Ultrasounds required and no more "wrongful birth" lawsuits.
http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-abortion-bills-become-law/article/3457167?custom_click=lead_story_title
Quote from: guido911 on April 27, 2010, 01:18:42 PM
Ultrasounds required and no more "wrongful birth" lawsuits.
http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-abortion-bills-become-law/article/3457167?custom_click=lead_story_title
Won't be long before this is challenged.
Already happened, the New Yorkers are all over it:
"Within hours, a New York abortion rights group filed a lawsuit in Oklahoma County District Court to challenge the ultrasound law."
Read more: http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-abortion-bills-become-law/article/3457167?custom_click=lead_story_title#ixzz0mKRLCJm0
Well I didn't want my tax dollars going for anything constructive anyway.
After reading the actual text of the lawsuit bill, it doesn't sound as ridiculous as the abortion rights people made it sound. Basically, you can't sue a doctor on the grounds that if he gave you certain information, you would've had an abortion. That doesn't stop a person from suing a doctor because he withheld information that would have allowed steps to be taken to improve the health of the fetus.
Nothing wrong with requiring an ultrasound before an abortion.Abortionist act as though someone who is adamant about getting an abortion will be deterred by ultrasound results.
Quote from: jamesrage on April 28, 2010, 12:09:42 PM
Nothing wrong with requiring an ultrasound before an abortion.Abortionist act as though someone who is adamant about getting an abortion will be deterred by ultrasound results.
You're a woman, you get raped and impregnated. You have to make the horrible choice one way or another and then you're forced to listen to the heartbeat and the doctor describe it.
You're a woman and your fetus is going to kill you so you have to abort it to save your life but first you have to listen to the heartbeat and the doctor describe it to you.
You're a woman and the baby is horribly malformed and has a 0% chance of surviving to term. Then you have to listen to the heartbeat and the description of the fetus.
You're a little girl and you've been impregnated by a family member so the decision has been made to abort the fetus but first, as a 13 year old girl, you have to listen to the heart beat and listen to the doctor describe the fetus.
Quote from: Townsend on April 28, 2010, 12:17:05 PM
You're a woman, you get raped and impregnated. You have to make the horrible choice one way or another and then you're forced to listen to the heartbeat and the doctor describe it.
You're a woman and your fetus is going to kill you so you have to abort it to save your life but first you have to listen to the heartbeat and the doctor describe it to you.
You're a woman and the baby is horribly malformed and has a 0% chance of surviving to term. Then you have to listen to the heartbeat and the description of the fetus.
You're a little girl and you've been impregnated by a family member so the decision has been made to abort the fetus but first, as a 13 year old girl, you have to listen to the heart beat and listen to the doctor describe the fetus.
Probably just wasted three minutes of your life on Jamesrage...point well taken though
Quote from: Conan71 on April 28, 2010, 12:30:46 PM
Probably just wasted three minutes of your life on Jamesrage...point well taken though
And I'm guessing he's a guy which makes it even more dubious.
Quote from: jamesrage on April 28, 2010, 12:09:42 PM
Nothing wrong with requiring an ultrasound before an abortion.Abortionist act as though someone who is adamant about getting an abortion will be deterred by ultrasound results.
If an ultrasound serves no purpose for the procedure. Why should insurance, tax payers, or the person getting the procedure be force dot pay for it. Republicans should be outraged at the government taking over their healthcare.
Quote from: Townsend on April 28, 2010, 12:17:05 PM
You're a woman, you get raped and impregnated. You have to make the horrible choice one way or another and then you're forced to listen to the heartbeat and the doctor describe it.
You're a woman and your fetus is going to kill you so you have to abort it to save your life but first you have to listen to the heartbeat and the doctor describe it to you.
You're a woman and the baby is horribly malformed and has a 0% chance of surviving to term. Then you have to listen to the heartbeat and the description of the fetus.
You're a little girl and you've been impregnated by a family member so the decision has been made to abort the fetus but first, as a 13 year old girl, you have to listen to the heart beat and listen to the doctor describe the fetus.
These are all valid points. I think it would be a better bill if it would seperate instances like these from those that are using abortion as an extended form of birth control.
Quote from: custosnox on April 28, 2010, 12:55:38 PM
These are all valid points. I think it would be a better bill if it would seperate instances like these from those that are using abortion as an extended form of birth control.
How exactly would you regulate/enforce these exceptions? Would a note from the rapist be enough? "My step-daddy molested me, but it's OK, here's a note from him saying it's ok for me to have the abortion. He doesn't want mommy finding out about him and me and our secret." If he won't give little Cindy a note, then she has to go through the ultrasound?
If you make the standard be a formal police rape charge how many guys that went out to the clubs and hooked up on a one night stands are going to end up charged with a false rape? The hookup ends up pregnant and charges the guys with rape in order to secure an easy abortion. Who is to tell, it's all he said, she said and he was probably drunk.
And on the other side, what about real date rapes, many of those cases never result in charges because of embarrassment and a lack of evidence. Are we going to force the victim, often the underage victim, to go through with this ultrasound whose purpose is to guilt them into having as the child as a permanent reminder of her rape and the fact that the rapist got off because she couldn't prove the rape in court?
Oklahoma Sucks.
