Skip

Sen. Lamb is confident that the bill will be upheld, calling it "common-sense legislation"
October 15, 2009 1:31 PM   Subscribe

On May 21, 2009, Oklahoma's governor signed the Statistical Reporting of Abortion Act (pdf). The act requires, as a condition of having the procedure done, that each woman fill out an "Individual Abortion Form" containing personal details, including age, county where abortion was performed, race, marital status, years of education, state of residence, number and result of previous pregnancies, and the reason for the abortion.

This is not Oklahoma's first attempt to curb abortion rights. In 2008, an omnibus abortion bill required women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound, view it, and listen to a description of its attributes. Passed over the governor's veto, it was struck down last August on the grounds that it violated the Oklahoma state constitution, which requires that bills deal with only one subject. No ruling was given on substantive grounds.

It looks like challenges to the current law will be made on the same grounds. The Individual Abortion Forms will be posted on the Oklahoma State Health Department website.
posted by cereselle (131 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
Maybe they could also pass a law where a man is required to view a picture of a bawling newborn and listen to a description of its attributes before he can engage in copulation with a woman.
posted by GuyZero at 1:34 PM on October 15, 2009 [72 favorites]


Good grief. You'd think the state government of Oklahoma would have better things to do with their time... http://www.uschamber.com/icw/reportcard/default
posted by Maisie at 1:35 PM on October 15, 2009


Makes me wish I could go have an abortion right now.

Reason: To spite the governor.

Seriously, what the hell is with this shit? People don't need to fill out forms explaining their intent when they have other medical procedures. I am pretty sure the "reason" for each one is "to remove the embryo from my uterus."
posted by explosion at 1:36 PM on October 15, 2009


Every man who wants to ingest viagra in OK has to fill out an 'Individual Erection Form' containing personal details, including age, county where the erection will be achieved, race, marital status, years of education, state of residence, number and result of previous erections, and the reason for the erection. No word on whether a notarized co-signature will be required from the receiving party/parties/internet provider.
posted by drowsy at 1:39 PM on October 15, 2009 [60 favorites]


The form also asks the respondent why they have not yet accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior and to explain, in paragraph form, why they have chosen to ignore God's Word in their lives.
posted by Avenger at 1:39 PM on October 15, 2009 [22 favorites]


I suppose I should have written "engage in coitus" or "copulate" but not the love-child phrasing of the two.
posted by GuyZero at 1:41 PM on October 15, 2009


If I'm ever in Oklahoma for an abortion, I'm going to tape a printout of the goatse.cx guy to this form for no other reason than those assholes should have to see that guy's asshole.
posted by ben242 at 1:42 PM on October 15, 2009 [3 favorites]


As if the reason is ever going to be "I love killing babies!!!"
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 1:44 PM on October 15, 2009 [3 favorites]


"reason: (s)he would have to live in Oklahoma."
posted by zippy at 1:45 PM on October 15, 2009 [50 favorites]


It's 2009--why is everyone still scared of women's sexuality?
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 1:46 PM on October 15, 2009 [8 favorites]


Makes me want to claim to be pregnant and go have a D&C in OK. I can honestly understand being anti-abortion, but this is clearly woman-hating. These people just suck.
posted by theora55 at 1:46 PM on October 15, 2009 [4 favorites]


Wait until the Republicans hear about this government intrusion into private peoples lives. They'll never stand for it.

Stupid liberals and their Big Government. Will they never learn ?
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 1:46 PM on October 15, 2009 [62 favorites]


And it's going to cost "$281,285 to implement, $256,285 each subsequent year to maintain"?

How about spending that "$281,285 to implement, $256,285 each subsequent year" on the many actually born children in Oklahoma who go without proper food, shelter, or health care?
posted by lullaby at 1:47 PM on October 15, 2009 [26 favorites]


I was surprised that no one posted about this when it first came up a few days ago.

I guess all I can say is: Thanks, Oklahoma... for making Utah look good by comparison.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:47 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


Given that we managed to get abortion legalized via the privacy route (and while I love privacy, I agree that it wasn't exactly spelled out in the Constitution in big bold print), won't this utterly fail on those particular grounds?
posted by adipocere at 1:50 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


I hope some woman writes in as the reason for the abortion "Failed math, did not know 1+1 can equal 3".
posted by Cranberry at 1:51 PM on October 15, 2009 [3 favorites]


How about spending that "$281,285 to implement, $256,285 each subsequent year" on the many actually born children in Oklahoma who go without proper food, shelter, or health care?

If you're poor you deserve it. Obviously.

This is a serious WTF. Is there any reason to think this won't get shot down super fast. This seems like it should violate all sorts of laws, no? (Medical privacy laws?)
posted by chunking express at 1:51 PM on October 15, 2009


How will this stand under Roe v. Wade's guarantee to privacy between a woman and her doctor?
posted by hippybear at 1:51 PM on October 15, 2009 [2 favorites]


Every day I try to find as many things as possible I can apply the phrase "Wow, that's terrible!" to.

This is one of them.

Also, thank you Oklahoma, for making Wyoming look good by comparison.

"Wyoming: At least we have Yellowstone."
posted by elder18 at 1:54 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


I failed to add that the Individual Abortion Forms will be posted on the Oklahoma State Health Department website.

what
posted by atrazine at 1:56 PM on October 15, 2009


The Individual Abortion Forms will be posted on the Oklahoma State Health Department website.

Look, I think this is batshit crazy in some ways also, but did anyone read the act to the point where these forms will not have any personally identifying information about the patient [name and address, for example] and in fact the act goes to some lengths to make certain that people can't be identified by the information they provide on the forms.

I think this is a big scare tactic because of course all of the personally identifying information about the physicians -- pretty much any physician who is involved, not just the one providing the abortion (and this includes non-surgical abortions like RU-486) is right there on the document.

