Abortion doctors would lose medical licenses under new Oklahoma bill

originally posted by: Annee
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.

Like I mentioned before, but it seems to have been ignored or glossed over: Just because something is legal at the federal level doesn't mean that states MUST make it legal in their jurisdictions.

I used fireworks and alcohol as examples, but the list is limitless (car exhausts systems, plastic bags at stores, concealed-carry permits for deadly weapons [as well as many things having to do with firearms], etc., etc.).

I agree that they're trying to find a way around Roe v Wade, and personally, I don't see an issue with that, as I don't think that the scientific community was as intelligent then as it is now to determine if a fetus is a human being (and when that begins). They did the best that they could, but I think that they need to go back and re-evaluate that idea about viability and everything that comes with it.

A human being mustn't be "viable" in order to have a right to life, otherwise living wills would be pointless, yet they're legally binding.

The doctors aren't the scapegoats here--they get their licenses through the state, and the state is fully capable of telling them what procedures they can and cannot perform. That's the problem with big government and mandatory licenses to provide a service to the public. But I will concede that, in the interest of fairness, these new restrictions on doctors maybe should only affect doctors being licensed on or after the date that the law takes effect, and the others prior to that should be left alone.

a reply to: Annee

From your own link:

Understanding the Different Roles of Legal and Constitutional Personhood in the Life Debate

It has been demonstrated that one need not be a constitutional person to be a legal person; in other words, “personhood” does not need to be defined in the Constitution for a human being to have legal protection. Evidence supporting this conclusion can be drawn directly from the life debates. For example, state and federal protections for unborn victims of violence (also known as “fetal homicide laws”) treat the unborn as legal persons by treating the killing of an unborn human as a form of homicide. Hence, the unborn are protected in law in certain instances, even without constitutional personhood.

It is also important to note that, even if an unborn person is given constitutional personhood by means of an [human life amendment], that unborn person is not necessarily a legal person protected by criminal homicide laws. This is because the Constitution only applies to actions of the U.S. Government, and not actions by individual persons. The creation of constitutional personhood for the unborn will not stop abortion providers from killing unborn children by abortion. Only a criminal homicide law that establishes legal personhood for the unborn could stop abortion providers from killing the unborn through abortion.

Now, call me nuts, but isn't this exactly what the state is doing? They're creating a criminal law that punishes abortion providers who give abortions outside of the specified acceptable reasons to do so (as determined by the state, which is the licensing board for doctors).

So, yeah, these laws CAN exist, and your own link says so. "Personhood" is not defined in the Constitution, so to pretend that it is carries zero weight in this debate.

Yes, saying that a HUMAN fetus that has its own HUMAN DNA at conception is not a person is an IDEA, not a fact, and it is especially not a legal fact.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
sterialization is only an option if one doesn't wish to have kids in the future though. and although obmacare has alleviated some of the cost concerns there are still lots of uninsured in this country and more who work for religious groups that don't wish to cover it., for them, the more effective the method is, the more costly it is. so some just might have to make due with what they can afford and hope for the best?

a reply to: SlapMonkey
It goes beyond a loss of license. Performing an abortion would be a felony.

No person shall perform or induce an abortion upon a pregnant woman unless that person is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Oklahoma. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than one (1) year nor more than three (3) years in the State Penitentiary.

Sounds like a woman who uses RU-486 would be considered a felon and sentenced to prison.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

it kind of seems obvious that they didn't consult them soon enough since the first drafts of the bill seem to have just forgot about miscarriages and such.
and considering one of the lawmakers behind the bill was claiming that as long as they worked on the moral issues, god would take care of the finances. it kind of seems like maybe some in the state legislator might have been griping about the cost the state will incur in the courts trying to keep them from striking it down. that's why they want an accounting of how much the legal fees will be running up. not that they are being oh so cautious.

but like I said, the policy the catholic hospitals run on seem to be very similar. and I've shown just how well that has turned out for quite a few women really.

a reply to: dawnstar

I wasn't saying that sterilization is a necessary method of birth control, I was just pointing out that it's a perfectly good option once you know that you're done having kids.

But the main point is that there is no statistical way that 50% of sexually active women on BC experience an unwanted pregnancy. One out of two?

I could be wrong, but I'm relatively decent at mathing, so I would be exceedingly surprised if this were shown in more than one study and accepted as fact in the medical/scientific field.

a reply to: Phage

Well, I'm quite certain that these approved amendments only concern doctors, not the general public, but honestly, I don't feel like re-reading the bill to ensure that's accurate.

Secondly...and? There are many forms of misconduct that a doctor can do that are felonies, or could get them life in prison. It's not unheard of, and it doesn't bother me one bit--it's a criminal law, and doctors take an oath to protect life. Seems to make sense, really, as there are already allowances for abortions done to protect the life of the mother and/or the unborn child.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

From the CDC

In the United States According to a study published in 2011— In 2006, 49% of pregnancies were unintended—a slight increase from 48% in 2001. Among women aged 19 years and younger, more than 4 out of 5 pregnancies were unintended. The proportion of pregnancies that were unintended was highest among teens younger than age 15 years, at 98%. Between 2001 and 2006, the proportion of pregnancies that were unintended— Declined from 89% to 79% among teens aged 15–17 years. Increased from 79% to 83% among women aged 18 and 19 years and from 59% to 64% among women aged 20–24 years. Large increases in unintended pregnancy rates were found among women with lower education, low income, and cohabiting women.

CDC Website

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Be honest--where in my comment does it say that I did not read the bill?

Um, when you said this:

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.

There is no question, whatsoever, that this bill makes it illegal for anyone to perform elective abortions in the State of OK. That sounds pretty draconian to me.

ETA

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...