Quote from: swake on April 28, 2010, 02:01:51 PM
How exactly would you regulate/enforce these exceptions? Would a note from the rapist be enough? “My step-daddy molested me, but it’s OK, here’s a note from him saying it’s ok for me to have the abortion. He doesn’t want mommy finding out about him and me and our secret.” If he won’t give little Cindy a note, then she has to go through the ultrasound?
If you make the standard be a formal police rape charge how many guys that went out to the clubs and hooked up on a one night stands are going to end up charged with a false rape? The hookup ends up pregnant and charges the guys with rape in order to secure an easy abortion. Who is to tell, it’s all he said, she said and he was probably drunk.
And on the other side, what about real date rapes, many of those cases never result in charges because of embarrassment and a lack of evidence. Are we going to force the victim, often the underage victim, to go through with this ultrasound whose purpose is to guilt them into having as the child as a permanent reminder of her rape and the fact that the rapist got off because she couldn’t prove the rape in court?
Oklahoma Sucks.
I'll be honest, I have problems with rape being a reason to abort, primarily because a new life was created, even if through a horrible act. I do accept that it is a very extreme thing for the woman to go through, and that carrying a child because of it makes it that much worse, which is why I never argue that point.
That being said, it would not be hard to put a simple line in the bill that reads "abortions of a pregnancy occured from legal, consenting sex". It would really cut the ability of the bill down because a woman would just have to say that she did not concent to it, and the state would have to prove otherwise to push the issue. It would make such a claim a bit on the unbelievable side when she says "my boyfriend that I have been with for the last three years and am still with raped me" just to get the benifit of birth control in this method. Fine lines, but they can make all the difference.
Quote from: custosnox on April 28, 2010, 02:14:34 PM
That being said, it would not be hard to put a simple line in the bill that reads "abortions of a pregnancy occured from legal, consenting sex". It would really cut the ability of the bill down because a woman would just have to say that she did not concent to it, and the state would have to prove otherwise to push the issue. It would make such a claim a bit on the unbelievable side when she says "my boyfriend that I have been with for the last three years and am still with raped me" just to get the benifit of birth control in this method. Fine lines, but they can make all the difference.
Then comes the rape trial, false accusations and not all women want to be known, falsely or otherwise, as a rape victim.
There have been convictions of husband raping wife so I think the "my boyfriend raped me" is conceivable.
There's no way around this, it is a horrible law and they were wrong to pass it. Now we all have to pay for it.
Quote from: Townsend on April 28, 2010, 02:22:42 PM
Then comes the rape trial, false accusations and not all women want to be known, falsely or otherwise, as a rape victim.
There have been convictions of husband raping wife so I think the "my boyfriend raped me" is conceivable.
There's no way around this, it is a horrible law and they were wrong to pass it. Now we all have to pay for it.
You could look at it from the other end of the spectrum, perhaps more rape victims will finally speak up and have something done. I do think that a rape victim has a duty to come forward, if for no other reason then because if the person raped them, then they will most likely rape another. If they are not willing to step forward, then they have no one to blame for the fall-out (in this case, having to listen to the heartbeat) then themselves.
I'm not saying this is the greatest law, or that it is really an answer, but it might be a step in the right direction for stopping so many women from using it as a form of birth control. Yes, that is my biggest issue with abortion, women who think it's okay to go out and get pregenant because they can always just have it aborted.
Quote from: custosnox on April 28, 2010, 02:31:42 PM
If they are not willing to step forward, then they have no one to blame for the fall-out (in this case, having to listen to the heartbeat) then themselves.
Yes, that is my biggest issue with abortion, women who think it's okay to go out and get pregenant because they can always just have it aborted.
1st one, I believe they can blame the rapist for a large percentage of the fallout.
2nd one, I've never heard one say "it's ok, I can just get an abortion". Have you gotten a bunch of those? Do you know anyone that has ever been told that? Or have you known a woman who thinks an abortion is a form of birth control?
Quote from: custosnox on April 28, 2010, 02:31:42 PM
I do think that a rape victim has a duty to come forward, if for no other reason then because if the person raped them, then they will most likely rape another. If they are not willing to step forward, then they have no one to blame for the fall-out (in this case, having to listen to the heartbeat) then themselves.
That's just a plainly cruel statement. Yes, let's treat the victim as if they are at fault, that's perfect. You obviously have never dealt with someone who was a victim of a crime like this. Sick, sick sick.
You want to take a emotionally shattered human being and rub sh!t in her face and then treat her like she's at fault. That's some really strong moral high ground you have there.
Quote from: swake on April 28, 2010, 03:14:48 PM
That's just a plainly cruel statement. Yes, let's treat the victim as if they are at fault, that's perfect. You obviously have never dealt with someone who was a victim of a crime like this. Sick, sick sick.
You want to take a emotionally shattered human being and rub sh!t in her face and then treat her like she's at fault. That's some really strong moral high ground you have there.
Scat-tastic post from a drama queen.
Quote from: Townsend on April 28, 2010, 02:51:50 PM
2nd one, I've never heard one say "it's ok, I can just get an abortion". Have you gotten a bunch of those? Do you know anyone that has ever been told that? Or have you known a woman who thinks an abortion is a form of birth control?