Is any one else freaked out that this whole thing looks a lot like it was all typed out on a typewriter?
posted by jessamyn at 1:56 PM on October 15, 2009 [4 favorites]


This is the state represented by Tom Colburn and James Inhofe (the global warming denier) in the senate.
posted by delmoi at 1:58 PM on October 15, 2009


Green Eyed Monster: "It's 2009--why is everyone still scared of women's sexuality?"

Look, these sluts aren't going to shame themselves.
posted by Joe Beese at 1:58 PM on October 15, 2009 [13 favorites]


Some of you misunderstand. The goal is not for the law to stand, which it won't. The goal is to continue to get re-elected for fighting abortion despite the activist judges who are thumbing their nose at God and Decency. Abortion is far too valuable to these people legal than it is illegal.
posted by Legomancer at 1:59 PM on October 15, 2009 [14 favorites]


that's all fine and dandy, just as long as they don't have to fill out a census form.
posted by Think_Long at 1:59 PM on October 15, 2009 [3 favorites]


How can they make paperwork a compulsory part of a medical procedure, for which they aren't any party to? What penalties are there for lying when filling out the paperwork - for the woman or doctor?

Lets pass a law in CA that requires women who get a boob job to have to fill out an "Individual Breast Augmentation Form". (not that a boob job is in any way comparable to abortion, its just that it seem just about as ridiculous)
posted by SirOmega at 2:00 PM on October 15, 2009


Look, I think this is batshit crazy in some ways also, but did anyone read the act to the point where these forms will not have any personally identifying information about the patient [name and address, for example] and in fact the act goes to some lengths to make certain that people can't be identified by the information they provide on the forms.

The problem is there's probably enough data to identify people individually. Especially name, age, ethnicity, marital status, years of education, and county. There have been studies that show people can be uniquely identified by that much data. (or at least be narrowed down to a small group of people)
posted by delmoi at 2:00 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


it's odd, my first reaction to this was "hmmm, privacy violation, bad . . . but couldn't this information be pretty useful for research?" but then I thought that it would be most useful for all the wrong types of research.
posted by Think_Long at 2:00 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


Hell, Oklahoma makes Texas look good by comparison. Also Florida.
posted by thewittyname at 2:02 PM on October 15, 2009 [2 favorites]


Jessamyn, it's true that no names or addresses are listed, but the fact that the individual forms, not just statistics derived from those forms, will be on the website seems to me to be an intimidation tactic. Many women seeking abortions feel awfully vulnerable at that time, and to be told "okay, you have to answer all these questions, and we're going to post your answers for the world to see" would probably freak them out significantly. Which is the purpose, I have no doubt.

Don't even get me started on the wording of "mother" and "unborn child" used in the bill.
posted by cereselle at 2:03 PM on October 15, 2009 [5 favorites]


There have been studies that show people can be uniquely identified by that much data. (or at least be narrowed down to a small group of people)

"Anonymized" data really isn't—and here's why not

posted by SirOmega at 2:04 PM on October 15, 2009 [12 favorites]


How can this be manditory when it's not covered by insurance. It violates medical rights of privacy.

OK can go screw.
posted by stormpooper at 2:05 PM on October 15, 2009


"Common-sense legislation"?

If I'm getting a mole removed, I don't have to fill out a mole history form for a public database has all my identifying information minus my name on it. You either do it for all medical procedures if there is some sort of actual reason, or you don't do it for any, especially not one that's basically the 21st century version of being put in the stocks and subject to public scrutiny and attack.
posted by cmgonzalez at 2:07 PM on October 15, 2009


And if this is required, I want to know why a man needs Viagra and publically post that on the internet.
posted by stormpooper at 2:10 PM on October 15, 2009


Is any one else freaked out that this whole thing looks a lot like it was all typed out on a typewriter?

Seems appropriate enough, given the fact that the values inherent in this sort of legislation are that antiquated.
posted by cmgonzalez at 2:10 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


Delmoi, "county" in the bill refers to the county in which the abortion was performed, not the county of residence. The first still sounds like it could be used to identify women, but for the fact that there are only six abortion providers in Oklahoma. (The lawprofessors blog link above says three. Not sure where that info came from.)
posted by cereselle at 2:11 PM on October 15, 2009


It's 2009--why is everyone still scared of women's sexuality?

C'mon. I'm pro choice, but conflating an antiabortion sentiment with a fear of women's sexuality is about the dumbest comment I've read on Metafilter in weeks.
posted by xmutex at 2:12 PM on October 15, 2009 [5 favorites]


It violates medical rights of privacy.

Surely it violates HIPPA. I mean, damn, all the fuss they made when THAT went into effect. Signs in pharmacies telling me that I have to stand 5-10' back from the counter to wait in line because I might learn something about the person being served inadvertently. And now they want to post this form on the internet? Yeah, that won't play.
posted by hippybear at 2:14 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


This Lamb sells bullshit.
posted by oaf at 2:16 PM on October 15, 2009 [2 favorites]


C'mon. I'm pro choice, but conflating an antiabortion sentiment with a fear of women's sexuality is about the dumbest comment I've read on Metafilter in weeks.

I really don't think they're that unrelated.

would this really be covered under hippa though? I'm no lawyer, but does this type of demographic data qualify under those rules?
posted by Think_Long at 2:18 PM on October 15, 2009


When I visited Texas, six separate people told me some variation of this joke:

Why doesn't Texas float off into the Gulf?

Because Oklahoma sucks.

"If I'm ever in Oklahoma for an abortion, I'm going to tape a printout of the goatse.cx guy to this form for no other reason than those assholes should have to see that guy's asshole."

If you're ever in Oklahoma for an abortion? Isn't that like, "If I'm ever in LA for the clean air"?
posted by klangklangston at 2:20 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


'It's 2009--why is everyone still scared of women's sexuality?'

