Two days ago the Oklahoma legislature—overriding a veto by Democratic Governor Brad Henry—instituted two new abortion laws that require women to pay for an ultrasound before getting an abortion and prevent women from suing doctors who withhold information about birth defects while the fetus is in utero. According to the NYTimes article, “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,” including the heart, organs, and limbs (but remember: doctors are free to fabricate those details if they choose). Neither law includes an exception for the victims of rape or incest.
Oklahoma now has the strictest abortion laws in the country. Congrats, fellas!
And there’s more to come from the state:
Two other anti-abortion bills are still working their way through the Legislature and are expected to pass. One would force women to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about their reasons for seeking an abortion; statistics based on the answers would then be posted online. The other restricts insurance coverage for the procedures.
This includes banning state insurance plans from covering abortions and severely restricting private insurance coverage.
To recap: You wind up pregnant in Oklahoma. You need an abortion. First you’re forced to pay for an ultrasound ($300-$400), then forced to watch and listen as a doctor describes the health of the fetus (or lies about it. Whatever!). Then you’re forced to fill out an invasive 38-part questionnaire that advertises all of your personal information online, making it easy to identify you should you live in a small town (questions include: age, race, level of education, marital status, number of previous pregnancies—including how many were aborted and how many were carried to term, the county in which the abortion was performed, the woman’s reason for the abortion, and her method of payment). Then you’ll be forced to pay for your abortion, without the aid of insurance.
I wish Oklahoma was a backwater anomaly. I wish smart women could just shrug their shoulders and move on to more progressive states, but such states are becoming fewer and farther between.
Two weeks ago, Nebraska outlawed abortions performed after 20 weeks gestation.
And via Politico:
This year alone, the [Center for Reproductive Rights] has filed lawsuits against six abortion-related laws—two in Oklahoma, two in Alaska, and others in North Dakota and Arizona—a caseload that Northup describes as “higher than we’ve seen since the late 1990s. It’s a total uptick.” They’re currently tracking about 500 state-level bills that would curtail abortion rights.
Take Florida. Yesterday, Senate Republicans snuck in a last-minute amendment to a nursing home reform package that would force all pregnant women considering an abortion to first pay for an ultrasound (even in cases of rape). The bill will also require women to hear a description of the fetus—unless they can prove they have been raped or are a victim of domestic violence by providing a copy of a police report, restraining order, or medical record. In addition, it would ban nearly all private insurance companies from paying for abortions, coverage that currently is included in more than 85 percent of all insurance policies, according to the article.
More states are attempting to put the burden of sex—both consensual and forced—on women. They’re risking their constituents’ health by making abortions unaffordable and needlessly traumatic.
What amazes me is that they’re succeeding.
Anti-choice? We need to start publicizing the term ‘pro-rape’ now that ‘choice’ has been morphed by right-wingers into a pinko-liberal-dykey irrational term in the public eye. Remember, we need to sway the moderates here because there’s no convincing the nutso conservatives OR the other hardcore pro-choicers. And if ‘pro-rape’ looses its shock value in a few years, switch it to something else.
5/merry: “@ 1 – You’re a penis-possessing person, I take it?“
We both agree with having abortion legal but, unlike you (apparently), I understand that there are women opposed to legalized abortion as well as men.
@98
Since you asked: pretty fuck’n bored. Not in the sense that I don’t have other things I can and should be doing. I just like to argue. I used to have a bunch of right-wing blogs I’d practice in, but the arguments got too repetitive.
Long as we’re speculating on my purpose though, ask yourself if you’ve ever once seen anyone’s mind changed during an internet debate. Then further, ask yourself if considering the answer to the previous question, time spent pointing out weaknesses in the arguments of people whose opinions you ostensibly share might not have more potential for yielding fruit at some future date, when those bumbling allies go out into the world and attempt to preach their fuck’n dogma at someone who stands between them and something I’d see done, such as the protection of reproductive rights in some right-wing Jesus freak colony of ignorance and superstition like fuck’n Oklahoma.
Inasmuch as time spent arguing with people on the internet is ever time productively employed, I suppose mine’s being spent as well as yours.
@100: But let’s be honest: The reason you practice “abstinence” is because nobody will have you. So don’t get too excited congratulating yourself over it.
@100 The 1-10% figure I used is correct; that is the percentage who successfully practice abstinence until marriage, which is what the abstinence-only curricula advocate. Marriage for most Americans does not occur until long after high school is over, except perhaps in Oklahoma (which not coincidentally has the highest divorce rate in the nation).
The abstinence-only notion is ridiculed because it ignores reality. In the 1700’s, when puberty occurred at age 17, and marriage frequently occurred before then, it was a reasonable policy. Today, with better nutrition, puberty begins at 13 or even earlier, while marriage occurs much later (mid-20’s), when at least one member of the couple has a job that pays enough to raise children. Expecting people to remain abstinent for a decade is completely unrealistic. The countries that advocate abstinence as their primary sex education policy (e.g. China, Iran) have horrendously high abortion rates. In effect, abstinence-only training leads to more abortions. Abstinence-only is a pro-abortion policy.
@103
I get it. its just this is the kind of third rail topic where I feel like women don’t want anymore shit heaped on them than necessary. kinda like playing devil’s advocate about the holocaust toward Jews. sure it sounds fun, but I think they have to deal with enough. that’s all.
and while I agree mostly with not being able to change anyone’s mind, this is a symptom of what I like to call the INTERNET TURNING EVERYBODY INTO A COCKSUCKER. while I can defend my position at every whim and hold onto it like it was saving me from a lava bank, I just don’t care that much. if someone counters something I tend to disagree with, I try to give them respect. then again, there are those people out here who troll for any ridiculously awful news story possible and take a moral relativist side in order to give them another chance to rail against gays! blacks! sluts! commies! because… you know, They do it too.
and sure I waste time here, but really less than an hour a day. and as long as I don’t open my big fucking trap anywhere, I don’t care about the follow up and can take a week’s vacation guilt-free.
@105: Yes, but remember guys like @100 don’t have any trouble maintaining their own abstinence because they are fat, dumpy and unpleasant to be around. Voila! Abstinence!
Posting the woman’s personal information on the internet.
Why does this sound like the lists of abortion clinics and doctors that get posted online so that crazies know who to go bomb?
Good point there, @108. Or maybe like posting the names of people who sign a petition online?
Just in case you’re still reading this: one thing you’ve made abundantly clear is that you wouldn’t know civics — basic or otherwise — if it pitched a tent in your ass. If you care to learn, start with Constitutional Law: Principles And Policies by Erwin Chemerinsky. Or just, you know, read the Constitution. Or Federalist Paper #10. Or both. But, really, that kind of thing only goes so far without some interpretive tools. So really, you should just read a book.
But the real bitch of this is that women do VOTE in those states. In fact, in all likelihood, women helped write those damn laws. Yes, the law will hurt women, and girls, and it’s a shitty, sickening shift, but this isn’t just something men are doing to women, it’s something we women are voting to do to each other.
I point that out, because if we can’t even get the women of these states on board there, what fucking hope do we have of getting to the men, who can sit there comfortably, knowing they will never have to deal directly with an unwanted pregnancy? Look at the next pro-life rally footage you see, and check out the gender balance in the crowd.
It makes me fucking sick.
111
There are 5 women in the Oklahoma Senate.
All loyal Democrats.
Three of them voted for the bill.
The bill Dan said codifies Hatred of Women.
What were those ignorant cunts thinking?
Don’t they know what is Good for Women?
Lucky they have a Harpy Bitch Queen like Dan to tell them what is Good for Women.
If only they weren’t too fucking stupid to listen to him….
@104
@107
You girls are confusing the reason you turned gay back in high school…..