In a sense yes. No, they don't say that exactly, but how else can it be taken when a woman has willing, consenual sex and when she gets pregnent thinks it's okay to get an abortion? This is what I mean by a form of birth control. They choose to have sex, pregnancy is generally a side effect of that choice.
Quote from: swake on April 28, 2010, 03:14:48 PM
That's just a plainly cruel statement. Yes, let's treat the victim as if they are at fault, that's perfect. You obviously have never dealt with someone who was a victim of a crime like this. Sick, sick sick.
You want to take a emotionally shattered human being and rub sh!t in her face and then treat her like she's at fault. That's some really strong moral high ground you have there.
Actually I have dealt with a lot of women who have been a victim of a crime like this. And I have always done everything I can to get them to go to the police and report it. Usually the argument that gets them to do so is the fact that they will most likely do it to someone else. I'm sorry, I feel that people should do what is right, including doing what they can to have a criminal brought to justice. I suppose you have no problem with all the witnesses at the chicken hut murder not helping the police and not identifying the murder either. Yes I know it is a horrible thing to happen to a woman, but in the end they have to make a choice, report the crime or keep it a secret. Saying that they have to live with the choice of keeping it a secret applies not only to things such as abortion, but other things such as the rapist continuing to rape other women. I never said that she should be treated like she is at fault for being raped, only that choosing to not report it carries its own reprocussions.
I'm just going to add my voice to those who think this law is utterly idiotic. It's ineffective and pointless. I'm not going to go farther beyond that because I simply don't have the energy for it today.
KRMG is saying they talked to one abortion provider. They said no one is cancelling appointments but they are seeing more tears than usual. I was not aware this was to go into effect immediately. I think this piles on more grief to someone faced with this horrible decision.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 28, 2010, 03:40:06 PM
I was not aware this was to go into effect immediately. I think this piles on more grief to someone faced with this horrible decision.
Not really, they do it because its fun. At least that is what the legislature thinks.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 28, 2010, 03:40:06 PM
I think this piles on more grief to someone faced with making this horrible decision.
fify. "Faced with" makes it sound like women have no other alternative.
Quote from: guido911 on April 28, 2010, 03:49:30 PM
fify. "Faced with" makes it sound like women have no other alternative.
The right to live and reproduce should never be construed to be delegated to mortals who have came through the same process that was established by a master creator or though the millions of years needed for Darwin's theories.
The functions of the female body is constructed grossly different to that of the male. It's purpose regardless of species, is the only machine available to maintain each species. In the studies of sexuality among the two it is quite evident that each is constructed to maintain their species of which they are a part of.
Forced or legislated abortion, by consent or otherwise, is merely a slap against nature or any form of creation which will lead to the genocide of the species. In our ignorance of the assignment of life to living organisms, we are discarding formed bodies that could have preformed for the society that struggles for knowledge of our existence.
In the beginning some dinosaurs reproduced by eggs and some of the sea creatures go to the land and reproduce by eggs. The human species is in a locked in reproduction cycle of which its only outlet is through abortion once the fetus begins to form. The answer could be in the morning after pill. In this struggle for existence it seems non productive to terminate it before it has a developing mind assigned to a body subject to the rules of nature.
Quote from: Townsend on April 28, 2010, 12:17:05 PM
You're a woman, you get raped and impregnated. You have to make the horrible choice one way or another and then you're forced to listen to the heartbeat and the doctor describe it.
I do not believe in punishing someone for the sins of the father.Should we punish you for something a relative in your family did?
QuoteYou're a woman and your fetus is going to kill you so you have to abort it to save your life but first you have to listen to the heartbeat and the doctor describe it to you.
How long does it take to listen to a heartbeat and doctor describe something to you? Besides if it was actual an emergency she would be in the hospital and a doctor telling her that giving vaginal birth or caesarean section during any point of the pregnancy could kill her.
Quote
You're a woman and the baby is horribly malformed and has a 0% chance of surviving to term. Then you have to listen to the heartbeat and the description of the fetus.
Then it shouldn't matter if you carry it to term.Seeing how the baby is going to be dead anyways
Quote
You're a little girl and you've been impregnated by a family member so the decision has been made to abort the fetus but first, as a 13 year old girl, you have to listen to the heart beat and listen to the doctor describe the fetus.
Again should we punish you for something a relative of yours did?
It should never be easy to take a innocent human life and there should be all kinds of obstacle in the way that prevent someone from taking an innocent human life.Until Roe V wade is overturned there should be all kinds of laws to deter abortions.
Woops, I reponded to someone from skip-to-my-loo land. Forget I entered into this.
Wait until you see the rise in std's from over the counter Plan B.......Its the new form of birth-control.....
Quote from: Breadburner on April 29, 2010, 12:18:23 PM
Wait until you see the rise in std's from over the counter Plan B.......Its the new form of birth-control.....
Is Plan B not already over-the-counter? I would think that could go a long way to prevent abortions. Simply take the medication after unprotected sex, or if you were raped, and hopefully that does the trick. I don't like this new law and will be glad when it's ruled unconstitutional, but it's really not that different than what already happens. You have to get an ultrasound before an abortion anyway and really how can they enforce the doctor describing it? They can't so I doubt this really changes anything.