C'mon. I'm pro choice, but conflating an antiabortion sentiment with a fear of women's sexuality is about the dumbest comment I've read on Metafilter in weeks.


It's not exactly fear of sexuality, it's control of sexuality to control the individual to control the people. (Which seems to be a fundamental part of Abrahamic religions as they are practiced.) I'm not saying priests consciously work through these steps every time they preach, but it's one of the reasons why the religions are so successful.
posted by sebastienbailard at 2:21 PM on October 15, 2009 [3 favorites]


I was born and raised in Oklahoma, but stuff like this makes me more glad each year that I moved to Texas in '96.
posted by mrbill at 2:24 PM on October 15, 2009


It's 2009--why is everyone still scared of women's sexuality?

It's not everyone - just a small but very vocal band of religious fascists, who happen to hold a bit of power in a few places in the US. Most of the rest of the world doesn't have this problem.
posted by deadmessenger at 2:26 PM on October 15, 2009


I was born and raised in Oklahoma, but stuff like this makes me more glad each year that I moved to Texas in '96.

WOOOO Red River rivalry hook 'em! Hrmmm..
posted by xmutex at 2:27 PM on October 15, 2009


Will Glenn Beck report on this insidious attempt at Big Brother-ism in Oklohoma, a CLEAR power grab by the government to reach into the private lives of women?

Probably not. I bet he even supports it if he discusses it at all, he'll talk about how this is good government.
posted by NiteMayr at 2:28 PM on October 15, 2009


Will Glenn Beck report on this insidious attempt at Big Brother-ism in Oklohoma, a CLEAR power grab by the government to reach into the private lives of women?

You see, the douchebag wins if in every ethics-tinged Metafilter thread someone is going to ask WWGBD?
posted by xmutex at 2:32 PM on October 15, 2009 [2 favorites]


people are so nice
i feel guilty hating them
trapped in OKC
posted by HyperBlue at 2:37 PM on October 15, 2009


"REASON GIVEN FOR ABORTION (check all applicable):
...
Mother is currently or temporarily on welfare or pubic assistance _____________"


I want to get an abortion in OK for the sole purpose of marking that down as the reason. Isn't that the entire point of the Pro-Choice Movement, that we don't want or need pubic assistance from the Federal Government?
posted by spinifex23 at 2:48 PM on October 15, 2009


while I love privacy, I agree that it wasn't exactly spelled out in the Constitution in big bold print

Emphasis added:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Also:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:50 PM on October 15, 2009 [4 favorites]


Holy catoot, look at the left-wing loonies come out in full force.
posted by jock@law at 2:50 PM on October 15, 2009


Isn't that the entire point of the Pro-Choice Movement, that we don't want or need pubic assistance from the Federal Government?

what? am I missing something?

I'll ignore the really tempting typo right now.
posted by Think_Long at 2:50 PM on October 15, 2009 [2 favorites]


"Individual Abortion Forms or Complications of Induced Abortion Reports that are not submitted by the end of a grace period of thirty (30) days following the due date shall be subject to a late fee of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for each additional thirty-day period the forms or reports are overdue.

Any monies collected under this subsection shall be deposited into an account created within the Department, which shall be used for the administration of the Statistical Reporting of Abortion Act.

Any physician required to report in accordance with the Statistical Reporting of Abortion Act who has not completed and electronically submitted a form or report, or has submitted only an incomplete form or report, more than one (1) year following the due date shall be precluded from renewing his or her license until such fines are paid in full and outstanding forms or reports are submitted,

... and may, in an action brought by the State Department of Health, be directed by a court of competent jurisdiction to electronically submit completed forms or reports within a period stated by court order ...

... or be subject to sanctions for civil contempt.

"Anyone who knowingly or recklessly fails to submit an Individual Abortion Form or Complications of Induced Abortion Report, or submits false information under the Statistical Reporting of Abortion Act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
posted by WCityMike at 2:51 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


jock@law: Holy catoot, look at the left-wing loonies come out in full force.

Have anything to add to the discussion but an ad hominem?
posted by WCityMike at 2:52 PM on October 15, 2009


[Link to the text of the form or something, please; posting the whole thing in here is way too big.]
posted by cortex at 2:55 PM on October 15, 2009


I want to know why a man needs Viagra and publically post that on the internet.

Well, normally I don't, but you know there was that rough patch where things just weren't working, and then there was the time I found out that some men get an erection that lasts more than 4 hours, and I have a right to that as well, right?

Oh, you didn't mean me.

On a serious note, I bet the law is also there to complicate things for the doctors, so the state can come back and say, "You filled out the 27bslash6 form incorrectly. That's one night in the box!" (If I don't mix my metaphor can I mix my movies?)

And from the metadata of the pdf:
/Title (p:\\Legislation\\52nd\\2009\\1R\\HB\\1595.tif)
/Creator (TIFF2PDF v1.14a5k, 2000-02-04)
/CreationDate (D:20090522093203)
/Producer ([ClibPDF Library 2.02-r1-1] Windows 9x/NT)
/Author (User: Windows NT/95/98 User)
/Title (PDF file created from a TIFF image by tiff2pdf)
/Subject (Created from a TIFF image using ClibPDF/Premium - www.fastio.c)
/Keywords (ClibPDF)


/Type /Pages
/Count 30
/Kids [ 5 0 R 7 0 R 9 0 R 11 0 R 13 0 R 15 0 R 17 0 R 19 0 R 21 0 R 23 0 R 25 0 R 27 0 R 29 0 R 31 0 R 33 0 R 35 0 R 37 0 R 39 0 R 41 0 R 43 0 R 45 0 R 47 0 R 49 0 R 51 0 R 53 0 R 55 0 R 57 0 R 59 0 R 61 0 R 63 0 R ]
So it does appear to be a typewritten document canned in and converted to a PDF. Someone is doing it wrong.

