US leads the world

[dieseltaylor]

Strict Abortion Measures Enacted in Oklahoma

By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.

Published: April 27, 2010

HOUSTON — The Oklahoma Legislature voted Tuesday to override the governor’s vetoes of two abortion measures, one of which requires women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion.

Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

A second measure passed into law on Tuesday prevents women who have had a disabled baby from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects while the child was in the womb.

Opponents argue that the law will protect doctors who purposely mislead a woman to keep her from choosing an abortion. But the bill’s sponsors maintain that it merely prevents lawsuits by people who wish, in hindsight, that the doctor had counseled them to abort a disabled child.

Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, vetoed both bills last week. The ultrasound law, he said, was flawed because it did not exempt rape and incest victims and would allow an unconstitutional intrusion into a woman’s privacy.

Of the other measure, Mr. Henry said, “It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient.”

The Republican majorities in both houses, however, saw things differently. On Monday, the House voted overwhelmingly to override the vetoes, and the Senate followed suit on Tuesday morning, making the two measures law.

“This is a good day for the cause of life,” said State Senator Glenn Coffee, the Republican majority leader. “The voice of the people has spoken twice now this session in the Senate and twice in the House, and I sincerely hope those who would reverse the people’s voice would think twice before acting.”

.......... Several states have passed laws in recent years requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, and at least three — Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi — require doctors to offer the woman a chance to see the image. But Oklahoma’s new law says that the monitor must be placed where the woman can see it and that she must listen to a detailed description of the fetus.

“The goal of this legislation is just to make a statement for the sanctity of human life,” State Senator Todd Lamb, the majority floor leader, said in an interview after the vote. “Maybe someday these babies will grow up to be police officers and arrest bad people, or will find a cure for cancer.”

****************

It does seem very strange that in a country where the rights of the individual are so close to the heart of the Republicans they appear to be happy to be highly prescriptive when it does come to people rights where they do not agree with them.

And more all from here

http://www.alternet.org/story/146991/catholic_leader_says_woman_should_die_with_her_fetus_--_when_did_woman-hating_go_mainstream

[ASL Veteran]

It does seem very strange that in a country where the rights of the individual are so close to the heart of the Republicans they appear to be happy to be highly prescriptive when it does come to people rights where they do not agree with them.

No, I don't think it's strange at all. Social conservatives are very concerned with the rights of the unborn to have life. Might I suggest that you do a little reading on the origins of "Planned Parenthood" and Margaret Sangar before you put something like this out for the forum to ponder. I'm not sure that you've fully thought through your position on abortion and all the ethical complications that it involves. Here is a starter for you

While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

more here http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

If you don't like that website then just type "Margaret Sangar", "Planned Parenthood", or "Eugenics" in your search engine.

[JonS]

2010 =/= 1920

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Oh, a discussion about abortion.

No, I can't see this go wrong at all.

[JonS]

Oh, a discussion about abortion.

No, I can't see this go wrong at all.

Just give the fetai loaded firearms. I mean, this is the US, yeah? Surely they have the right to bear arms.

I wonder if abortionists accept payment in chickens? I suspect they probably prefer eggs.

[Michael Emrys]

“Maybe someday these babies will grow up to be police officers and arrest bad people, or will find a cure for cancer.”

And when they grow up needing welfare, we will just tell them to get a job. When they have then been convicted of their third crime we will lock them up for life at a cost that is several multiples of the cost of welfare.

Don't expect anything resembling rational thought from these people.

Michael

[Stalins Organ]

Or from those people either......

[MeatEtr]

We're a virus with shoes, that's all we are! :eek:

[dieseltaylor]

What I was shocked at was the viciousness of the law.

ASLVeteran - I am a little hurt that you feel I might be unaware of eugenics, the birth control movement - though admittedly the US angle I had not read.

It seems to me that the effect of the law will be for the richer to go to a more civilised State and the poor to go to a back street abortionist - with the attendant risks. Superb result.

However the fundamental concept is that those who are not involved in any way are dictating in a personal choice matter. Now if the right wing feels that the State should control peoples lives that is surprising. So is it actually the fundamentalist Christians actually dictate the Right wing agenda. It seems that must be true.

SO , to me it is a religion forcing its views through legislation. But it is the vindictiveness of the legislation that is so unChristian. Or is it?

"She consented in the murder of an unborn child. There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child."

With this brief quote, the speaker, the Rev. John Ehrich, medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix, deserves credit for achieving a twofer in a recently revived (if not formally declared) misogyny competition that is now sweeping the anti-choice world. He is not only stating that a gravely ill woman (the mother of four children) should have been left to die, rather than being permitted an abortion; he is also explaining why Sister Mary Margaret McBride, the nun-administrator of a Catholic hospital who authorized the abortion (thereby saving the woman’s life) deserves to be excommunicated.

This case, which has received wide coverage in RH Reality Check and other media, has predictably stunned many people, across the abortion divide. Some have pointed out that the Phoenix diocese misinterpreted Catholic health care directives, and that abortion is permissible under these rules when a woman’s life is at stake. Others have made the common sense observation that if the woman had died, not only would her four children remain motherless, but the 11-week old fetus would not have survived either. Inevitably, some commented on the disparity between the nun’s swift excommunication and the fact that none of the identified pedophile priests have received such punishment.

Wonderful. I find it deeply saddening that the US appears to be in a downward spiral of dumbness and intolerance. At least their state legislatures appear to be.

[Michael Emrys]

Or from those people either......

I believe we are talking about the same people, are we not? Those who would legislate against abortion?

Michael

[costard]

..whilst holding the opinion that a sovereign state has the right to end the life of those individuals that act against the state's interests.

[Michael Emrys]

..whilst holding the opinion that a sovereign state has the right to end the life of those individuals that act against the state's interests.

Exactly. The supreme irony of retroactive abortions.

Michael

[Mace]

Exactly. The supreme irony of retroactive abortions.

Michael

Oh...can we nominate? **brings out list**

[Stalins Organ]

I don't think there is any rationality on either side of the abortion debate any more - it's now run by extremists at both ends of the spectrum.

Hence these people...or those people .... makes no difference.

[Lt Belenko]

Funny how the pro-abortionists are also the anti-death penalty folks. Kill the innocent and let the guilty live.

[JonS]

Kill the innocent and let the guilty live.

Nah, that's the pro-death penalty mob.

[costard]

Funny how the pro-abortionists are also the anti-death penalty folks. Kill the innocent and let the guilty live.

In the interests of consistancy, perhaps I should add that I think all the guilty should die too. And they will. Sadly, so will the innocent. Where's the justice, God?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

pro-abortionists

No such thing.

Bill Hicks:

George Carlin: