Unconstitutional and Unethical Abortion Bills in Oklahoma

[Evo]

So who's going to get into trouble if the doctor follows this? The doctor? The government? Both? They have sections in the bills to get doctors in trouble for not submitting the survey. If a doctor can be sued for releasing the information, and penalised for not releasing it, then they may be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Federal law will (hopefully) prevail). But that is what is wrong with the US, that the individual states can go off in their own insane, disfunctional ways, controlled by a handful of crazies.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Are there any precedents?

Roe v. Wade was decided based on constitutional right to privacy. So the whole area of case law is basically based on the right to privacy. The local courts may uphold it but I doubt it would survive the federal courts.

So who's going to get into trouble if the doctor follows this? The doctor? The government? Both? They have sections in the bills to get doctors in trouble for not submitting the survey. If a doctor can be sued for releasing the information, and penalised for not releasing it, then they may be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The doctor could be sued but most likely they will go after the state. Its possible that some conscientious doctors may refuse to obey the law and it will find its way to court that way.

 

[BobG]

So who's going to get into trouble if the doctor follows this? The doctor? The government? Both? They have sections in the bills to get doctors in trouble for not submitting the survey. If a doctor can be sued for releasing the information, and penalised for not releasing it, then they may be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

How about the doctor getting in trouble if he releases patient test results of the fetus to a mother when the doctor has reason to believe the mother will abort the pregnancy because of the test results? The precedent could be the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which does offer some rights and protection to the unborn. Extending privacy rights to the unborn wouldn't be a huge step further. I don't think that line of logic would succeed, but it seems like the line with the best chance of success.

 

[lawtonfogle]

http://www.smh.com.au/world/antiabortion-bill-to-block-foetal-test-results-20100421-szqu.html"

Withholding test results from patients?
Publishing patient information online?
Forcing procedures and propaganda on patients?

Is this constitutional? I know it's not ethical, it violates both patient autonomy and confidentiality. If I were a doctor (or a woman) in Oklahoma, I would be moving somewhere else, fast. How is a pregnant woman to properly prepare for a handicapped child if information about defects is withheld because she might decide to get an abortion. How is a family to choose a pediatric neurosurgeon for a child with spina bifida (for example), if that information is withheld from them?

I don't want this to turn into an anti-life/anti-choice discussion, but rather to focus on whether this is constitutional and/or ethical. This isn't even pro-life anymore, putting the information online is all about slut-shaming, plain and simple.

As to with holding information, even if we assume the unborn is it's own legal person (going as extreme pro-life here as possible), the mother is still the guardian of the child and thus information about the child cannot be withheld from the mother. Clearly wrong.

In the case of posting information online, it depends how the information is posted. While some will argue that posting information in any form where a person has not say in the posting is unethical, I think there is a vast difference between posting very individual information (name, if they got an abortion, ect.) online and posting more general information of combined groups (aka, removing the name and then adding them to a group of people and then saying that n number of people got an abortion at Place X, 22% who were not married, 12% who had STDs, ect.).

While some will say the latter case is still wrong if done without consent, I think it is no where near as bad as the former case.

As to the last issue, the testing/propaganda, there is a question where does the line between having someone make a fully informed decision and propaganda exist. While the information should always be nearby if the person ask for it, there is the major question of how informed does a person need to be to consent to an operation, be it abortion, or be it something completely unrelated (of course, this is about when consent is required, as many operations do not require the consent of the person because the person is unable to consent to it, for example a man who is in a car crash, has been knocked unconscious, and who must get a blood transfusion or they will die).

 

[lawtonfogle]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/21/oklahoma-abortion-united-states-bill


Hardly medically relevant.

In small communities this information is probably enough to individually identify a woman, despite omitting the name.

Depends upon how the information is presented. If they say 'an African American woman with 3 kids (all girls ages 2, 4, 12) received an abortion...' then yes it will be able to easily identify people. If on the other hands, they say '45% of people who received abortions were African American, the mean number of current children across all women who received abortions was 2.4 (mean age of child 8.2)...' then it is much harder (if not impossible) to identify people.

 

[Gokul43201]

Update: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html?src=mv

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.
...

 

[Evo]

Update: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html?src=mv

That is unbelievable. Doctors allowed to refuse to advise the parents on the health or medical conditions of the fetus? Surely this will go higher and get overturned.

 

[mheslep]

That is unbelievable. Doctors allowed to refuse to advise the parents on the health or medical conditions of the fetus? Surely this will go higher and get overturned.

Fair chance the story is bull. Consider the source.

 

[Gokul43201]

That is unbelievable. Doctors allowed to refuse to advise the parents on the health or medical conditions of the fetus?

They are protected from withholding such information specifically when it contributes to the mother not having an abortion.

I haven't found the entire text of the bill itself, but I grabbed this summary at the Oklahoma Senate website:

HB2656 creates a new law stating that in a wrongful life action or a wrongful birth action, no damages may be recovered for any condition that existed at the time of a child’s birth if the claim is that the defendant’s act or omission contributed to the mother’s not having obtained an abortion.

The above language shall not preclude causes of action based on claims that, but for a wrongful act or omission, maternal death or injury would not have occurred, or handicap, disease, or disability of an individual prior to birth would have been prevented, cured, or ameliorated in a manner that preserved the health and life of the affected individual.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/WebBillStatus/main.html