Oklahoma Lawmakers Approve Several Abortion Bills

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, Apr 21, 2010.

  1. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #1
    The fault lines of this debate will be quite clear, and likely quite nasty. However, for those prone to reflexively support any anti-abortion legislation, consider how you would react if laws were enacted in a Blue state somewhere saying that before you could purchase a gun you needed to be shown -- and have described to you -- images of violently murdered gun crime victims. Imagine if you had to fill out a questionnaire that asked, among other questions, about you socioeconomic status, the number and types of other guns you own, and your reason for purchasing a gun; and further, that those responses were mandated to be made publicly available on a government-run website. Imagine that gun dealers were required to post certain anti-gun signs in their businesses. Imagine that state insurance law was changed to refuse to cover your weapons losses in the event of a theft. Imagine that lawsuits seeking gun ownership on necessity grounds were banned by law. Then imagine that as a final indignity, it was mandated that something be uncomfortably inserted into your rectum prior to a gun purchase unless you agreed to wait 30 days.

    Would you still sit quietly by as your right to a constitutionally-protected activity was chipped away at by the government? What would you do if the shoe was on the other foot?
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    Mac, while I disagree with most of this, I see no reason why insurance should pay for abortions that are not absolutely medically necessary.
     
  3. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    The law in question appears to make no such distinction between medically necessary and not.

    Further, most insurance plans that I am aware of currently do not cover elective procedures anyway, so I'm not sure how big of a concern that is. I'm sure you can see the intent of the insurance restriction legislation, in any case.
     
  4. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #4
    Actually I think this is a good idea because it could provide really good data on why the women are seeking abortions in the first place. Then maybe better services could be put in place to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    The rest of this legislation is crap though. What's up with the ultrasound thing? What's the reasoning?
     
  6. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Would you agree to a questionaire being forced upon potential gun purchasers on the theory that it could provide really good data on why people are seeking guns in the first place, with a goal of "maybe" providing better services to prevent gun crime?
     
  7. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
  8. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    Invasion of privacy = invasion of privacy.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    As pro-gun ownership as I am, I actually would support that.
     
  10. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #10
    I would think insurance companies would jump at the chance to pay for an abortion that isn't medically necessary. An abortion is probably a lot cheaper than the costs of just going into the hospital to deliver a baby, not to mention the medical costs the child will incur until it's an adult.
     
  11. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    I would only support such action if strong protections were put in place to prevent misuse of any such data collected. One concern with this legislation is that the questionnaire collects enough data that even with the name redacted, the publicly available information could be sufficient to identify individuals in small towns or communities.

    Another concern is how useful these questions would actually be in providing useful data that would help prevent unwanted pregnancies. Look through the mandated questions, and tell me how many of them you see as providing useful data, and how many appear to be just further attempts to intimidate women in an effort to prevent them from obtaining a lawful medical procedure.

     
  12. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    Hadn't thought of it that way before, but you're right. You would think they would want to.

    I never said I was for the abortion questionnaire. ;) I'm not. It's insane. And now that I think about it, the gun one is probably not a good idea either.
     
  13. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #13
    My guess is that it's an attempt to show the mother a detailed image of the thing she is asking to be removed from her. Perhaps to trigger guilt under the guise of medical thoroughness?

    Actually, I think you'd get worse answers than a random, anonymous poll. No one is going to want to answer truthfully because they fear of some sort of retribution.

    As for abortions, I can definitely see the usefulness of such a form (although I don't think making it mandatory is a good idea). As long as the privacy is protected, if they can use the data to create better targeted education/prevention programs, it's for the better. However, giving the length of the questionnaire here, it doesn't sound like protecting privacy is a concern, nor does it sound like using this data is one of the benefits they are touting. So, I can't see any reason for supporting their implementation here.
     
  14. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    Given the motives of those who wrote this legislation, it seems fair to question whether using the data to create better education / prevention programs is the goal of the questionnaire. I'm unclear how data about whether anesthesia was administered to the fetus or woman helps prevent future unwanted pregnancies.
     
  15. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #15
    As you can see, I point out in my post that I do not think that this is their intent of the form and consequentially do not support it at all. Looking at the types of questions only further supports that.
     
  16. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    Sorry, that wasn't aimed at you at all. I should have made it clear that I was making a more general statement based on your post.
     
  17. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #17
    What makes you think insurance companies would jump at the chance to pay for anything let alone something not medically necessary?

    Seriously, what the hell?
     
  18. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #18
    We're not suggesting that they pay for abortions, it was just us being cynical about insurance companies.
     
  19. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #19
    I guess so. I forgot to read for the [/cynical] tags.
     
  20. gibbz macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #20
    As an Oklahoman, I am left to shake my head once again.

    This is nothing more than an attempt to slap a scarlet A on these women and guilt them into a decision they didn't want to make. It isn't truly confidential. A lot of our rural counties are small, so people could easily figure out who had an abortion based on these questionnaires.

    Our state has some of the most f***ed up lawmakers in the country. We have so much more important things to worry about other than backhandedly condemning pregnant women who are torn with a tough choice, outwardly condemning homosexuals as a greater threat than terrorists (I'm looking at you Sally Kern), and openly supporting a state sponsored militia --- like I don't know, the fact that our state is annually sucks in about any major national ranking.

    </rant>
     
  21. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    You seriously think the bottom-line fetishists at the insurance companies don't think along these lines? Have you heard the horror stories about rescissions? These are the same companies who revoked coverage of a breast cancer patient because she'd forgot to list a prior acne treatment on her application. The same companies who rescinded a lymphoma patient's coverage because of a note a doctor had written on his medical chart about a possible aneurysm, but didn't tell the patient.

    These are companies who have actively sought out ways to screw over unhealthy people -- often people who will be dead before the fight is over -- in order to keep their profits up. They were rewarding people for finding ways to avoid paying benefits to sick people, and you want to ask yg17 "seriously, what the hell"?

    The bottom line is all they think about. If they feel it is to the benefit of their bottom line, they will do it. They've shown that they will happily do it to the post-born, why would they not adopt the same mentality regarding the pre-born?
     
  22. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #22
    ^^^

    You quoted my entire post, but I don't think you read the first sentence.
     
  23. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    I think maybe you should move. ;)
     
  24. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #24
    I used to disagree with that sentiment, because if all of the sane people move out of Oklahoma and leave just the crazies behind, who's going to be there to vote the crazies out of office? But it seems like the crazies are breeding at a much higher rate than the sane people, so states like OK are a lost cause and it's best to get out.

    Or the sane people just need to f*** some more ;)
     
  25. gibbz macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #25
    It is tempting on most days. Unfortunately, my future profession (meteorology) is a gold mine here.

    I like the people for the most part here. Most are honest hard workers, with the caveat that their political ideas are completely screwed. I'm not talking Republican vs. Democrat, I'm talking fringe versus sane. A lot can be tied in to the economic and educational state of Oklahoma.

    Part of me wants to stay to help influence positive change, while the other sees this as a lost cause when a**holes like Sally Kern get re-elected.

    Just remember, we aren't all backwards thinking here. :)
     

Share This Page