Also, Windows NT/95/98 User? Really?
posted by cjorgensen at 2:55 PM on October 15, 2009 [3 favorites]


Teen birth rate in Oklahoma rises to No. 6 in nation.

C'mon. I'm pro choice, but conflating an antiabortion sentiment with a fear of women's sexuality is about the dumbest comment I've read on Metafilter in weeks.

"...the leaders of the abortion criminalization movement...routinely endorse policies that make a lot of sense if their goal is to penalize women who have sex..." The accompanying chart evaluates whether antiabortion positions are logically consistent with considering abortion murder versus punishing women's sexuality.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:57 PM on October 15, 2009 [19 favorites]


Holy catoot, look at the left-wing loonies come out in full force.

Yeah, there is most assuredly not a single right-wing loony involved in this particular debate at all. Because we all know how mild-mannered the right wing is about abortion.
posted by blucevalo at 3:00 PM on October 15, 2009 [5 favorites]


cortex: [Link to the text of the form or something, please; posting the whole thing in here is way too big.]

Alrighty, a weird deletion considering the form is the thread's discussion topic, but here.
posted by WCityMike at 3:03 PM on October 15, 2009


Alrighty, a weird deletion considering the form is the thread's discussion topic

It's a pragmatic deletion, since the pastejob was pages long and invoked a bunch of horizontal scroll. I'm not questioning your motives or anything, but the comment was a big mess in the thread.
posted by cortex at 3:05 PM on October 15, 2009


Oh, right. The Metafilter mods are deleting comments that have differing opinions on abortion.

Cool.
posted by xmutex at 3:05 PM on October 15, 2009


Fiddling fuck, I removed a paste of what WCityMike just linked to. That is all.
posted by cortex at 3:08 PM on October 15, 2009 [6 favorites]


That Oklahoma is trying to make this unethically conceived and written bullshit a legal requirement is transparent harassment at best and clearly designed to mix bad science with intimidation.

But...
If there was a nation wide survey with no legal requirements of the women involved that was properly written and conducted by some ethically accountable, politically neutral, and vaguely intelligent entity (ie: not the Oklahoma State legislature). I'm sure the compiled and processed data could be invaluable to the national discussion. Whether it favors [Insert your favorite pro-whatever assumptions about abortions] or not.

I for one would be very happy if this bill were rewritten as an open grant opportunity aimed at say, the University of Oklahoma which has already demonstrated its academic integrity to the State.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:08 PM on October 15, 2009


Oh good lord, it gives partial-birth abortion as one of the possible methods, which isn't a medical term, and includes a separate question about fetuses born alive after abortion. Idiocy.
posted by Mavri at 3:09 PM on October 15, 2009


Yes. I have this to add: "ad hominem" is an accepted part of the English language, and while its roots are in Latin, it is no longer considered a foreign term. It is therefore unnecessary to italicize it, as is sometimes the custom with foreign phrases newly coming into vogue in English-language expressions. Compare "per se" with "raison d'être"

Also, I have nothing to "add" because this subject has been hashed out a thosuand times. Abortion is wrong because it is the killing of a human being for no justifiable reason. No argument that a healthy fetus is a not-person is tenable. Arguments that unhealthy fetuses are not-people are only slightly moreso. Even if such arguments were tenable, that wouldn't mean their opposites were untenable; the position that a mitotically-growing group of cells with its own genetic makeup and its own developing nervous system is alive is certainly not ipso facto unreasonable, and it's undeniable that - if a life - it is a human life. The whole "ohh lets bash as a right-wing extremist fundie religious nutjob anyone who thinks fetuses shouldnt be crushed" groupthink is cruel, savage, and scientifically unsound. Another word for "cruel, savage and scientifically unsound" is, ad vulgatum if you will, "looney"; I don't think my comment was particularly an ad hominem in that light. Furthermore, the fact that *I* get called out for an ad hominem following dozens if not hundreds of posts in this thread and all the abortion threads that preceded it calling people who share my position assholes, womensexophobes, control freaks, religious fascists, and so on demonstrates my point. This thread is comprised of raging, frothing at the mouth people who (a) because of their politics are left-wing and (b) because of their behavior are loonies. And I'm not the only one who noticed; xmutex (a self-identified pro-choicer) noted the unreasonableness too. And yes, they are out in full force.
posted by jock@law at 3:11 PM on October 15, 2009


Fiddling fuck, I removed a paste of what WCityMike just linked to. That is all.

Fascist.
posted by xmutex at 3:14 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


The Metafilter mods are deleting comments that have differing opinions on abortion.

What? Don't do huge textdumps. We're apolitically against textdumps.
posted by jessamyn at 3:14 PM on October 15, 2009 [5 favorites]


What? Don't do huge textdumps. We're apolitically against textdumps.

You and Glenn Beck.
posted by xmutex at 3:17 PM on October 15, 2009


And jock@law, take it to MetaTalk if you want to. Smalltext rants are still rants. No one is forcing you to read MetaFilter or this thread specifically. If you'd like to have a discussion without calling everyone names, go ahead.
posted by jessamyn at 3:17 PM on October 15, 2009 [5 favorites]


If there was a nation wide survey with no legal requirements of the women involved that was properly written and conducted by some ethically accountable, politically neutral, and vaguely intelligent entity (ie: not the Oklahoma State legislature). I'm sure the compiled and processed data could be invaluable to the national discussion. Whether it favors [Insert your favorite pro-whatever assumptions about abortions] or not.

