Abortion doctors would lose medical licenses under new Oklahoma bill

a reply to: dawnstar

I know.

Laws according to the church(es)
Rape someone? It's fine
Kill someone? It's fine
Have and/or assist in an abortion? Nope, get out!

It's hypocrisy at its finest.

a reply to: buster2010

Here's the problem with stories like the one to which you linked--they don't link to the actual bill so that we can read the verbiage and see for ourselves what it says. And given that a few democrats in each chamber voted for the bill, I'm quite certain that it can't be as draconian as it implies.

Even the Reuters link posted by Sremmos80 at least goes into a little better detail as to exemptions to this law:

Under the bill, doctors who perform abortions would risk losing their medical licenses. Exemptions would be given for those who perform the procedure for reasons including protecting the mother or removing a miscarried fetus.

So, in the interest of being correct, your title to the thread should read "...Could Lose Medical Licenses...," not "...Would Lose..."

I found the following link to be a much more thorough and intelligent story concerning this law, if anyone is interested: Daily Dot.

And as far as the legality of abortion goes...fireworks are federally legal, too, but not available in every state. The death penalty is federally legal, but not all states approve of it. My point being that even though something is federally approved to be legal doesn't mean that all states MUST keep it legal. It's federally legal to sell alcohol, but not all counties in America agree and abide by keeping its sell legal.

I reject the notion that just because a court ruling says that abortion is legal means that it MUST BE LEGAL EVERYWHERE. Quite frankly, that's illogical nonsense.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

do you have a link to the actual bill, because the bill I read might be out of date since nowhere in it does it say anything about miscarriages... the only exemption it lists the danger to the mothers life.... and I've shown how many hospitals in this country are endangering women's lives now by refusing to abort live fetus during miscarriages even when it's obvious that there is infection involved.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Here's the problem with stories like the one to which you linked--they don't link to the actual bill so that we can read the verbiage and see for ourselves what it says. And given that a few democrats in each chamber voted for the bill, I'm quite certain that it can't be as draconian as it implies.

So, you haven't read the bill, and are arguing for it, from a position of ignorance and blind faith?

From the Bill and the existing statute defining abortion:

Performance of an abortion as defined by Section 1-730 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, except that an abortion necessary to preserve the life of the mother shall not be grounds for denial or revocation of a medical license. No such condition may be determined to exist if it is based on a claim or diagnosis that the woman may engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death

Section 1730. As used in this article: 1. "Abortion" means the purposeful termination of a human pregnancy, by any person with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead unborn child;

So, unless doctors determine that the woman's death is immanent, abortion is effectively made illegal for a doctor to perform in the state.

I reject the notion that just because a court ruling says that abortion is legal means that it MUST BE LEGAL EVERYWHERE. Quite frankly, that's illogical nonsense.

U.S. Constitution
14th Amendment
Alll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Illogical nonsense my arse!

originally posted by: Raxoxane
a reply to: windword

I can understand abortion if the pregnancy is truly life threatening-but with all the birth control methods available these days it beggars belief how so many women still have unwanted pregnancies.

Really glad that you were able to find a fool proof methods of birth control and have never experienced a "surprise" pregnancy. But, most women struggle with birth control methods, trying to find the right "fit". About 50% of sexually active women, using birth control, will experience a "surprise" pregnancy during their reproductive years.





I'm well past child bearing age now, but my (married) daughter battles the problem. She had to go off The Pill for health concerns and paid over $600 co-pay to get an IUD. She bled for 2 years before having taken out, another huge expense. Now, she's using the NuvaRing, but worries about it shifting/slipping, (especially during her periods), and it has a "shelf life" and she worries that as it slowly winds down the end of it's hormonal output, there could be an "accident".

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Metallicus

Technically speaking a doctor is to 'do no harm'. Clearly abortion causes harm.

Abortions are always performed on behalf of the woman, to protect her from the harm of an unwanted or otherwise life threatening pregnancy. Technically speaking, that is.

Not every abortion is "medically necessary", thus the State can decide to revoke medical licenses based on medical necessity alone.

Seeing as how abortion is legal, the necessity factor of a doctor performing an abortion should go like this:
Did I give a licensed abortion doctor money to perform an abortion?
Yes? It is necessary for that person to perform an abortion.

a reply to: windword

she should tell her husband that there will be no more sex till they desire another child, or they are past the reproductive age... that's the only way that is 100% effective and, the ways they are writing the abortions laws around the country, I am sorry but a few moments of bliss isn't worth losing your life over, or , your freedom even considering,l you never know you might accidentally fall down the stairs while you are pregnant and miscarry, and have a bunch of nuts prosecuting you claiming that it was intentional.

a reply to: buster2010

Well it seems he's right. Performing abortions is not a professional thing to do, except in the case of the life of the mother.

