We Wouldn’t Want To Get In Between a Patient and Their Doctor

Zealots:

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.

The first bill is shocking enough, but the second bill basically makes it legal for a doctor to lie to his patients. So much for informed consent in Oklahoma.

Republicans are now becoming a direct threat to your health if you are a woman.






87 replies
  1. 1
    JGabriel says:

    The first bill is vicious; the second, malicious.

    .

  2. 2
    sukabi says:

    looks like we’ve now got 2 states (Arizona & Oklahoma) where an Exodus is in order…

    and a huge reason to boycott both….

  3. 3
  4. 4
    Luthe says:

    …and these are the same people who work hard to block access to birth control. Oy vey.

  5. 5
    Punchy says:

    I’d love to see the AMA’s position on that second bill, that basically allows the doctor to lie about a diagnosis. That’s about as textbook a definition of “unethical” as it gets.

    Good fucking god.

  6. 6
    Midnight Marauder says:

    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.

    I did not think the march to Peak Wingnut could leave me this flabbergasted.

    Honestly, this is stunning. Not surprising, of course. But holy shit, is that a stunner.

  7. 7
    Mark S. says:

    How the hell did a Democrat get elected governor of Oklahoma in the first place, especially considering there are enough anti-choice goopers to override vetoes of these bills? But they aren’t done yet:

    Two other antiabortion bills are still working their way through the legislature. One would force women to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about their reasons for seeking an abortion and then post statistics online based on the answers. The other restricts insurance coverage for the procedure.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if they posted the names and addresses of the women, even if it was just an innocent administrative mistake.

  8. 8

    I typed something really nasty and decided against posting it. I have friends in both Arizona and Oklahoma who are mortified by what these atavists are doing. But, hey, Arizona has public financing of all state elections and it got them a fine and dandy group of deep thinkers willing to save us from all those brown folks. And, Oklahoma. Hey, its the home of Carrie Underwood. That has to count for something. Right?

  9. 9

    So what happens if the mandatory ultrasound shows a terribly deformed fetus? Does the doctor have to hit the patient over the head so she forgets?

  10. 10
    slag says:

    @Cerberus: My thoughts exactly.

    From promoting lax environmental regulations that allow heavy metals into our water and food supplies to promoting restrictions on women’s health care, Republicans are just plain bad for your health.

  11. 11
    FoxinSocks says:

    That’s just…insane. Totally insane. I would never have a child in Oklahoma (or in Utah..in my family, miscarriages are very, very common) because I couldn’t trust anything my doctor said.

  12. 12
    Warren Terra says:

    The first bill is pretty much the logical progression of the recent trend to delay and harass women seeking an abortion – and sometimes to lie about human development and health (see the forced-pregnancy faction’s lies about breast cancer for example), although this latter type of law is AFAIK quickly overturned.

    But the second bill has me quite flabbergasted. A doctor is being given carte blanche to lie to their patients about their patients’ conditions? And not to lie about generalities and beliefs about human lives, but about the patients’ individual medical condition? How can this be legal? Beyond that, how can it be consistent with medical practice? For all I disagree with the forced-pregnancy faction, I thought that some of them, and certainly some of their legislators, must cling to some semblance of sanity – even in Oklahoma.

  13. 13

    That second bill must somehow be unconstitutional. I don’t really know how and haven’t thought it through at all, but there just has to be a way that it can be overturned.

    Seriously, it’s just disturbed.

  14. 14
    Cerberus says:

    @slag:

    What’s the anti-war slogan? “War is not healthy for women, children, and other living things”?

    Yeah, insert Republicans for War and it works just as well.

  15. 15
    sukabi says:

    @kommrade reproductive vigor: if you can’t sue for medical malpractice for lying about the health of a fetus… then maybe you can sue to make the Doctor financially liable for all medical costs associated with the child born with birth defects…

  16. 16
    Laura W. says:

    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.

    Oh for fuck’s sake. Everyone knows that sluts women that get pregnant are too stupid and selfish to have even a tiny clue about what sorts of body parts a fetus has! Once educated, everyone wants to be a mommy!

    I rarely comment here out of outrage, because I have other priorities for my emotional and psychic energy, but this absolutely pushes me over the thin ledge of sanity I often teeter upon so precariously. I can hardly believe I just read this in 2010, frankly.

    I sorta feel sick now.

  17. 17
    Face says:

    Here’s the money question:

    Can the doctor tell the patient a falsehood if they ask, or just isn’t required to tell if not asked? If its the former, that should be criminal. If the latter, at least unethical, but it’s up to the patient to ask.

