Alabama GOP Proposes Frightening New Way To Intimidate Abortion Providers

Alabama GOP Proposes Frightening New Way To Intimidate Abortion Providers

An Alabama state House committee held a hearing Tuesday morning on a bill that would require abortion providers to disclose their annual income to patients, the portion of that income earned from performing abortions and how much they lose monetarily when a patient backs out of the procedure.

The so-called “conflict of interest disclaimer” is just one provision of the “Ultrasound Access Act” proposed by Republican state Rep. Kerry Rich earlier this month. The bill would also require abortion providers to tell patients, both orally and in writing 48 hours before the procedure, about the proposed abortion method, gestational characteristics of the fetus, “immediate and long-term physical and psychological risks” and abortion alternatives. Doctors found to have broken the law would face a fine of up to $1 million and/or a prison sentence of up to 10 years.

Ok. This is just f'ing stupid. Why is it necessary to disclose financial information to someone seeking a medical procedure?

Biased counseling and waiting period requirements meant to dissuade abortion patients from having the procedure aren’t new, and neither are mandatory ultrasound laws. But the “conflict of interest disclaimer” appears to be a new attempt to intimidate abortion providers and cast them more as profiteers rather than providers of a constitutionally-protected form of health care.

"It is absurd to target abortion providers by requiring that they disclose their salary and a breakdown of their personal finances to their patients; something no other healthcare provider in Alabama is required to do," Staci Fox, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast, said in a statement emailed The Huffington Post. "This is yet another example of how extreme politicians introduce unnecessary government interference into the doctor-patient relationship as part of a broader effort to end access to safe, legal abortion. ... The bottom line is this law is a demeaning intrusion on the personal, private relationship between women and their doctors.”

The bill is an illustration of how abortion is singled out from other outpatient medical services to stigmatize the procedure. State legislators aren’t calling for gastroenterologists to tell colonoscopy patients how much they make each year, for instance, or requiring ophthalmologists to disclose to their patients the proportion of their income derived from cataract surgeries.

Exactly, so why is it necessary to tell patients how much the doctor giving them an abortion makes? You know if the GOP would just EMBRACE contraceptives and adequate sexual education they wouldn't have to worry about people getting pregnant and getting abortions. But nah, it's much easier to make these people jump through hoops to do things THEY disapprove of.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This proves once again that the core of the American right-wing is authoritarianism.

Their actions prove their words to be hypocritical nonsense, as some of us have come to expect.

More needless laws, more personal privacy invasion, more co-mingling of religious and secular values, or more exactly, more Christian fundamentalist belief being foisted upon the public under the aegis of law ...

a reply to: Krazysh0t


Well, the abortion provider might be like all those doctors Obama says recommend unnecessary tonsillectomies just make money. He (or she) might be financially motivated to discuss abortion because it makes him (or her) more money than other alternatives, like adoption.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Reminds me of some of the idiotic hoops one has to jump through to buy a gun, and the new proposals that keep coming out.

but we elect them, right? Its the government we apparently deserve.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Naturally, atheists don't have problems with proper sex education (instead of abstinence only education) and giving out contraceptives at free clinics.

I'm actually curious now, I wonder what kind of sexual education Alabama teaches. As someone who used to live in Mississippi and frequented Alabama quite a bit, I'm not going to hold out much hope for it being adequate.

ETA: No surprise after doing my research:
ALA CODE § 16-40A-2 : Alabama Code - Section 16-40A-2: MINIMUM CONTENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN SEX EDUCATION PROGRAM OR CURRICULUM - See more at: codes.lp.findlaw.com...

(a) Any program or curriculum in the public schools in Alabama that includes sex education or the human reproductive process shall, as a minimum, include and emphasize the following:

(1) Abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only completely effective protection against unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) when transmitted sexually.

(2) Abstinence from sexual intercourse outside of lawful marriage is the expected social standard for unmarried school-age persons.

(b) Course materials and instruction that relate to sexual education or sexually transmitted diseases should be age-appropriate.

(c) Course materials and instruction that relate to sexual education or sexually transmitted diseases should include all of the following elements:

(1) An emphasis on sexual abstinence as the only completely reliable method of avoiding unwanted teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

(2) An emphasis on the importance of self-control and ethical conduct pertaining to sexual behavior.

(3) Statistics based on the latest medical information that indicate the degree of reliability and unreliability of various forms of contraception, while also emphasizing the increase in protection against pregnancy and protection against sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and AIDS infection, which is afforded by the use of various contraceptive measures.

(4) Information concerning the laws relating to the financial responsibilities associated with pregnancy, childbirth, and child rearing.

(5) Information concerning the laws prohibiting sexual abuse, the need to report such abuse, and the legal options available to victims of sexual abuse.

(6) Information on how to cope with and rebuff unwanted physical and verbal sexual exploitation by other persons.

(7) Psychologically sound methods of resisting unwanted peer pressure.

(8) An emphasis, in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense under the laws of the state.

(9) Comprehensive instruction in parenting skills and responsibilities, including the responsibility to pay child support by non-custodial parents, the penalties for non-payment of child support, and the legal and ethical responsibilities of child care and child rearing.

Number 8... WOW...

a reply to: ketsuko

You do realize that general practitioners don't perform abortions correct?

What's so "frightening" about financial disclosure?

Can we say "humanist clickbait"?