Quote from: SXSW on April 29, 2010, 01:13:23 PM
Is Plan B not already over-the-counter? I would think that could go a long way to prevent abortions. Simply take the medication after unprotected sex, or if you were raped, and hopefully that does the trick. I don't like this new law and will be glad when it's ruled unconstitutional, but it's really not that different than what already happens. You have to get an ultrasound before an abortion anyway and really how can they enforce the doctor describing it? They can't so I doubt this really changes anything.
It also doesn't say how the Dr. has to describe it. They could say "It's an embreyo and has eyes" and be covered. So yeah, I think that's a pretty valid point there.
Quote from: Breadburner on April 29, 2010, 12:18:23 PM
Wait until you see the rise in std's from over the counter Plan B.......Its the new form of birth-control.....
There's no over the counter plan B in Oklahoma. That was taken away too. It has to be prescribed.
Quote from: Townsend on April 29, 2010, 01:25:23 PM
There's no over the counter plan B in Oklahoma. That was taken away too. It has to be prescribed.
Wow, I wasn't aware of that. That's absolutely stone age. I swear it's as if people in this state want to punish women for having sex.
Quote from: nathanm on April 29, 2010, 02:54:05 PM
Wow, I wasn't aware of that. That's absolutely stone age. I swear it's as if people in this state want to punish women for having sex.
You just now figured that out?
Quote from: swake on April 29, 2010, 05:19:48 PM
You just now figured that out?
I suspected, but other than the Plan B issue, I could at least see how it was possible, if not plausible, that it was all about concern for fetuses. Not allowing OTC Plan B is a pretty strong indicator that it has nothing to do with protecting fetuses after all.
Quote from: Townsend on April 29, 2010, 01:25:23 PM
There's no over the counter plan B in Oklahoma. That was taken away too. It has to be prescribed.
I was refering to this on a national level...I should have been more clear.....
Quote from: Breadburner on April 29, 2010, 05:33:44 PM
I was refering to this on a national level...I should have been more clear.....
Plan B is prescription-only nationwide or just in Oklahoma?
Quote from: SXSW on April 29, 2010, 10:15:53 PM
Plan B is prescription-only nationwide or just in Oklahoma?
I believe if you are 17 or older you do not need a script......
Quote from: Breadburner on April 29, 2010, 10:25:42 PM
I believe if you are 17 or older you do not need a script......
That seems fair.
I know a lawsuit was filed against these measures this week, I wonder how long it will take before they are struck down? I hope this backfires for the legislators that voted for it, and really hope it's released how much this cost the state.
Quote from: Breadburner on April 29, 2010, 10:25:42 PM
I believe if you are 17 or older you do not need a script......
Made the suggestion some 20 years ago when the unwanted pregnancies were on the discussion at the city commission meeting. The suggestion was that instead of the flyers sent with the utility billing send a dozen condoms with full instructions. The only results was applause from the audience.
How many posters have researched the age of Mary, mother of Jesus?
Quote from: Breadburner on April 29, 2010, 10:25:42 PM
I believe if you are 17 or older you do not need a script......
I haven't looked that up yet but that's not what the TV people told me.
Oh, edited to say it is covered by Medicaid in Oklahoma apparently...at least before all this craziness kicked up dust.
Shadows, Mary at what time? This year she turned 2,062 on March 14th.
Ok, this makes me laugh: http://www.theonion.com/video/new-law-requires-women-to-name-baby-paint-nursery,14393/
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12414507 (http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12414507)
Attorneys Agree To Block On Oklahoma Ultrasound Law
QuoteAttorneys Agree To Block On Oklahoma Ultrasound Law
Posted: May 03, 2010 6:42 AM CDT
Updated: May 03, 2010 9:57 AM CDT
The agreement stopped a scheduled hearing Monday in Oklahoma County District Court on the request for a restraining order by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights.Associated Press
OKLAHOMA CITY -- Attorneys for Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson have agreed to a court order requested by abortion providers to temporarily block enforcement of the state's new abortion law.
The law requires pregnant women to have an ultrasound and hear a detailed description of the fetus before they can get an abortion.
The agreement stopped a scheduled hearing Monday in Oklahoma County District Court on the request for a restraining order by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights. District Judge Noma Gurich said she was notified by attorneys for both sides that they would accept the temporary restraining order.
Gurich says she will now schedule a hearing for sometime in July on a request for a temporary injunction against the law.
State supreme court tosses restrictive abortion lawshttp://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20121204_14_0_OLHMIY103862 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20121204_14_0_OLHMIY103862)
QuoteOKLAHOMA CITY -- The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday tossed out two laws that placed restrictions on abortions.
The state's high court found that House Bill 2780 was unconstitutional, upholding a ruling from Oklahoma County District Court.
The measure would have required any woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound within an hour of the procedure and to have its results explained to her before the procedure.
All justices concurred except for Noma Gurich, who recused from the decision.
The state's high court also found unconstitutional House Bill 1970, which put restrictions on abortion-inducing drugs. The opinion was unanimous.
An Oklahoma County District Court judge found in May that the measure was "an unconstitutional law in violation of the fundamental rights of women to privacy and bodily integrity" guaranteed in the Oklahoma Constitution.
Attorney General Scott Pruitt had appealed both decisions to the state Supreme Court.
Well that took a few years and a lot of our money. Well done State of Oklahoma.