Any such study would have to pass an Institutional Review Board. The main goal of that board is to make sure that people participating in a study are participating completely consensually, can back out at any time and have their data expunged, and can in no way come to harm from their participation in the study. I think it would be next to impossible for anything like this to ever pass an IRB, until such day as doctors aren't being murdered for performing abortions.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:19 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


In other WTF-flyover-state news:

A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

posted by Joe Beese at 3:19 PM on October 15, 2009 [2 favorites]


I can understand the arguments against abortion. Really, I can. I can believe that there are some people for whom it is solely about their belief that it is murder. I can't believe that the majority of anti-choice people are in that group, given that they are also against measures that would actually reduce the numbers of abortions. See, e.g. the chart kirkaracha linked above, and the recent study that outlawing abortion doesn't actually reduce abortions (gotta run or I'd hunt down link).

Blatantly invading into a private medical relationship and attempting to shame women who have abortions in this manner seems like a piss poor way of going about achieving an end to abortion. It also, as many notes, goes against the supposed anti-government-intrusion stance of people who are likely to be anti-choice (ie, Republicans).

No argument that a healthy fetus is a not-person is tenable.


This is basically sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "na-na, can't hear you." You don't think it's tenable. This does not mean that many people find it much more than tenable.
posted by Mavri at 3:19 PM on October 15, 2009 [7 favorites]


Saying that an argument isn't tenable just because you say it's so isn't an argument, it's just surety. And calling someone loony is attacking the person, not the argument: that's the very definition of an ad hominem argument.
posted by WCityMike at 3:21 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


Jessamyn: excuse you.
posted by jock@law at 3:22 PM on October 15, 2009


In other WTF-flyover-state news:

Louisiana is not a flyover state.
posted by xmutex at 3:23 PM on October 15, 2009


and anyone else who would like to make this into an everyone vs jock@law, sorry that's off limits also.
posted by jessamyn at 3:23 PM on October 15, 2009


“Before that mother goes through the procedure, we believe it is positive public policy to give her as much information as possible about that baby,” the bill’s sponsor, Senator Todd Lamb, a Republican from Edmond, said. “She might just change her mind and, who knows, that baby could be a future Nobel Prize winner.”

Wait, what? I thought Republicans hated the Nobel Prize.
posted by wadefranklin at 3:26 PM on October 15, 2009 [4 favorites]


Does anyone know of other instances where "mandatory" reporting of something actually leads to a decrease in that thing (for better or worse)? I don't doubt that it happens, I just can't think of any case off the top of my head.
posted by Think_Long at 3:29 PM on October 15, 2009


In other WTF-flyover-state news

Really? Couldn't you have phrased this in some other way? I thought we already hashed out that isn't a cool attitude to take on MetaFilter.
posted by hippybear at 3:30 PM on October 15, 2009 [5 favorites]


Oh, right. The Metafilter mods are deleting comments that have differing opinions on abortion.

For the record I refreshed my comments page and my comments made in this thread disappeared. I became enraged and felt the need to voice my indignation on this very thread. I even considered starting a MeTa thread shouting down the evil mods and demanding resignations. Then I refreshed a few minutes later and realized it was just a caching issue but, sadly, having made this comment, I felt I had to go in that manner, righteous and indignant and full of bluster, otherwise I'd look like a damned fool. I think I failed thoroughly on all counts.
posted by xmutex at 3:34 PM on October 15, 2009 [2 favorites]


Look, I think this is batshit crazy in some ways also, but did anyone read the act to the point where these forms will not have any personally identifying information about the patient [name and address, for example] and in fact the act goes to some lengths to make certain that people can't be identified by the information they provide on the forms.

Well, sorta. If they were asking for city, even county of the patient, they'd be in a whole heck of trouble. Even with this I think you're edging awfully close to HIPAA.

What this is really about is trying to suppress the few abortions that happen in rural areas. And there aren't that many, anyway, and the ones you typically see there are ones where the life of the mother is at stake. Tulsa and OKC have abortion clinics, so to get one you're driving into the cities to get one. The three main hospital chains are all Catholic (St Francis, St Anthony, St John), so you ain't getting an abortion at any of them.

I don't think this law stands a chance of surviving a court challenge. This is just another example of what I call the "pro-life carrot problem." Conservatives know that if we ever actually passed a law banning abortion except for rape and incest, they'll lose all their support. Why? Because the pro-life movement will have no reason to keep voting for them. So they just keep throwing out random half-measures that will be shot down by "activist judges" instead of addressing the real issues. That way they accomplish two things: a) look strongly pro-life and b) frame their opponents are being anti-life and with the "activist judges." Blammo, re-elected every time. Doesn't matter this law won't last five minutes in a court, what's important is now they can frame themselves as being For The Unborn Children.

Good grief. You'd think the state government of Oklahoma would have better things to do with their time...

I remind you, this is the same legislature that got their panties in a twist while trying to name The Flaming Lips' "Do You Realize" as the state rock song because, I'm not kidding, one of the band members wore a hammer-and-sickle Soviet kitsch style shirt to the hearing. With things they way they are in Oklahoma they have a lot of time on their hands doing nothing.

Also, thank you Oklahoma, for making Utah look good by comparison.

Remind me again, how many millions did Oklahomans sink into passing Prop 8? Oh, that's right. It was Utah money.

Also, thank you Oklahoma, for making Wyoming look good by comparison.

90% of the state of Oklahoma is a two hour drive from the Tulsa and OKC abortion clinics. In western Wyoming if you want an abortion two hours in you wouldn't be anywhere.

Why doesn't Texas float off into the Gulf?

Because Oklahoma sucks.


So an Oklahoman in a bar is about to tell a Texas joke.

"Hold on there," said a burly guy at the bar. "I'm a graduate of the University of Texas. Jim Bob over there played on the Horns offensive line. And Ray Bob there has an MBA from Texas. You still gonna tell that joke?"

"Nah, no point" says the Okie. "I'd have to explain it three times."
posted by dw at 3:34 PM on October 15, 2009 [12 favorites]


Jessamyn: excuse you.

I don't get it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:34 PM on October 15, 2009 [5 favorites]


I think I failed thoroughly on all counts.

