For the center for reproductive rights.....
Posted on 10/09/2009 3:40:31 AM PDT by prisoner6
On Nov. 1, a law in Oklahoma will go into effect that will collect personal details about every single abortion performed in the state and post them on a public website. Implementing the measure will “cost $281,285 the first year and $256,285 each subsequent year.” Here are the first eight questions that women will have to reveal:
1. Date of abortion
2. County in which abortion performed
3. Age of mother
4. Marital status of mother
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother
6. Years of education of mother
(specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother Live Births
Miscarriages
Induced Abortions
Although the questionnaire does not ask for name, address, or “any information specifically identifying the patient,” as Feminists for Choice points out, these eight questions could easily be used to identify a woman in a small community.
“They’re really just trying to frighten women out of having abortions,” Keri Parks, director of external affairs at Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma, said.
The Center for Reproductive Rights is challenging the law, arguing that “it violates the Oklahoma Constitution because it ‘covers more than one subject’ — a challenge that previously worked to strike down an abortion ultrasound law.
Personally I don't have a problem with it.
Apparently this is from a pro-abortion website...thinkprogress.org. At least that's what the comments imply. I didn't go to the main page.
prisoner6
For the center for reproductive rights.....
I think its a bad idea. Seems like a great way to entice a nutjob to attack.
Public Option should be public. Anyone who takes any public money, or services should be able to be looked up. Pelosi gets yet again another Michael Jackson skin stretch...public record.
It's not like they are going to do anything with these stats.
Wouldn’t this violate the HIPAA rules?
Has anyone fact-checked this? Sounds like at least some spinning going on here. It would be good to get a dispassionate account of what the law actually requires before teeing off on it.
From what I can see, reading Oklahoma HR 1595, it’s true.
Maybe OK should start requiring similar mandatory reporting & publication for everyone who gets a Rx for Viagra, receives treatment for STD’s, has a vasectomy, treated for testicular &/or prostate cancer. Stuff to keep the busybodies from getting bored, ya know.
The pro-aborts are always chirping about “education.” Let the facts be published far and wide.
I think it’s a great idea. Public humiliation is sometimes an effective deterrent.
That is BS and doesn’t belong in the public domain any more than treatment for STD or ownership of a firearm.
Would you advocate the same postings for a woman who gives up her baby for adoption?
“Would you advocate the same postings for a woman who gives up her baby for adoption?”
Negative. No life is lost when a baby is put up for adoption.
What a bunch of horse shit.
Collecting the details of individual abortions is not the same as publicizing them one-by-one. That is, of course, something the pro-abortion forces fail to tell you.
Kansas has a similar law, which is used to collect and report information in the aggregate, not on an individual basis. That information, gleaned from actual events, tends to paint a different picture about who is getting abortions and when during the course of the pregnancy they are performed than the pro-abortion forces would have others believe.
That, I suspect, is the reason for the opposition. It’s far more difficult to lie in the face of objective data that most recognize as accurate.
I understand that distinction but how do you justify posting all this information about someone who has a legal procedure?
But all I’ve read about this law indicates that the details of individual abortions will be publicized one-by-one online for all to see. So the good gossips of Oklahoma will be able to read that, say, a 33-year-old white married women with three live births, one miscarriage, and two years of college had an abortion on November 3rd, and they can eagerly deduce which friend, relative, or acquaintance that may be.
A lot of time, effort and money was spent drafting and implementing a law that is quite likely to be struck down in every court challenge it encounters.
Please substantiate with links the reason for your belief that the law will cause details of individual abortions to be disseminated to the local media.
Neighboring Kansas has a similar law, and nothing of the sort happens there. In Kansas, what is publicized is the statistical compilation, a summary based upon the data collected from, of course, individual abortions.
Given how HIPAA works, I am certain there is no chance of seeing data of the sort the Oklahoma law seeks to collect disseminated for individual procedures.
"The new law when it goes into effect will require abortion doctors to provide information on their female patients, including age, race, marital status, number of previous pregnancies and the reasons given for seeking an abortion. The information gathered from 37 separate sections of questions would then be provided to the Oklahoma State Department of Health, which would be required to produce an annual report on abortions performed in Oklahoma."
Independent substantiation that House Bill 1595 is not what the pro-abortion advocacy groups and posters attempt to portray, and will not result in the details of individual abortions being publicized. It is very much like the Kansas law, which has not resulted in the details of individual abortions being publicized.
So why, do you think, that the pro-abortion people misportray House Bill 1595? Without the collection and reporting (in aggregate) of that information, it is far easier to claim that few abortions are late-term, that few having them have previously had one, and any other number of things the pro-abortion people claim that, in fact, are untrue.
Read more: http://newsok.com/women-challenge-oklahoma-abortion-law/article/3404987#ixzz0TYyudXVN
I don’t think any link is necessary except that to the bill itself. I read Google’s cache at http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:u1Z5c_y3p60J:webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10HB/HB1595_int.rtf+oklahoma+%22house+bill+1595%22&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a but if that doesn’t work, you’ll have to open it as a Word doc from webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10HB/HB1595_int.rtf
No, I haven’t read it in depth. I’ve only scanned it, as large blocks of legalese tend to make me feel both sleepy and murderous. But one part I believe is relevant to the discussion here is in Section 5:
” D. The Department shall post the required Individual Abortion Form on its stable Internet website. Nothing in the Individual Abortion Form shall contain the name, address, or information specifically identifying any patient.”
The yearly report of aggregate data is addressed later in the bill, in Section 7. To me, it’s clear that that the annual report and its publication is a separate entity from the publication of individual data. And this is the reason that the Oklahoma bill is attracting more attention than did the Kansas aggregate report bill.
And it is certainly arguable that that form does not contain “information specifically identifying any patient.” Couple up age, race, educational level, marital status, type of health coverage or lack thereof, and number of children and miscarriages with the date of the abortion, and you tell me who doesn’t remember when so-and-so took the day off work, skipped school, or told you that she was going to do some shopping that day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.