Quote from: Townsend on December 04, 2012, 04:36:25 PM
State supreme court tosses restrictive abortion laws
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20121204_14_0_OLHMIY103862 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20121204_14_0_OLHMIY103862)
Well that took a few years and a lot of our money. Well done State of Oklahoma.
You got what you want T, apparently unrestricted abortion rights. Now you are b!tching about the process to get there?
Quote from: guido911 on December 04, 2012, 05:22:02 PM
You got what you want T, apparently unrestricted abortion rights. Now you are b!tching about the process to get there?
Think harder.
Quote from: Townsend on December 04, 2012, 11:41:59 PM
Think harder.
I already have. No need to bring in a second brain cell in this thread. Our state legislature is no fan of abortion rights and seeks to restrict it (which I support). Your upset because of it.
Now, man up and admit you oppose restrictions on abortion rights. Otherwise, why "thank" Oklahoma for wasting its time and money.
I understand the legislature having elected members who campaign that they are going to stop abortions. It is the perfect campaign issue when you find an anti-abortion voter. The candidate could be a total creep, but if his opponent supports the laws of the land that allows women choice, he just says he will oppose abortion and he gets elected.
But then the legislator comes up with unconstitutional ideas, convinces his fellow politicians to vote for it, and we get a stupid law that forces us to spend millions of dollars in court. Everybody loses except for the lawyers. We have had so many of these laws that we might as well name them "Lawyer Employment Bills."
The House bill 2780 was a perfect example. It was going to require women to go through an unwanted and unneccessary medical procedure as an attempt to intimidate her. It was stupid, a bullying technique, and of course, unconstitutional.
For a party that says they want less government intrusion in our lives, they sure want to be involved in a women's womb.
Quote from: guido911 on December 05, 2012, 12:54:30 AM
I already have. No need to bring in a second brain cell in this thread. Our state legislature is no fan of abortion rights and seeks to restrict it (which I support). Your upset because of it.
Now, man up and admit you oppose restrictions on abortion rights. Otherwise, why "thank" Oklahoma for wasting its time and money.
You're still not there yet.
Of course I want women to have access to all medical procedures for their health. Everyone should.
Oh hey look, RM hit that nail.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 05, 2012, 07:14:41 AM
For a party that says they want less government intrusion in our lives, they sure want to be involved in a women's womb.
This never gets old (NSFW)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0-drciLv7TI/T0_0jYoQXgI/AAAAAAAABTk/JebLBiXLmfk/s320/McIntrye,+Judy+Eason.jpg
Quote from: Townsend on December 05, 2012, 08:32:43 AM
You're still not there yet.
Of course I want women to have access to all medical procedures for their health. Everyone should.
Oh hey look, RM hit that nail.
Wow. I didn't know we had so many constitutional law scholars in this forum. And silly me, I thought that an honest read of
Casey and its progeny would not be inconsistent with these sorts of laws. I guess it takes New York lawyers to come down to Oklahoma to gives us a learnin'--which is what happened incidentally.
And RM. I will mark this thread for memory, as I do for several of your posts for potential flip issues, when it comes time for some dumbsh!t lefty law that gets appealed and reversed by an appellate court. We can talk about how much of a waste of money that was. Come to think of it, how much was spent arguing over
Citizens United?
And T, do you think calling abortion a medical procedure as you said above makes it sound better? Again, man up and call it what it is. Say it with me: "Of course I want women to have access to
abortion for their health."
Finally, if you two or anyone else haven't gotten the memo, abortion is a heavily regulated process. Look in Title 63 and see the number of statutes that are in effect and, by the way, constitutional, and tell us again about the futility of making abortions tougher to get in this state.
Quote from: guido911 on December 05, 2012, 08:39:09 PM
And T, do you think calling abortion a medical procedure as you said above makes it sound better? Again, man up and call it what it is. Say it with me: "Of course I want women to have access to abortion for their health."
"Man up"? It's common sense. All women, everywhere, need to have access to safe abortion services. If it is not available then it will be done in an unsafe manor and there will be horrible, unneeded deaths due to "back alley" abortions.
There also needs to be universal access to birth control for everyone.
It's not reasonable to think because some faiths don't like it then birth control and safe abortion services shouldn't be available.
Remember, there is no sane person who is "pro-abortion". I do want all people to have the ability to reach all services to keep them healthy both physically and mentally.
Google "unsafe abortions" or whatever subject line you'd like and have a read.
Quote from: guido911 on December 05, 2012, 08:39:09 PM
Wow. I didn't know we had so many constitutional law scholars in this forum.
So since you're making a decision based on your faith, you're a religious scholar?
Guido:
The reason Oklahoma has a reputation for wasting tax payer money on laws is because we readily pass laws that largely have already been litigated. Sometimes we will pass a law, have it thrown out, and then pass the same law again. Usually this effort is driven by a desire to have a Christian State. Two obvious examples are our continuous efforts on abortion and placing religious monuments in public spaces.
The Oklahoma abortion law mandated a medical procedure that was had no medical basis and was solely intended to physiologically punish a woman who was choosing abortion in the hopes that she would choose the more Christian path and opt to have the child (in which case we can complain about poor people breeding and freeloaders taking government handouts). If a woman wanted to have the child but it was deemed medically unsafe for her to do so – the law still dictated that she be tormented like all the other sinners. On the face the law purports to be about making informed choices but even the attorneys for the State had to admit that a woman understands what an abortion is and that the law was intended to dissuade people from exercising their constitutionally protected right (you can disagree, but under Supreme Court jurisprudence it is a right). Mandating an unneeded medical procedure to interfere with a constitutional choice is a law waiting to be tossed.
