SEX & RELATIONSHIPS  
comments_image -

Shocking Law: Doctors Now Allowed to Keep Information About Birth Defects from Women in Order to Stop Abortions

In addition to a law that requires women view ultrasounds before their abortions, Oklahoma now shields doctors who hide information about birth defects from malpractice suits.
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

Oklahoma is not a hospitable place for a woman seeking to assert her reproductive rights. There are only three licensed abortion providers in the whole state, and local legislators appear fixated on narrowing residents' already-limited abortion options by passing one restrictive, demeaning, and almost certainly unconstitutional law after another.

On Tuesday, the Oklahoma state legislature overrode the governor's vetoes on two such bills and made them law. One requires that a woman seeking an abortion must look at her ultrasound -- the screen must be in her line of sight (she has the option of covering her eyes) -- as the health care provider narrates the state of the fetus. The other law prevents a woman from suing her doctor for withholding information about potential birth defects.

Within hours of the new laws' passage, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) went to court to challenge the bills as unconstitutional. Unfortunately, it's not the first time the abortion rights group has taken on the conservative-dominated Oklahoma legislature. In 2008, when these same statutes were passed and made law -- after legislators once again overturned vetoes by Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat -- CRR filed suit and successfully had the measures struck down.

The Supreme Court has called the passage of such anti-choice laws "a continued failure to abide by the Oklahoma constitution." The state's own highest court has called such legislative attempts "a waste of time for the Legislature and the Court, and a waste of taxpayers' money."

The Republican-dominated legislature's antics are growing quite tiresome -- and offensive. Just a week ago, an Oklahoma district court ruled unconstitutional a 2009 law that created a public Web site where doctors would have to publish personal information, including names, about women who had legally terminated their pregnancies in the state.

Keri Parks, spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma, said this most recent onslaught makes the whole abortion process "more devastating for women who are already making a devastating decision."

Parks believes most of the anti-choice bills being crafted and rammed through the state legislature are part of a concerted effort to win pro-life votes in the upcoming midterm elections. Stephanie Toti, staff attorney for CRR, is sure the motivation is not to protect or promote women's health or to promote informed decision-making by pregnant women.

"The effect of these laws is to manipulate the flow of information about options. It's an attempt to coerce a woman to choose the option that the state thinks is best," Toti says. "These laws threaten women's health by reducing access to safe abortion care. They really humiliate women who are seeking abortion and fail to accord them the dignity that they ought be accorded by law."

The new Oklahoma ultrasound requirement is the most extreme and restrictive of all such anti-choice measures in the country. Currently 21 other states have some sort of ultrasound requirement -- but none of these states requires an abortion provider to place the ultrasound monitor in the patient's line of sight and then make her listen to a description of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims, as the health care provider gives a detailed tour of the fetus' limbs, heart and other organs.

The second new law, which bars women from suing their health care provider for withholding information about potential birth defects, is an affront to the doctor-patient relationship. Gov. Henry, when vetoing the bills, said: "It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform a pregnant woman in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on the patient."

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
AlterNet Radio: What's At Stake in Wisconsin; Real "Defense" Budget Is $1 Trillion; the Right's Phony Race War

By Staff | AlterNet

 
 
Fox, Breitbart, and Ricketts Try to Bring Back D'Souza's Pseudo-Birtherism

By Steve M | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
Activists Speak Out Against Lack of Access to Bradley Manning

By Agence France Presse

 
 
NYPD Catches Sexual Assailant, Then Lets Him Go Free Because He Didn't Feel Like Being Questioned

By Jill F | Feministe

 
 
Gov. Scott Orders Purging of Florida’s Voter Rolls - Just in Time For Prez Election

By Adele Stan | AlterNet

 
 
Abortion Clinics Across Country Put On Alert In Wake of Georgia Clinic Arson Cases

By Robin Marty | RH Reality Check

 
 
Former GOP Congresswoman Blasts New GOP Women’s Caucus: ‘They’re Not Voting In Best Interest Of All Women’

By Josh Israel | ThinkProgress

 
 
Debbie Wasserman Schulz is Wrong on Wisconsin

By LaFeminista | DailyKos

 
 
Pro-Coal Group Pays People to Wear Its Shirts at EPA Hearing

By Heather Moyer | Sierra Club

 
 
Kids Inundate NY Governor With Concerns About Fracking

By Seth Gladstone | Food and Water Watch

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]