All is forgiven.
posted by jessamyn at 3:35 PM on October 15, 2009


Under socialized healthcare you get some government bureaucrat pushing forms in your face before you get a procedure done! And there will be waiting periods before the procedure, too! Do you really want that? NOBAMACARE

...

Wait, what? It's okay if it's to do that on purpose to a procedure you don't like? I love the consistent conservative ideology.
posted by mccarty.tim at 3:44 PM on October 15, 2009 [9 favorites]


mccarty, to be fair, its not just conservatives who are less than thrilled about government in healthcare.
posted by jock@law at 3:50 PM on October 15, 2009


Seriously, what the hell is with this shit? People don't need to fill out forms explaining their intent when they have other medical procedures

You're smart. Can you think of anything different about this procedure that might distinguish it from others?

If you can't, then I retract the short statement before my question.

If I'm getting a mole removed, I don't have to fill out a mole history form for a public database has all my identifying information minus my name on it.

The items listed in the WSJ article seem far from "all my identifying information minus my name." The claim that they could be used to identify members of small communities may be true at a stretch, but by the time you get to a town small enough for this to be true without some significant effort, I'd wager this is not going to be someone's biggest leak in any attempt to keep things under wraps.
posted by namespan at 3:54 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


Check box next to reason for abortion:

__ Unemployment ran out.

__ Was denied food stamps.

__ Can't get subsidized housing.

__ Can't afford to give child college education.

__ Can't afford quality day care.

__ Live in a neighborhood with terrible schools because my state allows wealthy suburbs to spend lots of money on their schools, and doesn't provide equal funding for schools in poor rural and urban districts.

__ Can't afford health insurance or co-payments required for pre-natal care.

__ Can't afford to take unpaid maternity leave.

__ Minimum wage doesn't pay enough to raise a child.

__ My school, my church and my parents told me that nice girls don't use contraceptives.

Why are the abortion hating people causing all these abortions?
posted by marsha56 at 3:56 PM on October 15, 2009 [27 favorites]


Jessamyn: excuse you.

I don't get it, either. What an odd comment.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:56 PM on October 15, 2009


I'd like everyone who buys a gun to have to fill out a similar form and have that posted on a gov website. How would that be?
posted by lumpenprole at 3:57 PM on October 15, 2009 [3 favorites]


I'd like everyone who buys a gun to have to fill out a similar form and have that posted on a gov website. How would that be?

But that wouldn't be "common sense".
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:01 PM on October 15, 2009 [2 favorites]


I'd like everyone who buys a gun to have to fill out a similar form and have that posted on a gov website. How would that be?

Personally, I think this is a pretty good idea, except I usually go a step farther and believe that guns should actually be registered to an owner like cars are. That freaks the gun lobby right out, though, so maybe your idea is a better compromise.
posted by namespan at 4:03 PM on October 15, 2009 [3 favorites]


Look, I think this is batshit crazy in some ways also, but did anyone read the act to the point where these forms will not have any personally identifying information about the patient [name and address, for example] and in fact the act goes to some lengths to make certain that people can't be identified by the information they provide on the forms.

I'm honestly incredibly disheartened to hear this from you, especially from a librarian who I'm sure was slightly different in thinking a few years back when the government felt it was really important to start monitoring everyone's library records.

There is already a history in this country of insane anti-choicers doing everything in their power to research, identify, and publicly expose abortion patients and providers, and have proven to "go at lengths" of their own. And it doesn't matter if this list can be used to identify women who are merely exercising their right to do something. What matters, and why it's a victory for them, is because it creates the threat. The threat is what matters. It is always what mattered.

Like every other one of these insane laws and acts, this is about shaming and scaring women who want to have abortions. It's the same thinking as the lunatics who point the camera at them as they walk into the clinic. It's telling them "we know what you're doing. We're watching you do it. We know and in some awful awful way, we can let others know too." That's the procedure the anti-choice movement has practiced for decades now. It's terrorism, and I don't really care if that hurts anyone's feelings to call it that.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:05 PM on October 15, 2009 [14 favorites]


The thing is Guyzero, this isn't a man/woman thing - it's a selfrighteous politician/everyone else thing.

They should make a law that requires, as a condition of running for high office, that each candidate fill out an "Individual Candidacy Form" containing personal details, including age, race, marital status, years of education, IQ, state of residence, hidden agendas, number and result of previous terms of office, and the reason why anyone in their right mind might vote for them.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:06 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


This law isn't about discouraging abortion-seekers so much as it is about making it impossible for providers to satisfy the stated Kafkaesque documentation requirements without running afoul of the fine print, both for individual abortions and even more clearly when it comes to the "end-of-year" reporting it requires them to do (scan down towards the bottom of the PDF to see that language). And the penalty it specifies for screwing up the documentation is revocation of medical license.

Re: the law having been written on a typewriter, I don't think so. I'd guess it was written on a really old copy of Corel WordPerfect (didn't that used to be the de facto standard for legal writing?) and then scanned and converted to PDF by some state admin drone using a really old copy of MS Word and nine-year-old PDF-making software.
posted by killdevil at 4:14 PM on October 15, 2009 [2 favorites]


By the way, does anyone know how many abortion providers there are in Oklahoma? There can't be that many. Planned Parenthood's Web site lists places you can go for abortion referral, but no providers.
posted by killdevil at 4:19 PM on October 15, 2009


... including age, county where miniature American flag was distributed, race, marital status, years of education, state of residence, number and result of previous flag requests, and the reason for wanting a miniature American flag.
posted by blue_beetle at 4:30 PM on October 15, 2009


I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom.

If you put it into google translate, what you get back in English is "jessamyn is totally a doodybutt nyaah nyaah."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:35 PM on October 15, 2009


In other WTF-flyover-state news: Iowa has gay marriage. Yay! Suck it Utah!
posted by cjorgensen at 4:47 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


Oh, fuck me. I failed to notice that I had pasted the wrong pasting. That was meant to refer to the "odd comment" earlier.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:53 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


In a desperate attempt to turn the spotlight back to themselves, Louisiana prevents interracial couple from marrying.