  18. 18
    beltane says:

    @Midnight Marauder: This will prevent parents who want to carry such a baby to term the right to prepare for the baby’s birth, both practically and emotionally. I don’t even think the actual Taliban is this backwards-ass.

  19. 19
    bemused says:

    I’ve rarely heard, maybe twicem an anti-choicer asked on news shows the question of what should happen to women who have abortions, jail or some other punishment. The anti-choicers really don’t want to answer that one & would pooh pooh the idea of jail time for the woman. Now I’m not so sure this would never happen in this country.

  20. 20
    Citizen Alan says:

    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.

    No exception for rape?!? IT IS RAPE!!! They want to force women to submit to having probes inserted into their vaginas against their will!! How is that NOT RAPE!!!

    I don’t consider Republicans to be human beings anymore. I just don’t. Almost every action a Republican takes when put in a position of authority is guaranteed to be malevolent in some sense. Being a liberal in a deeply Red state is like being Roddy Piper in They Live — you are constantly tormented by the fact that your world is ruled by hideous creatures that merely pretend to be human and don’t even do a very good job of that.

  21. 21
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @Face:

    Can the doctor tell the patient a falsehood if they ask, or just isn’t required to tell if not asked? If its the former, that should be criminal. If the latter, at least unethical, but it’s up to the patient to ask.

    Surely, you did not just put the onus for a doctor to correctly inform a patient of their diagnosis on the patient?

  22. 22
    burnspbesq says:

    Once again proving that people who think “The Handmaid’s Tale” is an instruction manual cannot be trusted with political power.

  23. 23
    kay says:

    This is the radical portion:

    1. Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly;

    They’ve mandated an intrusive medical procedure. We’re no longer just talking collecting an image from without.

    I can’t think of another law where the state mandates an internal medical procedure. Maybe someone can help me out, but I can’t come up with one. This goes further than evidence collection from someone charged with a crime, and that person is charged.

    If that isn’t scary, I don’t know what is.

  24. 24
    Splitting Image says:

    No exception for rape?!? IT IS RAPE They want to force women to submit to having probes inserted into their vaginas against their will!! How is that NOT RAPE

    Tut, tut. The probe may be mandatory, but it’s a mandatory component of a voluntary procedure.

    Nobody is making these women have abortions.

  25. 25
    Lurker says:

    So, who pays for the ultrasound? Taxpayers? Or do the victims of rape and incest get to pay for that, too?

  26. 26
    evinfuilt says:

    I am absolutely disgusted. I had a moment of hope when I heard the Governor there veto’d it, it meant there was hope in Oklahoma. I feel disgusted that these types of bills are becoming laws in our nation.

    I’m sure Brooks and Friedman will explain to us why the small gov tea partiers aren’t protesting these intrusions into our bodies… what? they won’t?

  27. 27
    Irony Abounds says:

    Coming from Arizona, I’m going to look on the bright side of this, we are not the biggest fucktard of a state in this country. Not that the Silver Medal is something to be proud about.

  28. 28
    Kyle says:

    making it a law that women undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion.

    And a new law that doesn’t exist but should, Xtians have to listen to a detailed description of the lies and fantasies lacking any evidence that make up the Bible and their religious dictates before getting a tax exemption for their church donation.

  29. 29
    BDeevDad says:

    Since these asses have no problem forcing women to deliver a baby conceived via rape, why are folks surprised that they legalize it.

    As for the second issue of allowing doctors to lie to their patients, FUCK them. If there is a chance of a birth defect and the doctor doesn’t speak up, they are putting the child’s life at risk. My daughter had an undiagnosed heart defect that caused her to lose 1 pound out of 8 at birth and she was on a feeding tube at two days old. Many kids have worse defects that if not known about could cause death in a manner of minutes or hours. Without a plan at birth, the doctors are running blind and are putting more lives at risk. Any doctor that does this should not only be sued, but lose their license.

  30. 30
    kay says:

    @evinfuilt:

    I think it was brave to veto it, and I really liked his comments. He knew they were going to over-ride the veto. It was a protest, and I appreciate that. It matters. Good man.

    They’re fanatics. He’ll catch hell. I hope he’s got a good lawyer a bodyguard and an alarm system in his house.