Or does it really scare you that people might find out how much money is in the baby-killing industry?

a reply to: NthOther

It doesn't scare me. The point is WHY must someone disclose personal financial information in order to perform a medical procedure? It isn't medically necessary and there aren't any other medical procedures that require this.

Ok. This is just f'ing stupid. Why is it necessary to disclose financial information to someone seeking a medical procedure?

Too damn funny.

I guess someone wasn't paying attention to the ACA.

After all disclosing ones finances to the STATE is LAW.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The bill is about the provider's financials, not the patient's. Personal financial information is not involved. There is no breach of privilege.

ETA: And your threadline does indeed indicate a significant level of fear.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So ... by first hand testimony here from resident right-wingers ... authoritarian invasions of privacy are fine ... as long as someone else's morals don't match your own.

This is really too easy ... LOL.

They shouldn't have to disclose their income, thats crazy, but you're wrong in trying to make abortions a normal in and out everyday kind of medical procedure, it's not. No matter how much you want to act like it's the same as removing a benign tumor that doesn't make it so.

"The bill would also require abortion providers to tell patients, both orally and in writing 48 hours before the procedure, about the proposed abortion method, gestational characteristics of the fetus, “immediate and long-term physical and psychological risks” and abortion alternatives."

Are they really not already doing this?? Why would any medical procedure, especially one such as this, not give the patient all the information available. When I had surgery on my arm they told me in great detail every step of the process, and that wasn't even a big deal. What reason could they have for not wanting to inform the mother about the process she is about to go through?

"The bill is an illustration of how abortion is singled out from other outpatient medical services to stigmatize the procedure. State legislators aren’t calling for gastroenterologists to tell colonoscopy patients how much they make each year, for instance, or requiring ophthalmologists to disclose to their patients the proportion of their income derived from cataract surgeries."

Abortions are not even close to colonoscopies or cataracts surgery. It's sick that I even have to say these things. To define it as a simple out patient surgery is disingenuous.

"You know if the GOP would just EMBRACE contraceptives and adequate sexual education they wouldn't have to worry about people getting pregnant and getting abortions."

What are you talking about?? Condoms are everywhere and they're free. I went to a Catholic as all hell conservative school and we had plenty of Sex Ed throughout my whole time there...Who isn't promoting the use of condoms? Where do you live that doesn't have some kind of Free Clinic or Women's Health Center that will literally hand you free condoms. All these things have been available for years and yet people still don't feel the need to take advantage of them.

Maybe it's more because they know if worst comes to worst, they can just get an abortion.

Don't you think if abortions weren't readily provided maybe kids/adults/whatever would be more apt to use contraceptives. Maybe if you weren't trying to make the act of killing a person the same as going in for eye surgery then people could begin to understand the ramifications of their decisions instead of being coddled into the belief that it's not a big deal.

All in all I think it's crazy to divulge the doctors income to patients as it doesn't really have anything to do with anything. Your assertion that this is the GOP's fault and the answer is to throw more abortions at it is way off base.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The bill is about the provider's financials, not the patient's. Personal financial information is not involved. There is no breach of privilege.

How can we continue to pretend all the ridiculous hoops conservative states are requiring women to jump through to have an abortion are not specifically put into place to prevent abortions?

Abortions are legal. They aren't the decision of the doctor, and they certainly aren't the decision of the government. If a woman enters a clinic, it is up to her, end of story. The song and dance need to end, and the religiously squeamish need to get over it.

a reply to: NthOther

I know, but that still doesn't make it right.

ETA: And your threadline does indeed indicate a significant level of fear.

That's the title of that article. I didn't write it.

Does anyone honestly believe that a female seeking an abortion cares whatsoever about her Dr.'s financial status? All she wants is the fetus removed; like yesterday.

I guess we will need some new Viagra laws to counteract this nonsense.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why stop there?

As much as I hate intervention and dictatorial state interference, insurance paid or state subsidized, the cost of all healthcare procedures and prescriptions have been concealed from patients across the board.

Let's see what everything costs and who is paid what.

Obviously, I think it should all be completely private and competitive but, until then, maximum transparency is indicated.

I think it's a bit of a red herring but, you sound legitimately upset as if disclosing this information would discourage someone who wants to have an abortion. Why would it?

Unless there is the possibility of a conflict of interest being exposed, I don't see how this is anything but an annoying procedural mandate.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

How can we continue to pretend all the ridiculous hoops conservative states are requiring women to jump through to have an abortion are not specifically put into place to prevent abortions?

Who's pretending?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

You do realize that general practitioners don't perform abortions correct?

Yes. They don't do tonsillectomies, either.

Its beyond ludicrous that someone would be put to face undignified invasions of privacy before they be allowed to try to earn a living.

Next thing you know, they'll be asking people to submit to drug screens pre employment!

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why stop there?

As much as I hate intervention and dictatorial state interference, insurance paid or state subsidized, the cost of all healthcare procedures and prescriptions have been concealed from patients across the board.

Let's see what everything costs and who is paid what.

Obviously, I think it should all be completely private and competitive but, until then, maximum transparency is indicated.

I think it's a bit of a red herring but, you sound legitimately upset as if disclosing this information would discourage someone who wants to have an abortion. Why would it?

Unless there is the possibility of a conflict of interest being exposed, I don't see how this is anything but an annoying procedural mandate.

Oh I see. So since our current health care system is allegedly a socialist construct (it isn't, in almost any way), it's fine for it to be in a shambles as long as it A. "proves" your version of health care should be the correct one, and B. hinders women from getting abortions, which are legal but bother you ideologically. Check.