It's the effing 3rd millennium and we still have this shit going on. It stuns me.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:56 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm honestly incredibly disheartened to hear this from you, especially from a librarian who I'm sure was slightly different in thinking a few years back when the government felt it was really important to start monitoring everyone's library records.

Don't get me wrong, I still think this is a terrible horrible invasive impractical and rude idea, but I wasn't clear that people even understood what was actually being requested and what was not being requested. I'm pretty sure I have a relatively sophisticated understanding of how people will not really be anonymous after filling out all of this nonsense and how this is likely a HIPAA violation in the making etc, but on MeFi it can be tough to tell who has read the article and who is just GRAR out of the gate.

I have not changed my opinion on anything; I was literally wondering if people had read it.
posted by jessamyn at 5:19 PM on October 15, 2009 [2 favorites]


Couldn't this be automated? What's with paper forms?
posted by adoarns at 5:38 PM on October 15, 2009


How's this for heaping outrage on outrage: the definition of abortion, for purposes of this statistical reporting, includes "...or to remove a dead unborn child who died as the result of a spontaneous miscarriage, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault..." (Section 1-730.A.1) It's not just voluntary abortions that have to be reported in detail in this political stunt, but also accidental losses.

Maybe Oklahoma should require the fools who passed this bill to spend some volunteer time helping mothers who lost a pregnancy to spontaneous miscarriage, accidental trauma, or criminal assault to fill out the damn form.
posted by Snerd at 5:39 PM on October 15, 2009 [3 favorites]


Wait, what? I thought Republicans hated the Nobel Prize.

That's only the Prizes for Physics, Chemistry, Literature, Peace, and Physiology or Medicine. All of those things are contradictory to the Republican ideology. The others are fine!

On topic, as a citizen of Oklahoma, I'm flat out ashamed of this legislation, and am ready to get these people the hell away from any station of authority.
posted by askmeaboutLOOM at 5:50 PM on October 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


The Individual Abortion Forms will be posted on the Oklahoma State Health Department website.

Not that I think this bill is a good idea, but I wonder if there's some mis-interpretation going on with this part of it?

Re-typed from the picture-of-a-document PDF:
[From Section 4]

B. By March 1, 2010, the State Department of Health shall make available, on its stable Internet website, an Individual Abortion Form as required by Section 5 of this act, and a form for a Complications of Induced Abortion Report as required by Section 6 of this act.

[From Section 5]

D. The Department shall post the required Individual Abortion Fom on its stable Internet website. Nothing in the Individual Abortion Form shall contain the name, address, or information specifically identifying any patient. The Department's Individual Abortion Form shall be substantially similar to, but need not be in the specific format, provided in subection F of this section.
Am I just being totally naive by thinking both of these paragraphs are referring to the blank forms, and not the completed ones that get submitted? Or did I miss something in the bill or the other links that makes it clearer that completed forms will be posted?

There are other paragraphs in there about protecting the information from view by other than the authorized people, and saying that the information on these forms isn't subject to the Oklahoma Open Records act. These paragraphs don't seem to make sense if they're posting the completed forms on a public web site, do they?
posted by FishBike at 5:56 PM on October 15, 2009


It's things like this which remind me of why we once needed organizations like JANE, and how little progress we've made in some respects.

I try to remain hopeful the internet will help 'route around' any egregious oppression, in subtle but effective ways.
posted by mikelieman at 6:37 PM on October 15, 2009


Even if abortion was as politically uncontroversial as mole-removal, or it was in fact mole-removal that was to be statistically reported, this crappy bill imposes a ridiculous amount of administrative work and professional risk onto already-overworked physicians. Has the AMA gotten involved?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:55 PM on October 15, 2009


What is -- ostensibly, at least -- the point of collecting this information? I couldn't really figure it out from the links. Are they looking for patterns? So that they can do a better job of educating and providing contraception to women at risk of being... highly abortive? I mean, I have to assume, for my own sanity, that they're at least pretending that they plan to do something meaningful and helpful and valuable with this personal information.
posted by hegemone at 7:39 PM on October 15, 2009


hippybear: "Couldn't you have phrased this in some other way?"

Yes. And I'm sorry I didn't.

So let me make my point more clearly. Racism sucks. The subjugation of women sucks.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:08 PM on October 15, 2009


hydropsyche
>>If there was a nation wide survey with no legal requirements of the women involved that was properly written and conducted by some ethically accountable, politically neutral, and vaguely intelligent entity (ie: not the Oklahoma State legislature). I'm sure the compiled and processed data could be invaluable to the national discussion. Whether it favors [Insert your favorite pro-whatever assumptions about abortions] or not.

>Any such study would have to pass an Institutional Review Board. The main goal of that board is to make sure that people participating in a study are participating completely consensually, can back out at any time and have their data expunged, and can in no way come to harm from their participation in the study. I think it would be next to impossible for anything like this to ever pass an IRB, until such day as doctors aren't being murdered for performing abortions.


Every article I've ever read by a doctor who practices abortion has come with their best explanation as to why women come to them [previo usly] generally explaining explicitly that its why they do it. I couldn't see doctors needing any coercion to participate in a survey written with sensitivity and intelligence particularly if it came with appropriate expenses for their time.
posted by Blasdelb at 9:27 PM on October 15, 2009


fuck... I'll find the metalinks again in the morning if you like but I need to go to bed...
posted by Blasdelb at 9:28 PM on October 15, 2009


What OK needs right now is another one of these to show them God's fury. Preferably in the vicinity of Kelley and NE 23rd.

