(Untitled)

Oct 23, 2009 21:30

A follow-up: Oklahoma Abortion Publicity Law Blocked by Court. At least someone has a grain of sense.

wtf oklahoma

Leave a comment

Comments 10

elendiari22 October 24 2009, 02:59:06 UTC
Well thank Heaven for that.

Reply


roh_wyn October 24 2009, 04:41:12 UTC
Great.

And now to put a damper on things. The court has only granted a temporary restraining order, delaying the date for hearing. So technically, the law could still go into effect on a later date.

But the delay allows the court to scrutinize the matter more closely, and probably means loads of people on both sides will file briefs as amici and this story will stay in the news for some time at least. That can be a good thing, or a bad thing. Hard to say at the outset.

Reply

edoraslass October 24 2009, 05:05:19 UTC
I like this particularly:

Dr. Dana Stone, who specializes in obstetrics and gynecology in Oklahoma City, doesn't understand why the state needs to spend money on data collection and posting when the federally-funded Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the CDC, in Atlanta already does that.

I do hope someone makes them explain WHY they think they need to have MORE, and more invasive personal data than the CDC.

Reply

roh_wyn October 24 2009, 05:15:17 UTC
Did you see where the legislator sponsoring the bill said the data was necessary to see what services the state needed to provide in order to have "a positive impact"? *rolls eyes*

Some people just don't get it. And seriously, are there not better uses of a legislator's bill-writing resources? Tax policy? Incentives for small business owners? Better infrastructure? Education? *sigh*

Reply

edoraslass October 27 2009, 03:54:54 UTC
Just someone ask him to please define "positive impact", sir. Because I bet dollars to donuts he can't, without invoking the OMG IT IS MORALLY WRONG BECAUSE OF JESUS defense. Yeah, Jesus is religious, and you can't use religion to legislate action. Just sayin'.

Reply


wackdagz_jewel October 24 2009, 16:36:35 UTC
I'm not sure I get what the issue is here. Since when is there a difference between HIPPA laws and women's rights? This "publicity law" violates the right to medical privacy and just won't fly legally.

I wonder if the whole thing is just a scare tactic to keep women from scheduling abortions while the fight is on.

Reply

roh_wyn October 24 2009, 18:47:33 UTC
There's no requirement in the Okla bill that the woman's name be released, so effectively, the state can claim it's an effort to collect public health data/statistics rather than an issue of medical privacy. I think that's why none of the groups opposed to the legislation have raised this as a HIPAA violation. (At least, there's nothing in the set of required questions that would be a facial or obvious violation of HIPAA).

The thing is, the "name not required" standard is such joke. What if the woman lives in a small community and could easily be identified by things like her age, marital status and race? Whatever.

Reply

edoraslass October 27 2009, 03:55:47 UTC
It's Oklahoma. Everything the pro-life people do is to scare or shame or guilt women into not scheduling abortions.

Reply


hearseeno October 24 2009, 18:56:04 UTC
Oy vey. I'd ask how something like that even got passed, but then I have to remind myself that I live in the great state of SC, the land of politicians that make jackasses out of themselves.

Reply

edoraslass October 27 2009, 02:33:34 UTC
Yeah, I've lived in SC, too, and I don't know which politicians in which state is more full of shit.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up