On Tuesday, an Oklahoma state judge struck down "one of the most sweeping anti-abortion laws in the country" and in response yesterday, Republican state legislators vowed to "pass the law again in a different form," New York Times reporter James C. McKinley Jr. noted in the August 20 paper.
"It almost reaches the stage of seeming cruel to me," McKinley quoted Planned Parenthood official Anita Fream regarding one of the law’s provisions.
But for an "anti-abortion law," the statute in question doesn’t actually ban any abortion procedure. It does, however, issue new regulations on abortion providers meant to increase the chances that more women seeking abortions may change their minds at the last minute:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓A day after a judge struck down an Oklahoma law requiring women seeking an abortion to see an ultrasound of the fetus and listen to a description of its attributes, the state said it would appeal the ruling, and Republican lawmakers vowed to pass the law again in a different form.
[...]
In recent years, several states have passed laws requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before an abortion and at least three — Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi — require doctors to offer the woman the chance to see the image.
But Oklahoma’s Legislature went further. The law would have required the doctor or technician to set up the ultrasound monitor where the woman could see it and then talk her through the procedure, describing the heart, limbs and internal organs.
[...]
Beyond mandating ultrasounds, the law would have allowed doctors to refuse to take part in an abortion for religious reasons, required signs in clinics saying abortions cannot be coerced and prohibited "wrongful-life lawsuits," in which a plaintiff argues that a disabled child would have been better off not being born. It also put restrictions on the morning-after pill.
Originally published at TimesWatch.org.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Okie's strike again.
Thu, 08/20/2009 - 14:14 ET by acaiguanaWell, it just goes to show. It's always something.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
Medical disclosure
Thu, 08/20/2009 - 14:26 ET by KC MulvilleSuppose the procedure wasn't abortion. Suppose the doctor was going to perform a heart transplant. Does anyone doubt that the lawyers would demand full disclosure of what the procedure would entail, and what the risks are?
Sorry if it's distasteful to advise the women that they might be killing a human life. And for anyone who might object that, come on, we should presume that the woman has already thought it all out ... how many adults (never mind scared teenagers) know what the fetus looks like at any given time?
A bit confused.
Thu, 08/20/2009 - 15:30 ET by DarasenMaybe I am being a bit dull but this articl confuses me abit. It seems to be saying that those who are pro-choice are not really for allowing women the ooportunity to make an informed decision. Wouldn't that fly in the face of logic?
Additionally are you telling me that one person has the power to impose his singular personal view over that of a duly elected legislative and executive branch simply because he is a judge? That does not seem to be the intent of the balance of powers. Seems rather skewered to me really.
They can write and pass a new law tomorrow
Thu, 08/20/2009 - 17:40 ET by sevenIt may be a year or two before a judge hears a case and it may not be this judge. Legislating from the bench is abortion and homosexual law. They can't win using normal votes and legislature.
No, Darasen, you're not confused
Thu, 08/20/2009 - 18:10 ET by Indiana JoeYou're exactly right. The problem is, this kind of pretzel-logic is de rigeur for the "pro-choice" movement. They don't want women to have all the facts to make their "choice," and they don't want "the people" (through their duly-elected representatives) to have any "choice" either.
The real problem is, we've all become complacently used to this kind of horsesh*t.
"Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1
But I'M a little confused...
Thu, 08/20/2009 - 18:15 ET by Indiana JoeSeems I heard about a ruling today that upheld a doctor informing a prospective abortive mother about the development of the fetus (don't recall ultrasound being mentioned, though), while striking down a provision that required her being warned about possible after-effects, including "depression," following the abortion.
It didn't sound anything like this story. Then again, I heard it on CBS radio, so who can say?
Anyone know anything that would help me here? Was there a different state that issued a different ruling today?
"Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1
The justice system in
Thu, 08/20/2009 - 18:28 ET by deerjerkydaveThe justice system in America seems bent on the destruction of the family.
What is wrong with being informed about a medical procedure? I would take this one step further, a woman seeking an abortion should also watch a video of one being performed. What's that? It would be emotionally wrenching to watch one? Perhaps that's your conscience talking. LISTEN TO IT!
Remember, according to liberals like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, abortion is designed to get rid of the type of people we don't want in society.
Okay just to get the
Thu, 08/20/2009 - 18:29 ET by Jack BauerOkay just to get the liberal Democrat line straight.
It's okay for the government to mandate and pay doctors to "counsel" the old on the pros and cons of terminating their lives.
But it's NOT okay for state to mandate and pay doctors to counsel the prgnant on the pros and cons of terminating the potential young.
Ah. Liberal logic at its finest.
Excellent contrast, JB. The
Sun, 08/23/2009 - 22:42 ET by Ken ShepherdExcellent contrast, JB.
The Oklahoma legislature may be able to re-pass this legislation as five separate bills. I would anticipate many of them being vetoed by the Democratic governor, but hopefully the votes would be there for an override, as it was on the original measure.
Anything that is not
Fri, 08/21/2009 - 06:39 ET by GrannyGrump42Anything that is not actively pro-abortion is, in the language of "choice", "antiabortion" (or even "antichoice").
If it's really about free choice, why do they want women making the decision in total information vacuums? Information about the fetus the abortion is about to destroy is the one thing regretful women insist they wish they'd been given prior to their abortions. So what possible motive can there be for wanting to give women the opportunity to screen themselves out if they are likely to not really want to destroy the fetus in question?
The abortion cabal is afraid
Fri, 08/21/2009 - 11:16 ET by c5thenThey are afraid that more women will understand that it's a baby in their womb.
They are afraid that women will actually be able to make an INFORMED decision rather than the one they would prefer.
Throw 'da bums out!
no incumbent re-elected, with very few exceptions!
www.loyaltoliberty.com