Instead of concentrating on punishing women who are making a decision that is often a mistake (abortion) done to escape another mistake (unwanted pregnancy), why not help prevent the initial mistake or try to turn the initial mistake into a blessing for someone else?
Every credible study indicates that abstinence only programs work as well as the "just say no" campaign, which is to say not well at all. States with the weakest sex education system have the highest teen pregnancy rates --- a trend that follows the "Bible Belt." http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=37&cat=2 The Oklahoma Republican Party has not been successful undoing a million years of evolution and it would be wise to stop trying. The correlation between teen pregnancy and states that voted Romney is terrifying... evidencing that preventing teen pregnancy has really become a political issue where conservative states simply refuse to realistically address. There is a problem; the hippy states have a way of solving the problem - education.
I understand the Catholic faith has a real issue with sexuality and birth control. A faith should always be free to teach its adherence to ignore knowledge they gain, but I do not think that is a good argument to keep that knowledge from people. Arguing that education about birth control should be kept from people because of religious doctrine is arguing that a disproportional number of Oklahoman teens should get pregnant because we have more Christians. It doesn't make sense.
Furthermore, if an unwanted pregnancy does occur – let's make it as easy as possible for the mother to offer the child up for adoption to families spending thousands of dollars trying to have a child. I'm no expert on this process, but making the process easier for both sides would be a great thing. I know it wouldn't stop all abortions, but if people that don't see an abortion as a religious issue can at least see it as wasting a pregnancy that could make someone else happy... it could do some good.
The argument against abortion always boils down to religion. So let's stop and ask what would Jesus do? He would sympathize with the sinner and try to provide a better way. I'm guessing He wouldn't torment the sinner and ignore the actual cause of the sin.
You mentioned Citizens United as a wasted litigation effort comparable to Oklahoma's abortion law. Please recall that Citizens United was a landmark case that had profound implications. That case did not litigate an issue that was long dead and a foregone conclusion. Many of Oklahoma's laws that are mocked could be successfully challenged by a law student after Con Law II. Out of State lawyers come in because they make a living challenging and collecting fees for overturning obtuse laws without fear of pissing off the population.
See you when the next monument case comes up and gets tossed so we can talk about how the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American law (except for 8 of them, which are purely religious laws. But those other 2 are definately Christian...well, and every other civilization on the planet).
c_f
Quote from: Townsend on December 06, 2012, 09:51:20 AM
So since you're making a decision based on your faith, you're a religious scholar?
Well there's the strawman of all time. Think harder.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on December 06, 2012, 02:00:05 PM
Guido:
The reason Oklahoma has a reputation for wasting tax payer money on laws is because we readily pass laws that largely have already been litigated. Sometimes we will pass a law, have it thrown out, and then pass the same law again. Usually this effort is driven by a desire to have a Christian State. Two obvious examples are our continuous efforts on abortion and placing religious monuments in public spaces.
That's just not accurate. Like I wrote earlier, look at Title 63 before you go off on this angle about litigation of abortion rights. There are "constitutional" restrictions all over that statute which would not be there but for legislative risk. Now, I'm sorry that you feel that ultrasound is not a medically necessary procedure for the mother, the baby might think otherwise. But apparently their views do not count, since the mother's "rights" trump. And I would also suggest you look nationwide and see how other states deal with this issue as well. Numerous states are testing the limits of
Casey all the time. And that right there is what laypersons, and even lawyers not versed in this area of the law, do not understand. Here's a link about the most pro-life, pro-abortion states.
http://www.lifenews.com/2009/01/22/nat-4770/
And sorry T, if you support abortion rights, you are "pro-abortion". If you opposition abortion rights, you are "anti-abortion". If you favor the death penalty, you are "pro death penalty", and if you oppose it, you are "anti-death penalty". If you favor involuntary servitude, you are "pro slavery". If you oppose it, you are "anti-slavery". That's how that works.
As for the 10 commandments/monuments issue, this will be a problem in the foreseeable future since the evolution of the restrictions on religious matters has been just a few decades--particularly with schools--and that's evolving before our eyes. Same goes for
Roe since that opinion is a mere 40 years old.
Like it or not folks, this IS Oklahoma. It's a God fearing state, and for reasons all its own it chooses to fight issues it believes worth fighting. We have states/cities that litigate the crap out of immigration, tort reform, size of soft drinks, school vouchers, etc. Thinking Oklahoma is different is just blindness.
As for Citizens' United, the foundation of that opinion was set in the late 1800s. It was "landmark" only to the extent that it angered so many people who could not grasp the concept of "corporate personhood", or its firm entrenchment in law.
"That's not accurate at all..."
You failed to point out anything in the quoted statement that was not accurate. We do readily pass laws that have already been litigated. We do sometimes pass the same law again and have it overturned again. It is driven by a desire to be a Christian state (which you later elude to).
I realize there are restrictions on abortion in our laws. That has no bearing on my point. I have never argued that you cannot have restrictions on abortions in the United States of America. We have restrictions on gun ownership too – but that doesn't prove that Oklahoma can ignore the second amendment.