Seems like a good loophole too. I mean, no one is saying you can't have an abortion, but there are no doctors that perform them for selfish parenting reasons. These are the types of loopholes the left loves. It's about time the right got on board with them.

a reply to: dawnstar

Three things:
1. This is an absolutely disgusting story.
2. This is an exception, not the rule.
3. This would be covered under this bill as threatening the life of the mother.

a reply to: Dfairlite


what is a "selfish parenting reason" is having to be bedridden for months on end and not wanting your kids raised by strangers in the foster care system till you are able to fight tooth and nail to get them back?
is desiring that they give you the chemotherapy, even if it does risk the life of the baby, so you have a better chance of fighting off the cancer?
is knowing that the baby has zero chance to live and causing an infection in your body?
what if you've been in the process of miscarrying the child for days and there is zero chance of viability?

a reply to: Dfairlite

really, because brazil had similar laws on the books and it took the world's public outrage before the gov't allowed the abortion!

"what is a "selfish parenting reason" is having to be bedridden for months on end and not wanting your kids raised by strangers in the foster care system till you are able to fight tooth and nail to get them back? "

This shows where we fundamentally disagree. You don't view that baby as a person. A person having their own personality, traits, and differences. In my view, you don't kill one and get the same one back next time. That's just not how it works. But to answer your question, that kid would rather be alive than be killed that's why it's selfish.

"is desiring that they give you the chemotherapy, even if it does risk the life of the baby, so you have a better chance of fighting off the cancer?"

Again, this would fall under life of the mother. She doesn't need to give her life to ensure the baby has theirs (though, every mother I know would do this).

"is knowing that the baby has zero chance to live and causing an infection in your body?"
The baby doesn't have zero chance to live until it's dead. At which point I'm not at all against intervening for medical reasons. But still what you have proposed is life of the mother if this infection is expected to cause anything severe.

"what if you've been in the process of miscarrying the child for days and there is zero chance of viability? "
A miscarriage is considered any time the baby dies before 20 wks. So why would you need an abortion for a miscarriage?

"really, because brazil had similar laws on the books and it took the world's public outrage before the gov't allowed the abortion!"

Yes, really. And it's a shame they [brazil] wouldn't stick to their laws, but the problem wasn't the law, it was the government not abiding by their laws.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SlapMonkey

do you have a link to the actual bill, ...

The last link that I threw in there has a link to it, but it's really weird how they post up the verbiage of the bills--most states I've seen will post the entirety of the bill as passed and sent to the governor, but I couldn't find that here: SB 1552.

Sadly, I have to take the word of the (possible) analysts who worked with the websites to determine that miscarriages are part of it.

Nevermind, it's in the "Version" area of that link, Here.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1. AMENDATORY 59 O.S. 2011, Section 509, is amended to read as follows:
Section 509. The words "unprofessional conduct" as used in Sections 481 through 514 of this title are hereby declared to
include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
...
20. Performance of an abortion as defined by Section 1-730 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes;

 

Section 1-730.
A. As used in this article:
1. "Abortion" means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device intentionally to terminate the pregnancy of a female known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, to preserve the life or health of the mother, to remove an ectopic pregnancy, or to remove a dead unborn child who died as the result of a spontaneous miscarriage, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the pregnant female or her unborn child;

Hope that helps.

SM

a reply to: Dfairlite

This shows where we fundamentally disagree. You don't view that baby as a person. A person having their own personality, traits, and differences. In my view, you don't kill one and get the same one back next time. That's just not how it works. But to answer your question, that kid would rather be alive than be killed that's why it's selfish.

no in the first trimester, or even part of the second, I don't view a fetus as a person deserving of the same rights as living children, sorry....
I also know how the foster care system works in this country, I would tend to view the needs of my living kids over the needs of a fetus.... especially if the doctor said the bed rest would only increase my chanced!

Again, this would fall under life of the mother. She doesn't need to give her life to ensure the baby has theirs (though, every mother I know would do this).

sorry, but nope!!
www.cnn.com...
it all depends on how the doctors THINK whoever will be there to judge their actions will interpret those laws!

The baby doesn't have zero chance to live until it's dead. At which point I'm not at all against intervening for medical reasons. But still what you have proposed is life of the mother if this infection is expected to cause anything severe.

"what if you've been in the process of miscarrying the child for days and there is zero chance of viability? "
A miscarriage is considered any time the baby dies before 20 wks. So why would you need an abortion for a miscarriage?

In December 2013, ACLU sued the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on behalf on Tamesha Means, whose water broke when she was 18 weeks pregnant. Instead of terminating the pregnancy and safely completing the miscarriage, Means said the Catholic hospital gave her false hope that the fetus could survive. After getting sent home twice, enduring “excruciating pain,” and developing an infection, Means finally miscarried the fetus in a painful, prolonged delivery, according to the lawsuit. That case is currently on appeal.

www.slate.com...

that should negate your statements in the last quote! And, gee, this was in the US, and it's not only the only the cases, there's been quite a few cases like this, one women even had to under surgery to fix the problems that sitting around waiting for the fetal heartbeat to stop caused! there's been several lawsuits filed over this policy and not one has been one, which should address you comment about abiding by the laws. oklahoma's law is really very similar to the policy that catholic hospitals have in place, so you want to know just how crappy women will be treated under this law when they run into complications in their pregnancy, just look at them

a reply to: windword

I already took care of all of that, so thanks.