  31. 31
    Bonnie L. McLellan says:

    My jaw is dropping here. I am a nurse midwife in a public health clinic and cannot FATHOM not telling my patients the results of their antenatal testing. We have long discussions about “What would you do with this information?”, and I tell them that one of the reasons to be informed is to be ready. If the baby has problems, you need to be ready to deal with these problems at the time of birth, and most small community hospitals just are not staffed for that. I want the legislators of Oklahoma to be made completely aware every time the life quality of a baby with Down Syndrome or complex heart defects is even more compromised because the right numbers of nurses or other specialists weren’t on hand at their birth. Absolutely despicable. Absolutely despicable. This law must have come from some fundie doctor or midwife who is opposed to patient choice. I can’t believe that any medical provider could consider this behavior any kind of ethical.

  32. 32
    mds says:

    @Laura W.:

    I can hardly believe I just read this in 2010, frankly.

    Oh, come now, it’s not as if Republicans have been getting everything they want on issues like abortion. They’re discredited, don’t you know. Why would we want to fight fire with fire, when fire is so obviously ineffective?

  33. 33
    kay says:

    @Bonnie L. McLellan:

    I tell them that one of the reasons to be informed is to be ready

    My sister works with Downs kids and we had this exact conversation while I was pregnant. She told me parents of disabled kids do much better when they know ahead of time, because they acclimate to the idea over the course of the pregnancy.
    Not that these people actually care about anything practical like that.

  34. 34
    Laura W. says:

    @mds: Yeah, well, I’m really sleep deprived and +2 (shitty, oaky Chardonnay at that), so I’m sure I’m missing your point, and I apologize for that.

    My point was not about politics, per se, in the mircocosm. My point was that I thought/hoped, as a species, (marcrocosmically speaking), we’d be more evolved by 2010, and not devolving, for the most part.
    But I’m a dreamer. And an idiot.

  35. 35
    Keith says:

    Add another +1 to the “jaw-dropped” category. At face value, the notion that a physician would withold information from a patient about the health of their child seems to be contra to the Hippocratic oath, unless you automatically assume a mother will always abort a fetus with a birth defect rather than potentially prepare for dealing with a special-needs child.

  36. 36
    Mnemosyne says:

    @BDeevDad:

    If there is a chance of a birth defect and the doctor doesn’t speak up, they are putting the child’s life at risk.

    That’s the point, though — they. don’t. care. They actually, genuinely don’t care if a child lives or dies. All they care about is the power rush of being able to tell someone else that she’s not allowed to control her own body.

    It’s not even that they stop caring as soon as the baby is born. They stop caring the moment they’re able to force a woman to their will. After that, they don’t give a shit about a dead or disabled infant. In fact, they’ll whine about what a drain it is on their tax money and why did that woman have that baby to begin with.

  37. 37
    sfp says:

    Regarding the second bill, if I can’t sue the doctor for malpractice, can I sue him for child support?

  38. 38
    Irony Abounds says:

    I’m not a doctor, I don’t play one on tv, and I didn’t stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but if you find out you’re pregnant very early on, and want an abortion immediately it seems to me that an ultrasound isn’t going to show much of anything (by the end of the third week after fertilization the fetus is the size of a pin head).

    I’m quite sure the Teabaggers are up in arms about this government intervention in their lives…wait, you mean they aren’t?

  39. 39
    kay says:

    @Keith:

    At face value, the notion that a physician would withold information from a patient about the health of their child seems

    It’s interesting that they wrote a law to protect physicians who plan on withholding vital medical information based on their religious beliefs.

    I think it should go the other way. There should be a public registry of physicians who plan on withholding vital medical information based on their religious beliefs, so people who want to receive proper medical care can avoid them.

    I notice this ostensible goal of providing “information” only goes one way.

  40. 40
    soonergrunt says:

    And so many people around here wonder why I’m looking outside the state for work. I look at my daughter and see all the reason I need.

  41. 41
    YellowJournalism says:

    Those bastards. That’s the nicest thing I can say about the people who put these, especially number two, into law.

    A year ago I was faced with the possibility of birth defects in my second pregnancy. I was blessed by the fact that the tests revealed that we never had to finally make that decision, and I sit here with tears in my eyes for those who will and for those who will never get the chance to make those important life choices because someone else is stepping in to make it for them. We’ve had friends who had to terminate late in the pregnancy because the child would have had major birth defects and had no chance to live beyond a few hours of suffering. It’s not about making life easier for the parents. It’s not about throwing away a baby.

  42. 42
    Genine says:

    That’s the point, though—they. don’t. care. They actually, genuinely don’t care if a child lives or dies. All they care about is the power rush of being able to tell someone else that she’s not allowed to control her own body.