And the ultrasound is not a medically necessary procedure to conduct an abortion. In the sentence after passively asserting that it is a necessary procedure you then (again passively) elude to the fact that the purpose of the procedure is to protect the fetus. Since we are having a discussion about the legality of abortion the correct answer is NO – the views of the fetus do not count and the rights of the citizen (mother) do. I realize you don't like that based on religious grounds. However, such is not relevant in the discussion of the legality of the matter. (Please forgive me for not going to "lifenews.com" for a well balanced view on the abortion debate. I posted to Kaiser's health institute, which is renowned for health statistics and I looked at realclearpolitics for the election map., purposely trying to point to neutral sources instead of abortionsforall.org)
"Pro-abortion" by definition indicates a person is in favor of or encouraging abortions. That is seldom the case. Everyone I know who is "pro-choice" thinks abortions are something that should not be favored. Just as most people who are Pro-Life are not anti-women's rights. The correct nomenclature would be "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights." Thus attempting to be as descriptive as possible while not attempting to mislabel a position for political gain ("pro-abortion" and "anti-women's rights").
Per the 10 Commandments – the issue has been well settled by the Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts are generally in agreement. There are certainly areas to be ironed out and it will continue to evolve. But it is hard to argue that passing a law against Islamic Law and then posting a Christian Monument on the Capital isn't sending a message about what "God" our state fears. Which is kinda' sorta' the point of the Anti-Establishment clause we are all so found of. (I'm actually in favor of religious education as a study of sociology including the Christian stories – which would allow the posting of the 10 commandments in classrooms along with other ancient writings which I agree and disagree with, but understand the position of those that would be uncomfortable having their children exposed to the beliefs of others in school...)
Per Citizen's United – the concept of corporations being people too has been around since at least the 1600s. It existed before the founding of the United States. But the concept continued to grow and expand. Citizens United was a landmark case in the scope and breadth of the decision in placing corporations at or above the rights of a citizen on many levels. An entity with rights that has more wealth than anyone else, that by its charter cares nothing for anything but its own profit, and that will never die. Until Citizens United the idea had been flirted with, but never codified. It was a huge case with giant implications (see, e.g., more money spent on this campaign than ever before... by far). Now that corporations have the freedom of speech, it will be interesting to see if Corporations have religious rights or the right to arm themselves on a corporate level. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma throwing out the abortion law has no wide reaching effects even in this state. (I'm not vehemently opposed to the decision in Citizens United as I have not read the entire holding closely enough to argue with it. But I would like to see transparency laws in political contributions. If the "Pot Smokers USA party" wants to fund Obama, fine... but the citizens should be aware of it).
Finally, yes, this IS Oklahoma. A state that strives to be a fundamentalist Christian state with all the love that entails (except for gays, non-Christians, womens' rights groups, unions and anything seen as anti-busienss) . But this is also the United States... in which the Church is supposed to be separated from the State.
The abortion discussion is just a continuation of how far the religious in our nation can go in forcing their beliefs on others. Clearly honestly framing the issue like that would be a failure for the anti-abortion rights crowd, but it is hard to argue that the main issue is something other than that obvious statement.
My religious beliefs or personal needs don't come into play. I'm not emotionally attached to either side, so I can argue from a detached position. As most other people are emotionally attached to a position it makes it difficult to have a rational discussion. Which is why I suspect the vast majority of my initial post and much of this post will go ignored and the same drum will be pounded over and over. I love the debating, but now I'm stuck here until 8pm. :-)
Quote from: guido911 on December 06, 2012, 02:51:11 PM
And sorry T, if you support abortion rights, you are "pro-abortion".
No reason to apologize. You're wrong.
Quote from: guido911 on December 06, 2012, 02:28:14 PM
Well there's the strawman of all time.
Of all time? Well congratulations to me.
QuoteThink harder.
Work on the originality.
Quote from: guido911 on December 06, 2012, 02:51:11 PM
And sorry T, if you support abortion rights, you are "pro-abortion". If you opposition abortion rights, you are "anti-abortion". If you favor the death penalty, you are "pro death penalty", and if you oppose it, you are "anti-death penalty". If you favor involuntary servitude, you are "pro slavery". If you oppose it, you are "anti-slavery". That's how that works.
I did not realize that you were in charge of what things are called. That must be a difficult responsibility.
I am pro-choice. You are no choice.
That's how it works in my world.
Quote from: Townsend on December 06, 2012, 03:53:17 PM
No reason to apologize. You're wrong.
Close the thread down. T wins.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 06, 2012, 04:50:41 PM
I did not realize that you were in charge of what things are called. That must be a difficult responsibility.
I am pro-choice. You are no choice.
That's how it works in my world.
Not in charge of anything. If it makes you feel better calling it "pro-choice", which could mean just about any damn thing you favor choosing, have at it. It's easier to call it "pro abortion", in my world, because that is the damned subject we are talking about.
Be proud of what you support--no need to run away from it. And just remember, there is a reason why things are "sugar coated", it makes whatever you are taking go down a little better.