In case you didn't notice, the actual bill was in the last link that I posted--I went and looked at it. I wasn't speaking out of ignorance, but I appreciate your assumption to the contrary. Did you even look at that link, or just assume via a position of ignorance that I had not read the bill? Be honest--where in my comment does it say that I did not read the bill?

If you read my whole comment before attempting to ignorantly jump down my throat trying to negate my comment by pretending you know what I have and have not read, you would have realized (assuming you employ decent reading-comprehension skills) that I indeed did more research into the bill and that I was just setting up my comment in a way that pointed out the OP's insufficiency.

Anyhoo, as for your 14th-Amendment quote, you forgot to bold the part immediately after, which says that states shall not deprive any person of life...

Oh, let me guess, you subscribe to the whole idea that human fetuses that have their own unique human DNA at conception are not considered a "person?"

Regardless, I'm not going to get into this spat with you once again, as no amount of discussion with you will make sense if it goes against your ideological beliefs. You may think the same of me--you're entitled to that opinion, but at least I hope that you can see that you made a mistake in calling me out in the way that you did. In fact, I hope that you can take the time to read comments more thoroughly (and look at their links) before making an utterly illogical, nonsensical arse of yourself.

Best Regards.

SM

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Anyhoo, as for your 14th-Amendment quote, you forgot to bold the part immediately after, which says that states shall not deprive any person of life...

Oh, let me guess, you subscribe to the whole idea that human fetuses that have their own unique human DNA at conception are not considered a "person?"

Idea?

"Personhood" - - - Legal vs Moral (no one defines what is moral to me, except me)

Problems with Failure to Recognize the Difference between the Definitions of “Personhood”

The distinctions between moral personhood, legal personhood and constitutional personhood are significant. The terms cannot be used interchangeably, lest the entire dialogue be rendered incomprehensible and meaningless. To provide a brief explanation of why the terms cannot be substituted for one another, consider the following: A legal person is sometimes, but may not always be a moral person (e.g., a corporation is not a moral person). A moral person is sometimes, but may not always be a legal person (e.g., a born child cannot sell property). A legal person is sometimes, but may not always be a constitutional person (e.g., a corporation does not have a constitutional right to protection against self-incrimination). A constitutional person is sometimes, but not always a legal person. A constitutional person is sometimes, but may not always be a moral person (e.g., a corporation is not a moral person). Lastly, a moral person is sometimes, but may not always be a constitutional person (e.g., an unborn child is not a constitutional person). www.aul.org...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

thanks,

Section 1-730.
A. As used in this article:
1. "Abortion" means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device intentionally to terminate the pregnancy of a female known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, to preserve the life or health of the mother, to remove an ectopic pregnancy, or to remove a dead unborn child who died as the result of a spontaneous miscarriage, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the pregnant female or her unborn child;

but it still seems to leave doctors hanging in the wind waiting for the heartbeat to cease during a miscarriage, which can be dangerous to the mother.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SlapMonkey

thanks,

Section 1-730.
A. As used in this article:
1. "Abortion" means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device intentionally to terminate the pregnancy of a female known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, to preserve the life or health of the mother, to remove an ectopic pregnancy, or to remove a dead unborn child who died as the result of a spontaneous miscarriage, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the pregnant female or her unborn child;

but it still seems to leave doctors hanging in the wind waiting for the heartbeat to cease during a miscarriage, which can be dangerous to the mother.

They're trying to find a legal way to sneak around Roe vs Wade.

I doubt making the doctors the scapegoat will ever stand up to challenges in court.

originally posted by: windword
Really glad that you were able to find a fool proof methods of birth control and have never experienced a "surprise" pregnancy. But, most women struggle with birth control methods, trying to find the right "fit". About 50% of sexually active women, using birth control, will experience a "surprise" pregnancy during their reproductive years.

Link to that nonsense, please, because I have done extensive research into the effectiveness of birth control, both men's and women's, and nothing has such a poor statistical efficacy rate as what you present to be fact, here.

Well, nothing that is used correctly, anyhow. Seems to me that you might be relying on human-error issues in order to make a weighted point--no amount of anything can fix user error except for the individuals actually taking things seriously and paying attention to what they're doing.

As for my wife and I, I'm exactly seven days out from a vasectomy surgery, which has a 99.85% efficacy rate...the most effective thing that a man can do. I opted to do this so that my wife would not have to do the more invasive hysteroscopic sterilization, which statistically is less effective at 99.5%.

Anway, here's the efficacy-rate PDF from the CDC. With rates like these, I fail to believe that a full half of sexually active women on birth control experience an unwanted pregnancy, so please provide a link to that statistic if you have it.

Thanks!

a reply to: dawnstar

Well, I'm certainly no OB-GYN, so I don't know how that process would work, but I'd be amazed in multiple doctors had not been consulted to determine if this law would even work considering concerns like that. Part of the law is that they have to do a report as to what it would cost the state if this law were to be challenged in court--seems like they'd at least have researched it a bit before gambling like that, but with politicians, you never can tell.