A "person" is define a someone who has been born in the very same article/paragraph.

a reply to: dawnstar

Nah, it takes more for me to accept that they don't consult doctors just because they left out something that seems obvious to me at the start of the process--that happens all of the time during the writing of legislation.

Also, the ramblings of one lawmaker falls into the same category as above...it's not proof.

It's obvious that you and I disagree about abortion, and that's fine, but I'm not ready to concede that they wrote this bill out of medical ignorance knowing full well that it would most likely see its day in court. But if they did, they're idiots, and since they're politicians, them being idiots is not out of the question.

a reply to: windword

Oh, so I never did say that I didn't read the bill. Thanks for proving my point.

Secondly, now you're adding in the modifier "elective" before "abortions," whereas with me before you just mentioned "abortion(s)." That makes a difference.

I realize that this is what this law does, and I am perfectly fine with that. But you and I differ on our approach as to exactly what a fetus is, apparently: I see it as a tiny human being--a person--who has a right to life, and is protected when the 14th Amendment says, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

That may not be the popular way of looking at it, but I'm okay with that.

a reply to: Atsbhct

That's not what I'm looking for, as this does NOT indicate that these unintended pregnancies happened while all of these women were on birth control.

That was the claim to which I'm seeking confirmation, as it seems absolutely ridiculous.

All you did was show me that many women of a young age tend to be careless in their decisions to have intercourse, resulting in unintended pregnancies. I do, however, appreciate your efforts in trying to find proof of the claim, though.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Like I mentioned before, but it seems to have been ignored or glossed over: Just because something is legal at the federal level doesn't mean that states MUST make it legal in their jurisdictions.

I used fireworks and alcohol as examples, but the list is limitless (car exhausts systems, plastic bags at stores, concealed-carry permits for deadly weapons [as well as many things having to do with firearms], etc., etc.).

I can't compare those to individuals Rights.

I don't care what the scientific community says.

The scientific community is not required to spend 18 years taking care of a child by force.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Secondly, now you're adding in the modifier "elective" before "abortions," whereas with me before you just mentioned "abortion(s)." That makes a difference.

If you choose to go through the thread and read my posts, like you expect me to do with you and your posts, you would see that I have always emphasized "elective" abortions, while defending late term abortions, some of which are also elective, based on fetal anomalies.

I realize that this is what this law does, and I am perfectly fine with that. But you and I differ on our approach as to exactly what a fetus is, apparently: I see it as a tiny human being--a person--who has a right to life, and is protected when the 14th Amendment says, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."I realize that this is what this law does, and I am perfectly fine with that. But you and I differ on our approach as to exactly what a fetus is, apparently: I see it as a tiny human being--a person--who has a right to life, and is protected when the 14th Amendment says, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

You can't use one part of the article, while ignoring a the part that doesn't agree with your metaphysical viewpoint of what constitutes a "person".

And no, the state doesn't get to determine what reasons are appropriate. Roe V Wade protects the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship, not lawmakers moral proclivities. This bill, if passed, will never see the light of day. It will be stopped by the courts before it reaches its application date.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Atsbhct

That's not what I'm looking for, as this does NOT indicate that these unintended pregnancies happened while all of these women were on birth control.

That was the claim to which I'm seeking confirmation, as it seems absolutely ridiculous.

All you did was show me that many women of a young age tend to be careless in their decisions to have intercourse, resulting in unintended pregnancies. I do, however, appreciate your efforts in trying to find proof of the claim, though.

All these WOMEN were careless in having intercourse?

Are you planning on raising these children you are forcing WOMEN to have?

Well, I'm quite certain that these approved amendments only concern doctors, not the general public, but honestly, I don't feel like re-reading the bill to ensure that's accurate.

The amendment only strikes the clause about doctors being allowed to perform or induce abortions, now making it also a felony for doctors to do so. A doctor cannot give a woman RU-486.

There are many forms of misconduct that a doctor can do that are felonies, or could get them life in prison.

Yes. So what? The Supreme Court has decided that abortions are legal. That a state cannot deny a woman an abortion. This bill effectively prevents women in Oklahoma from obtaining abortions because it turns the act of performing an abortion into a felony. Can you provide a single example of another form of felonious "misconduct" which is any manner similar?

Seems to make sense, really, as there are already allowances for abortions done to protect the life of the mother and/or the unborn child.

What? How does an abortion protect the life of a fetus? You are not making any sense.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: dawnstar

I wasn't saying that sterilization is a necessary method of birth control, I was just pointing out that it's a perfectly good option once you know that you're done having kids.

I think all males should have a vasectomy at birth.

Then only reverse the operation when they've chosen to have a child.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

okay, then they consulted doctors but just to ignore them when they told them that the law would endanger women, or maybe the only doctors they consulted were their conservative buddies who thought the same way they did...

a reply to: Annee

Left my auger in the shed so no goal posts are getting moved.

While abortion, murder, and slavery may not have a direct connection, making an argument that says if something doesn't specifically affect me I should be okay with it.

While it may not affect me, it affects another being (although unborn).

a reply to: SlapMonkey

actually, if you follow the path of the bill-

billinfo

it seems that they took some of it out, the final bill says nothing about miscarriages, just has "to preserve the life of the mother...

this appears to be the last version:

link

20.
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;

no preservation of health, although there have been cases where pregnancy has cause blindness or liver damage, and probably other problems. and no exception for if a miscarriage of an non-viable fetus last for days and the lady is in extreme pain because of it. but ya know what? I am convinced that some of yas aren't gonna listen to reason unless it's someone who you care about deeply that is laying in the hospital screaming in pain and begging that something be done to end that pain. as it is, my sons have not married, so I have no daughter-in-laws to worry about and well, my siblings are older than I am..and we are all past the age. so, what should I care...