My gosh CF, what is your deal? Are you seriously suggesting that if persons in this state (or instantly our legislature) are opposed to something, they should just suck it up and deal with it because someone in DC says so? If that were the case, then we'd still be doing this whole "separate but equal" crap from 1896. The law changes, and evolves, and who's to say that one day down the road the right set of facts will come along and push the Supremes to revisit Roe, or even Casey. The Court did it with Plessy, and even Lawrence to a lesser degree.
And incidentally, take a look at this last Bar journal. You will see cases involving school vouchers still being heard in this state. Was it wrong to challenge that latest legislative effort? Saw another case where I guy got electrocuted while trying to steal copper wiring. His estate sued, and lost. Why was that case even brought? Why are any cases or controversies brought if the subject issue had been spoken to previously? Could be because certain facts or circumstances may shed new light or give new perspective on a question that may give pause to revisit old opinions. Dred Scott probably wishes his case would have been heard today.
And to be sure, I opposed abortion on religious grounds. I also oppose it on moral and legal grounds. I also oppose certain immigration policies on moral and legal grounds as well, even though many Catholics are sympathetic.
And to illustrate my point, right now I am writing what I consider to be the "mother" of all motions to compel discovery. I am researching all those BS objections to discovery requests that seem to appear in most answers in order to hopefully end that sort of anti-discovery practices by some. My hope is to convince courts that making petty and frivolous objections is a waste of time and money, and undo some of the strength in the Quinn and in part, Melson opinions.
My point illustrated perfectly.
QuotePlanned Parenthood's current contract is set to expire Dec. 31.
U.S. District Judge Stephen Friot denied Planned Parenthood's motion for a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the Oklahoma Health Department from ending its contracts with the Tulsa clinics.
Attorneys for Planned Parenthood had argued the organization's support for abortion rights played a role in the department's decision not to renew the contracts for the federal program, although state Health Commissioner Terry Cline testified last week that that was not the case.
The WIC program provides nutrition education and food vouchers for women and children.
The agency gave Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma notice in September that it was terminating the contract after starting the legal process to renew the contract in August, according to testimony last week.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20121224_14_0_OKLAHO791686&allcom=1#comments
Whatever ultimately happens in this instance, law is ever evolving.
Oklahoma Number 2:
http://www.aul.org/auls-2013-life-list/
Quote from: guido911 on January 16, 2013, 03:33:24 PM
Oklahoma Number 2:
http://www.aul.org/auls-2013-life-list/
QuoteRecognizing the significance of state laws protecting women and the unborn from the negative impact of abortion, establishing legal recognition and protection of unborn children in contexts other than abortion, prohibiting the illicit use of emerging biotechnologies, in protecting those at the end of life, and affirming the First Amendment freedom of conscience of healthcare providers
Don't forget protecting the babies from getting eaten. Please keep fetus out of our cheese spread.
Most Americans No Longer Think the Abortion Debate is All That Importanthttp://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/17/abortion_statistics_most_americans_support_roe_v_wade_don_t_think_pro_life.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/17/abortion_statistics_most_americans_support_roe_v_wade_don_t_think_pro_life.html)
QuoteHere's the main takeaway from a new Pew study on abortion: Most Americans have more important things to care about than the abortion debate. That being said, a majority are against overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's landmark decision that turns 40 this month.
The survey, out yesterday, marked a decline in the issue's relative importance in the eyes of most Americans. More than half (53 percent) said that the issue "is not that important compared to other issues." That's up from 32 percent who said the same in 2006, and 48 percent in 2009. Just 18 percent of Americans currently consider the abortion debate to be a "critical" issue. Most of those in the latter category are against legal abortions, Pew notes, which isn't that surprising.
(http://www.slate.com/content/slate/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/17/abortion_statistics_most_americans_support_roe_v_wade_don_t_think_pro_life/jcr%3acontent/body/image_3796.img.png/1358450726665.png)
How many people polled know what Roe V. Wade is?
They might have thought it was asking their preference of fish eggs over a milk by-product.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 17, 2013, 04:02:08 PM
How many people polled know what Roe V. Wade is?
They might have thought it was asking their preference of fish eggs over a milk by-product.
The Roe V Wade question was covered later in the article:
QuoteThe issue's diminished importance for Americans could partially explain another statistic headlining write-ups of the study: Only 44 percent of Americans under the age of 30 (i.e., the ever popular "milennials" category) know that Roe v. Wade has to do with abortion. By comparison, 62 percent of all Americans knew what the landmark case was about. There's also an education gap. Ninety-one percent of Americans with post-graduate education could correctly identify the SCOTUS case's topic, while only 47 percent of those with just a high school education could do the same.
House panel approves anti-abortion measureshttp://newsok.com/oklahoma-house-panel-approves-anti-abortion-measures/article/3754796 (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-house-panel-approves-anti-abortion-measures/article/3754796)
QuoteA legislative committee approved measures Tuesday making it harder for young women to receive an abortion without notifying a parent and expanding the state's abortion reporting law. Rep. Doug Cox, a member of the House of Representatives Public Health Committee, warned those supporting the measure and other anti-abortion proposals to back off pushing for more restrictions or they will drive abortions underground. "We keep passing stuff like this, they'll be done in back alleys with coat hangers, people," said Cox, R-Grove, an emergency room physician. Committee members voted 7-3 to approve House Bill 1588, which would eliminate a provision in state law that allows young women to obtain a judge's approval to get an abortion.