Judgement's comin'.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:25 PM on October 15, 2009


C_D, I'm usually with you 100%, and I think these developments in my home state are asinine, but wishing for the return of something as devastating as that twister is troll shit and you know it.
posted by HyperBlue at 11:43 PM on October 15, 2009


What OK needs right now is another one of these to show them God's fury. Preferably in the vicinity of Kelley and NE 23rd.

That part of town is majority lower class African-American. Good job, Mr. Falwell.
posted by dw at 11:52 PM on October 15, 2009


I'm sure God can figure out exactly what mansion to nuke, folks. You can relax, CD isn't calling for destruction of the entire area. Surgical precision, that's the ticket.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:27 AM on October 16, 2009


Blasdelb:Every article I've ever read by a doctor who practices abortion has come with their best explanation as to why women come to them [previo usly] generally explaining explicitly that its why they do it. I couldn't see doctors needing any coercion to participate in a survey written with sensitivity and intelligence particularly if it came with appropriate expenses for their time.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying in a world where doctors who perform abortions are murdered it would be impossible for an institution conducting such a study to convince an IRB that the participants would not come to harm from their study. And not just harm to their reputations, but potentially finding themselves on a hit list on a website as doctors who perform abortion have been (the shielding of identity being quite hard with the demographic information being collected). The IRB has nothing to do with the doctors, but with the safety of the women who would be participants in the study.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:44 AM on October 16, 2009 [2 favorites]


Yesterday on AskMe, we discussed ways to resist data mining from loyalty cards at grocery stores and the like. I don't want my Kroger to know how many times I buy potato chips; I really don't want government officials to know all the details of medical procedures.

I think the result of Oklahoma's bill will be that wealthier people will travel across the state line to get their abortion; some poorer people will not have an abortion; a few people will try back-alley or home abortions; and a small number will have an abortion in their state from a vanishing number of doctors who will try to toe the line of documentation and skirt the truths when possible. Just like the "good ole days."
posted by Houstonian at 7:09 AM on October 16, 2009


Let's split up the country and get it over with.

I'd be perfectly OK with living in a country with no Oklahoma.
posted by Scoo at 7:22 AM on October 16, 2009


I'm sure God can figure out exactly what mansion to nuke, folks. You can relax, CD isn't calling for destruction of the entire area. Surgical precision, that's the ticket.

I'm not even going to indulge this, other than saying you're no better than those on the Right who wants to play cowboy.
posted by dw at 7:51 AM on October 16, 2009


I think the result of Oklahoma's bill will be that wealthier people will travel across the state line to get their abortion; some poorer people will not have an abortion

I really doubt it. Given the main providers are all in the cities and they can afford to hire people to handle the paperwork, nothing will change. The cost will go up, though.
posted by dw at 7:56 AM on October 16, 2009


I read the form that was on the text dump site. I can honestly say I would hate to have to fill that out. I pay someone $150 to do my taxes and that just 3 pages. I hate forms that much. Those questions go on forever.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:47 AM on October 16, 2009


C'mon. I'm pro choice, but conflating an antiabortion sentiment with a fear of women's sexuality is about the dumbest comment I've read on Metafilter in weeks.

And this is one of the least well thought out comments that I've read on MetaFilter in weeks.

Controlling access to abortion means controlling women's sexuality in that only women can become pregnant - and as basic human biology has taught us, any woman who engages in sexual activity becomes pregnant. So, if a woman then becomes pregnant because of an accident, or a lack of birth control, or a lack of information about birth control - she has some tough choices to make.

Restricting her access to abortion is, in effect, punishing her for her choice to have sex. I wouldn't necessarily call it "fear" of women's sexuality, but punishing women for our reproductive capabilities by forcing pregnancies on unwilling women has been going on since the dawn of time. Sex doesn't have the same repercussions for men (save for those few who get caught in child support battles - but even they don't have to deal with the physical rammifcations of actually being pregnant), and yet, it's men who are usually the ones pushing legislation requiring pregnant women to remain pregnant. It's punishment, plain and simple.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 8:53 AM on October 16, 2009 [6 favorites]


any woman who engages in sexual activity becomes pregnant.

SHOULD READ: Any woman who engage in sexual activity can become pregnant.

Fever. Brain. Jello.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:01 AM on October 16, 2009


Any woman who engage in sexual activity can become pregnant.

This will alarm many lesbians, to say nothing of women who masturbate.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:39 AM on October 16, 2009 [1 favorite]


[let's please stop with the "who should get revenge-killed as a result of this legislation" okay? thank you.]
posted by jessamyn at 9:48 AM on October 16, 2009


ROU_Xenophobe: I'm pretty sure you know what I meant, but for the pedants brigade, you can further edit that sentence to state "any pre-menopausal ovulating woman who engages in sexual activity with a fertile male-bodied sperm-producing partner" if you like, because heavens, what about a lesbian in a relationship with an MTF woman?

Let's not have the totally anal-retentive be the enemy of the good over here. Give me a tiny break (as mentioned, I'm not exactly at the top of my game today).
posted by grapefruitmoon at 11:27 AM on October 16, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm pretty much just GRAR out of the gate on this one.
posted by malocchio at 11:54 AM on October 16, 2009


here's some great recent info about abortion.

it's a link to the economist! yesterday!
posted by pick_the_flowers at 2:24 PM on October 16, 2009 [1 favorite]


The Lamb of g_d has spoken.
posted by minimii at 4:08 PM on October 16, 2009


I'm pretty sure you know what I meant

I meant only to tease in metafilterly comradeship, and apologize for irking you.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:34 PM on October 16, 2009


ROU_Xenophobe: Oh, sorry. Like I said: the fever ate my brain. What little it didn't actually consume has obviously turned to jello and is going to start dripping out my ears at any moment. This would explain why I'm kind of tone-deaf.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:15 PM on October 16, 2009


« Older Foreclosures hit a new record   |   What compelled you to use... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post