up again in many of these restrictive states...
gee, then the state will have to pay for the life of the child due to it's idiotic laws...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bright Penny
Posted by: Bright Penny on May 3, 2008 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have lived in the State of Oklahoma all of my life.

Yes, I do think the constitutionality of the required ultrasound law will be tested, and perhaps the law will even be overturned, but the extreme "right" will continue to introduce new legislation in Oklahoma and elsewhere on a regular basis to chip away women's rights, not only regarding abortion, but in the workplace and everywhere else.

As for "voting these self-righteous idiots out of office," you are dreaming. They are what the majority of the Oklahoma voters want or they would not be in office in the first place. New candidates will come from the same cultural background and will hold the same values and be supported by the same voters.

I fear for Roe v. Wade. I do not believe the "right" needs to "keep up the illusion of progress." I think they have enough power and control that illusion is no longer required.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sadly, you're right, Bright Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» Agreed! Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
» RE: Agreed! Posted by: pfeifer999
» Cab is a fetalist. Posted by: crashgrab
» Who said we vote Democrat? Posted by: crashgrab
» AMEN, beachpoet! Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
» RE: AMEN, beachpoet! Posted by: cab
» On one point, at least, we agree, cab. Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
» There is no god you fucknuts. Posted by: thekidde
» Are you serious? Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Are you serious? Posted by: cab
» RE: Are you serious? Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Are you serious? Posted by: cab
» RE: Are you serious? Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Are you serious? Posted by: cab
» RE: Are you serious? Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Are you serious? Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Are you serious? Posted by: cab
» RE: Are you serious? Posted by: crashgrab
Ultrasounds DAMAGES the Fetus!!!!