Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

oklahoma abortion law protects doctors from malpractice suits IF THEY LIE TO PATIENTS

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:08 PM
Original message
oklahoma abortion law protects doctors from malpractice suits IF THEY LIE TO PATIENTS
Edited on Tue Apr-27-10 03:17 PM by spanone
The Oklahoma Legislature voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to override vetoes of two highly restrictive abortion measures, one making it a law that women undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion.

Though other states have passed similar measures forcing women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, requiring a doctor or technician to set up the monitor where the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

The second measure passed into law Tuesday protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects. The intent of the bill is to prevent parents from later suing doctors who withhold information to try to influence them against having an abortion.

Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, vetoed both bills last week. The ultrasound law, he said, was flawed because it did not exempt rape and incest victims and was an unconstitutional intrusion into a woman’s privacy. He painted the other measure as immoral.

“It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient,” Mr. Henry said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html?ref=global-home&pagewanted=print
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. The second is the most horrible thing I've ever heard of... to allow a doctor to NOT inform
parents of fetal birth defects! Can any human get any lower than that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walk away Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Can you imagine? If I had daughters I would be arranging to move out of state right now.
I wouldn't wait a minute for fear that someone I love would be forced into a situation like that. And it is especially frightening to women in their late thirties and forties who are pregnant. Who would take the chance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. Can you imagine not being informed of birth defects?
That is barbaric. And forcing the woman to look at the ultra sound is barbaric too. The do-gooders are taking over this country.
Oklahoma is making the south look progressive, and that ain't good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. this will be overturned.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I hope so. It's awful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tess49 Donating Member (606 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. A court challenge has already been filed by the National Center for
Reproductive rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. good to know, this cannot stand a court test.
Edited on Tue Apr-27-10 03:48 PM by spanone
that is unless it gets to our supreme court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. here is link to their press release and Du topic
http://reproductiverights.org/en/press-room/center-for-reproductive-rights-files-lawsuit-against-oklahoma%E2%80%99s-ultrasound-requirement

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8227272&mesg_id=8227272

04.27.10 - (PRESS RELEASE) Today, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a challenge against Oklahoma legislation which prohibits a woman from getting an abortion unless she first has an ultrasound, is shown the ultrasound image and listens to her doctor describe the image in detail. The lawsuit follows the Oklahoma Senate voting to override Governor Brad Henry’s veto of the legislation this afternoon.

“It is extremely disappointing that the Oklahoma legislature insists on passing a law that is so clearly unconstitutional and so detrimental to women in the state,” said Stephanie Toti, staff attorney in the U.S. Legal Program of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “The state has already spent the last two years defending this abortion restriction and several others—without success. Another round in the courts won’t change our strong constitutional claims against the law, it will only waste more of Oklahoma taxpayers’ time and money.”

The Center argues that the ultrasound requirement profoundly intrudes upon a patient’s privacy and is the most extreme ultrasound law in the country. The law forces a woman to hear information that she may not want to hear and that may not be relevant to her medical care. It also dangerously discounts her abilities to make healthy decisions about her own life by forcing her to hear information when she's objected. In addition, the statute interferes with the doctor-patient relationship—potentially damaging it—by compelling doctors to deliver unwanted speech.

“Politicians have no business making medical decisions,” said Toti. “When they do, it seriously undermines doctors’ ability to give patients the best medical care and does absolutely nothing to improve the health of patients.”

Last year, an Oklahoma state court struck down the ultrasound provision, among other abortion restrictions, as part of an omnibus bill in a single-subject challenge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. *facepalm*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tallahasseedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
7. This is just infuriating...
Forcing the woman to describe what they see on ultrasound? This is bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. abortion has been L E G A L in the u.s. since 1973. L E G A L
what other legal procedure puts women or men through such shit?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foxfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
11. Where is the AMA on this?
At the very least it is a gross violation of physicians' ethics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. Very much so. There is no way they can do this. Seriously I don't see how it can stand
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one_voice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
12. Good Gawd...
Aren't these the same people screaming about the government getting between them and their doctor? Flippin hypocrites!

What part of abortion is legal in the U.S. don't they get?

I hope this gets overturned. It can't be legal. And they know it's wrong if they have to put a provision in that "protects" the doctors.

:grr: :spank:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
13. Horrific. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
14. Well, it is the state where not ONE county voted for Obama.
TX is liberal compared to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. this is way beyond politics...this is legislating morality....theirs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. The voting record tells a lot about the mindset.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerKid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
16. How sickening. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. scary as hell
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
17. a doctor can see birth defects, lie to a patient about it, then be protected by the state...
what fucking country is this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. yup.
very very very much pisses me off
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
23. Drs who withhold info should lose their licenses. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobertPlant Donating Member (215 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
24. this is what the ACLU is for
to help repeal state laws that are unconstitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
25. Sickening. And can't possibly be ethical for doctors to withhold VITAL info
on the health of the fetus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mushroom Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-27-10 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
26. Medical and Legal Abuse
This country is a runaway train.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 12th 2024, 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC