New abortion Law for Oklahoma

[philw]

http://www.news.com.au/world/oklahoma-women-could-be-forced-to-have-ultrasounds-before-an-abortion/story-e6frfkyi-1225859305740

Tough new abortion laws adopted in US
Abortion laws include invasive ultrasounds
Right To Life Australia wants same laws here
A PRO life group has welcomed tough new abortion laws in the US and says they should be adopted in Australia.

Politicians in the US state of Oklahoma overnight voted to pass two abortion Bills that will force women to undergo invasive ultrasounds and allow doctors to withhold test results showing foetal defects.

Under the new laws, even women who are victims of rape or incest will be required to listen to a detailed description of the foetus and view the ultrasound image prior to terminating a pregnancy.

They could also be forced to undergo vaginal rather than abdominal ultrasounds as doctors are required to use the method that "would display the embryo or foetus more clearly".

The second Bill will shields doctors from "wrongful birth" malpractice lawsuits brought by parents who would have aborted a foetus had they been informed about its genetic or other defects.

Vice President of Right to Life Australia Margaret Tighe said the new laws were "terrific news" and should be adopted locally.

"I can only compliment (Oklahoma’s politicians) in what they have done and can only wish that we could have such success here," she said.

Ms Tighe said Australia needed politicians with the same courage.

But Pro Choice NSW spokesperson Jane Caro said the new laws would strip women of basic human rights and advised women in Oklahoma to “keep their legs together”.

"The new laws are outrageous on every level and destroy the human rights of the women in that state. They no longer have equal human rights", she said.

Ms Caro said the new laws would also force abortions underground.

"(The new laws) will just make it harder and more traumatic for everybody concerned," she said.

The US Centre for Reproductive Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ultrasound law, which it said "profoundly intrudes upon a patient's privacy".

A similar Oklahoma law was struck down last year.

"Politicians have no business making medical decisions," Stephanie Toti, a staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights said.

"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."

Democratic Governor Brad Henry tried to block the Bills last week, but the Republican-dominated Oklahoma legislature overwhelmingly overrode his veto with the help of Democrats.

Governor Henry said that while he supports "reasonable" restrictions on abortions, the laws had serious constitutional flaws and represented an excessive intrusion of government into the private lives of its citizens.

Local abortion foes hailed the veto overrides as a victory for the unborn.

"Ultrasound gives a mother a window to her womb," Mary Spaulding Balch, director of state legislation for the National Right to Life, said.

"It helps to prevent her from making a decision she may regret for the rest of her life and it empowers her with the most accurate information about her pregnancy so that she can make a truly informed 'choice.'"

Absolutely disgusting. Seeing the baby doesn't help a mother make an 'informed' choice. It simply adds the factor of guilt to the equation. Not all mothers choose to terminate because of unwanted pregnancy.

Even women who have fallen pregnant due to rape or incest? Unbelievable I really do not understand this part of the law ( as reported) . There's a big difference between having an abortion for an unwanted child that's the result of consensual unprotected sex and a child that's the result of rape or incest.

Some unfortunately have to choose to do it because of serious medical conditions which are diagnosed via invasive tests and/or ultrasounds.
others do it due to there situation,  ( IMO better than growing up un-wanted or treated real bad)
It would be truly a heartbreaking decision to have to make.

There is also something very wrong with this world when every other group gets to force politicians to enact laws that do not represent the rest of the country. freedom of choice, it means be responsible for your own thoughts and your own choices.

[crusader rabbit]

Phil, the abortion issue is one of the hottest of the hot-button issues here in the States.  You may have opened a real can o' worms.

On one side, people with deeply held moral and/or religious beliefs tend to stand against what is termed "the right to choose" or what is also termed "murdering the unborn." 

On the other side, womens rights groups and politically liberal folks say it is an absolute necessity for a woman to have total control of her own body, and this includes her individual right to do away with a "collection of cells" residing in her womb.

I have always been able to see both sides rather clearly.  On the one hand, I believe either parent should have the lawful option of terminating the pregnancy until the fetus is 18-years of age, OR until age 21 if the fetus is still living at home and doesn't have at least a part-time job and helps out around the house.  Of course, I would want to do the procedure as painlessly as possible--a .45 to the head should work in all but the most stubborn cases.

On the other hand, if the fetus is still in utero, there is no chance it will be able to find a job OR help out around the house.  Hence, the conflict.

[Solus]

I have always been able to see both sides rather clearly.  On the one hand, I believe either parent should have the lawful option of terminating the pregnancy until the fetus is 18-years of age, OR until age 21 if the fetus is still living at home and doesn't have at least a part-time job and helps out around the house.  Of course, I would want to do the procedure as painlessly as possible--a .45 to the head should work in all but the most stubborn cases.

CR, let me be sure I understand your point.  Are you saying that if you think your 16 year old is, for instance, a disrespectful, non-productive sociopath who will end up in a bell tower with a Model 700 before they ever come close to contributing to society, that the best option for all is a quick shot to the head with a .45?

Not that I disagree...just that I want to be sure I understand.

[r_w]

But Pro Choice NSW spokesperson Jane Caro said the new laws would strip women of basic human rights and advised women in Oklahoma to “keep their legs together”.

Umm, well, if they would have done that in the FIRST place...

[Paraguy]

CR, how about a shot over their head first before fully making your point with one to the noggin?  If so, would a Magnum cartridge be better than the .45 given the louder boom?  If a .44 doesn't wake them up then proceeding as originally prescribed could help out the old gene pool.

[Sponsor]

[m25operator]

Hot button indeed, what lengths would anybody who reads this go to stop a person who picked up a 1 hr old Baby, and was about to throw it against a wall, even the most callous here I think would do what ever they could. Same baby, now referred as Fetus, a few weeks earlier, can be removed and even if it is breathing, just thrown out with garbage, sorry, Einstein, Plato, Michael Angelo, or just plain Jane or Pedro, your path ends here, not because your not needed, just unwanted or inconvenient, and PS no funeral or remembrance of any kind, your mother wants to forget you as soon as possible. 2 lives, one in control, and the other depending on the one in control. Law says the one in control gets to choose, both are people, but 1 has the say. Treating the unborn like you would the flu, just not right.

CR, your counter point is very valid, if weeks determine when it is ok to terminate, why not years, when you might really see what that fetus has become. As we say in texas, it might just have needed killing.

[TAB]

Umm, well, if they would have done that in the FIRST place...

I kind of take offense to this,   Some times things just happen.  You can be practicing good  birth control, and still get pregant.


The harder you make it for people to  legally get abortions, the more likly they are to get a illegal one.  I don't need to tell you the safety risks envoled with that.


Just like the gun control debate, its all emotion, little to no facts used.


PS the fact that the  abortion is legally a type of birth control bothers me, nothing esle about it does.

[Rastus]

People use the word "fetus" or the word "cell mass" to dehumanize a baby.  It makes it easy...and insofaras guilt goes for the mother who wants to destroy her baby...well damn ain't that tough...there is a solution for that, don't kill your baby.  It's OK to destroy an innocent baby but it's horrors and mean-spirited to be against illegal immigration, for personal responsibility, against socialized medicine, against tax increases and the like.

There's an easy solution for people who don't like Oklahoma's abortion law.  Don't come here to live, don't visit and don't spend money here and let us live how we want.  If you like wallowing in abortion stay and patronize where it's legal.  I'm OK with this arrangement. 

[TAB]

Fetus and cell mass are correct terms.

do you know how many "babys" are passed by a womens nateral cycle?   

[twyacht]

Here's some more "emotion" TAB..

and some reality. It's not just the U.S. but it is a tragedy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7646540/Baby-boy-survives-for-nearly-two-days-after-abortion.html