    It’s not even that they stop caring as soon as the baby is born. They stop caring the moment they’re able to force a woman to their will. After that, they don’t give a shit about a dead or disabled infant. In fact, they’ll whine about what a drain it is on their tax money and why did that woman have that baby to begin with.

    This is exactly it. What they’re doing in Oklahoma does not surprise me. There absolutely nothing I won’t put past them- nothing. They’re psychopaths.

    One thing I have to note. What is this “Republicans are *now* becoming…” business? This has been the case for quite some time. Unless you mean *now* in the metaphysical and/or quantum sense that all time is one and all time is now.

  43. 43
    Bnut says:

    Simply speechless…..well, not quite. I’m posting this in as many internet localities as possible. My cousin is a doctor and when I sent this to him, all he responded with was “HOLY SHIT!!!”.

    If I’m on a jury and the case involves a man or woman who shoots a doctor who didn’t tell them their child had a deformity, I acquit.

  44. 44
    curious says:

    @Midnight Marauder: the phrasing makes it sound as though one of those “you forgot to tell us the fetus had three heads” lawsuits has already been filed.

  45. 45
    RedKitten says:

    There are just no words. I’m absolutely gobsmacked.

    These people truly are psychopaths — there’s no other word for it.

  46. 46
    Walker says:

    While the second is not illegal, it sounds like grounds for other states to refuse reciprocity for medical licenses from Oklahoma.

  47. 47
    Church Lady says:

    @Citizen Alan: Um, they don’t stick a “probe” up your vajayjay to do an ultrasound. They run an imaging instrument over your stomach.

    This first law, while intrusive, is not so out of bounds that it causes my hair to stand straight up. The second does. That’s just wrong. Damn.

  48. 48
    Maude says:

    @Laura W.:
    You are right to be outraged. There are certain aspects of the country that are like 100 years ago.
    There will be legal challenges to both of these extreme laws.
    Forcing someone to have a medical test can’t be legal.
    And saying a doc can lie????
    I am very tired and can’t express my disgust. Speaking of discrimination against women.
    Thanks and have a glass of wine on me.
    All I can say is Jeebus.

  49. 49
    kay says:

    @Church Lady:

    Nope. Wrong.

    1. Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly

  50. 50
    RedKitten says:

    @Church Lady: Actually, sometimes they do. And in this case, the decision will not be left up to the woman.

    From the WSJ:

    The ultrasound law drew an immediate suit, filed in state court and backed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, which said it violated abortion providers’ free-speech and equal-protection rights. In addition to requiring whatever type of ultrasound would present the clearest image—often a vaginal one—the law says doctors or technicians must describe the ultrasound results to the woman.

  51. 51
    Bob K says:

    The Puritans will not rest until Roe vs. Wade is overturned. Seriously

  52. 52
    Honus says:

    @kay: Oh come on. forcing a woman to have probe inserted into her body and making her watch a video of a fetus isn’t nearly as unconstitutional as mandating that a 25 year old buy health insurance. teabaggers Ho!

  53. 53
    jackie says:

    @Church Lady: Pay attention. the law mandates the use of transvaginal ultrasound if it gives the best view of the fetus. That is a probe up your vagina and it almost always is going to be arguably needed. How could you know with out doing both which is best? Did these jackasses include a” cannot sue the doctor for doing invasive proceedure without consent” rider on their fascist takeover of healthcare?

  54. 54
    Honus says:

    If the majority of people in these states actually want these laws, don’t just let them secede, throw them the fuck out. Give Oklahoma to the Cherokee Nation and let Mexico have Arizona, and throw in Texas to sweeten the deal. This will instantly be a much better country.

  55. 55
    curious says:

    @Bonnie L. McLellan: i wonder if sen. coburn, md has made any comments on the laws.

  56. 56
    kay says:

    @Bob K:

    Oh, they could have overturned Roe long ago. Justice Roberts has very little respect for precedent, we have learned.

    They’ve had five Justices for a good long time.

    Roe is a good national fund-raising tool, for conservatives.

  57. 57
    jwb says:

    @Bob K: That’s optimistic. Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned, they wouldn’t stop. Once that’s overturned they’d simply turn to the pill, contraception, women working, whatever.

  58. 58
    WereBear says:

    @Citizen Alan: Being a liberal in a deeply Red state is like being Roddy Piper in They Live—you are constantly tormented by the fact that your world is ruled by hideous creatures that merely pretend to be human and don’t even do a very good job of that.

    I know, I know! I’m glad I got out when I was young.

  59. 59
    Mark S. says:

    @kay:

    They don’t have five votes, otherwise they would have already done it.

    Kennedy sure as hell isn’t one of the strongest supporters of abortion, but he was one of the authors of Casey.

  60. 60
    And Another Thing... says:

    @Church Lady: I read a few days ago about the vaginal probe requirement, which I believe the law does require.

    I cannot imagine seeing a physcian who would lie to me about either my health or the health of my fetus. It is an ABSOLUTE abomination that the Legislature passed these bills.

  61. 61
    Gregory says:

    @Citizen Alan:

    No exception for rape?!? IT IS RAPE They want to force women to submit to having probes inserted into their vaginas against their will!! How is that NOT RAPE

    I’m outraged too, but if memory serves me right, an ultrasound is conducted externally, not internally.

    ETA: While the external sensor was used the two times my wife was pregnant, further comments indicate a vaginal probe may be required by the law. Yuck.

  62. 62
    And Another Thing... says:

    @Honus: WIN !!

  63. 63
    Mark S. says:

    Apparently, Oklahoma courts struck down a similar ultrasound law earlier this year:

    In an opinion issued late Tuesday, the state Supreme Court said, “We are growing weary of admonishing the Legislature for so flagrantly violating the terms of the Oklahoma Constitution. It is a waste of time for the Legislature and the Court, and a waste of the taxpayers’ money.”

    I don’t know what the fuck the “single-subject” rule is in the Oklahoma constitution, but that appears why the Court struck it down.

  64. 64
    limniade says:

    I have an idea. Should a woman end up with a baby that was born with birth defects for which she was not warned in advance, she should sue the legislators who voted for the law. If they want women to have kids so badly that they’re willing to allow doctors to lie, then they can pay for them.

  65. 65
    Tlazolteotl says:

    Single subject rule

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-subject_rule

    I can’t imagine that most doctors would abide by that second law, but I’m sure there will be an injunction blocking it while it is challenged.

    Right?

  66. 66
    Mark S. says:

    @Tlazolteotl:

    Yeah, I’m sure it’ll be challenged. I have no idea about an injunction.

    Never heard of that rule. It sounds a bit silly to me.

  67. 67
    Cynicor says:

    Sure, this law is one typically grotesque result of GOP rule in states. But look on the bright side – they’ll cut someone else’s taxes by a little!

  68. 68
    PhoenixRising says:

    @sfp: I don’t think you have a claim to child support against a doctor who withholds information developed by fetal testing.

    You might well have a fraud suit, though. Or their insurer does. Somebody paid for that test. This law protects the doctor from a malpractice suit for using his judgment. It doesn’t immunize him from fraud and actual damages. It’s a lawyer’s dream, on both sides. Oklahoma LUVs to pay attorneys’ fees to find out what’s considered common sense in other place.

  69. 69
    And Another Thing... says:

    @Mark S.: The single subject rule is quite common. In practice it keeps bills from having something very attractive, like say tax cuts, and larding the bill with other items that wouldn’t pass on their own. Obviously Congress doesn’t have this requirement, but many states do. It doesn’t mean that only one statute can be amended, it means an issue is handled on it’s own merits.

  70. 70
    PhoenixRising says:

    @Honus:

    Give Oklahoma to the Cherokee Nation and let Mexico have Arizona, and throw in Texas to sweeten the deal

    I’m okay with the Cherokees running OK. I’m down with giving Chihuahua back its problem areas (Reverse Gadsden). But what evidence do you have that México wants to administer Arizona? They DO have a form of national health care, and all those old people would be a significant burden on that system.

    Texas, I’m afraid, is an example of the Pottery Barn rule of political borders: You broke it, you own it. Texas was not the most picturesque or historically significant part of the 1st Republic of Mexico, and we can’t say we’ve improved it a great deal. Additionally, at this time I don’t think they’re required to accept its return. Did we keep the receipt?

    In closing: I’m willing to be surrounded by Mexico, but I think Colorado might get nervous.

  71. 71
    Mayken says:

    @Mark S.: Seriously, it is time for women to just flee these Talibangical states! I think we liberals ought to start a fund to help women move to more pro-woman homes.

  72. 72
    Ash Can says:

    Cerberus @ #3 is right. The Republicans became a direct threat to women’s health a long time ago.

    The women living in Oklahoma need to start moving out now, before the state starts building ovens.

  73. 73
    Smedley says:

    @Mark S.: Single subject requires each piece of legislation deal with one subject. The earlier (thrown out legislation) combined two separate issues; I believe it was the two that are under discussion here. So the legislators reintroduced these two items as separate bills. Basterds!

  74. 74
    soonergrunt says:

    @Mark S.: The Single Subject rule is a requirement under the OK state constitution that requires any and all laws passed by the legislature to address one single subject per law. Any time a law addresses more than one subject (and the term is very narrowly defined by OK law and precedent) that law is unconstitutional in Oklahoma.
    The single subject rule is so narrow that it has been used to overturn laws that addressed what would commonly be thought of as different aspects of the same subject under the legal theory that each aspect of a commonly thought subject is a single subject under the OK constitution and must be treated as such.

    That fact is abused in many ways. The winger legislature will intentionally write laws that are flat out unconstitutional, knowing that the supreme court will save their bacon. This allows them to constantly use things like abortion and other such as fundraising issues by constantly bringing up the subject over and over again. It costs the state hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in litigation costs.

  75. 75
    TenguPhule says:

    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.

    Great, they shove a big-ass probe (mandated oversized special designed by the Oklamoma Taliban) to sneak a peek at a pin sized blob of basic cells and have the imagination fairy paint a big lying picture of what isn’t there.

    For fucks sake, any “conservative” woman who supports this law deserves what they get under it.

  76. 76
    soonergrunt says:

    @Tlazolteotl: The last abortion law was injuncted (is that even a word?) almost immediately while it was litigated and then found unconstitutional under the OK single subject rule.
    The reason that law was challenged on that one was because it was thought by the challengers to be the easiest to litigate and by only challenging on that merit, it would leave open litigation routes under privacy rights and other issues. Nobody really expected to win that issue so convincingly.

  77. 77
    soonergrunt says:

    @limniade: Well this is the legislature that just passed a law requiring insurance companies to cover Autism Spectrum Disorder kids just like other kids, but also passed a resolution demanding that the state attorney general join the lawsuit against HCR.

  78. 78
    Mark S. says:

    @soonergrunt:

    I could see the appeal of preventing the legislature from sneaking controversial provisions in a popular bill, but it would seem to me that any complicated legislation would deal with more than one subject, especially if you defined “subject” very narrowly.

    Oh well, that’s kind of a side issue.

  79. 79
    soonergrunt says:

    @Mark S.: Well, it’s not like the Oklahoma legislature is renown for doing anything more than giving themselves pay raises, so there’s no real problem with have to take time to actually carefully craft legislation. They wouldn’t progress any faster anyway.

  80. 80
    Yutsano says:

    @soonergrunt:

    The last abortion law was injuncted (is that even a word?)

    It is if you choose for it to be. English is an amazingly flexible language, although I’m certain a few of our resident English experts would corroborate that fact.

    Oh and welcome back good sir.

  81. 81

    @soonergrunt:

    injuncted (is that even a word?)

    Yes.

  82. 82
    Xenos says:

    @Mayken:

    I think we liberals ought to start a fund to help women move to more pro-woman homes.

    If they manage to make it illegal to help a minor/minor (a distinction without a difference to the reactionaries) cross state lines for medical care then we will need an underground railroad.

  83. 83

    […] makes you something like serfs, yes? See also John Cole. Spotlight No […]

  84. 84
    Bill In OH says:

    @Mnemosyne:
    This is exactly right and needs to be shouted from the rooftops. There is no reasoning here. It’s just sheer bullying.

  85. 85
    Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion says:

    @Tlazolteotl: completely OT, but I just have to tell you how much I love your handle. The Eater of Filth is one of my Precious Deities. Thank you for remembering Her here.

  86. 86
    Fallsroad says:

    I live in Tulsa, FSM help me.

    Mind boggling. Perhaps its time for Soviet era style birth quotas for (white) women. Let’s just bypass all this pussyfooting about and get to the heart of what these reactionary asswipes really want.

    Next up: prosecutorial immunity for blowing up clinics and shooting doctors who provide women’s health services.

    Maybe we can elect Eric Rudolph dictator for life, ’cause freedom’s just another word for what conservatives want to do…

  87. 87
    Fallsroad says:

    How the hell did a Democrat get elected governor of Oklahoma in the first place, especially considering there are enough anti-choice goopers to override vetoes of these bills?

    See Steve Largent and the vagaries of open mics and poorly run campaigns, plus cock fighting bans and the southeastern part of the state.

    No kidding.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] makes you something like serfs, yes? See also John Cole. Spotlight No […]

Comments are closed.