Oklahoma REALLY doesn't want Women to have Abortions

[lawbuff]

In Florida; kill a baby turtle and it's a thousand dollar fine.

Kill an unborn baby by abortion; Nothing

How does anyone feel about fetal homicide laws?

I don't agree with others that say life does not begin at conception, but for those that do not, are you for or against such laws? IF NO life is killed, why should a person be charged with murder??

Not directing this necessarily at you Sunni!

 

[Sunni Man]

In Florida; kill a baby turtle and it's a thousand dollar fine.

Kill an unborn baby by abortion; Nothing

How does anyone feel about fetal homicide laws?

I don't agree with others that say life does not begin at conception, but for those that do not, are you for or against such laws? IF NO life is killed, why should a person be charged with murder??

Woman is stabbed and the baby dies. The guy gets life for murder.

But the day before, she could have aborted the baby and the abortionist isn't charged with anything.

What's up with that???

 

[Ravi]

IMO, this is an act of intimidation by the government against women that seek to have a legal medical procedure. Unless ever single medical procedure is put online in the exact same manner this is just wrong.

Not surprising that "conservatives" can't see this.

As long as it keep unborn babies from being killed, I don't care what you call it.

Not suprising that liberals can't see the value in an unborn baby.

At three weeks after conception there is a heartbeat.
At 6 weeks there is brain activity.
Also at 6 weeks they can move their arms and legs this is called "quickening" which actually means" Becoming alive"
At 20 weeks the baby is viable.

even if it illegal and violated their rights? Yeah! I would call that hypocritical!

To be fair, most "conservatives" are hypocrites. They hate big government except when it applies their own personal morals.

 

[lawbuff]

Woman is stabbed and the baby dies. The guy gets life for murder.

But the day before, she could have aborted the baby and the abortionist isn't charged with anything.

What's up with that???

Odd, isn't it? The SC upheld both, Roe v. Wade and fetal homicide laws. Contradictory??

In my state, without checking I think it is conceptionary, but some I have seen are futher, the fetus must be a month along, etc.

 

[CryGlennCry]

To be fair, most "conservatives" are hypocrites. They hate big government except when it applies their own personal morals.

This

 

[Immanuel]

IMO, this is an act of intimidation by the government against women that seek to have a legal medical procedure. Unless ever single medical procedure is put online in the exact same manner this is just wrong.

Not surprising that "conservatives" can't see this.

Some might say that it is not surprising that liberals can't see the value in all human life.

So is it your point to attempt to humiliate conservatives into seeing things your way? Others can play the same game in reverse upon you.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

There's no shame in being an honest hypocrite.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So the government should butt out of this . . . but it's ok that the government funds abortions?

If the overall purpose of this law is to reduce abortions, thus saving lives and money . . . isn't that a goal worth attaining? This is one point that both pro and anti abortionists agree upon (reducing abortions).

In the proposed health bills, the government wants to mandate health insurance and fine and/or jail those who don't comply, thus saving lives and money (so they say).

But that's ok cause it's a 'good type of government butt-in', right?

Government butting in is a two way street; just depends which side you're on I guess.

 

[Luissa]

it doesn't matter if it reduces anything, it is still violating the women's rights. If she wants to sign over her info then so be it but they cannot force her to.

 

[Sunni Man]

it doesn't matter if it reduces anything, it is still violating the women's rights. If she wants to sign over her info then so be it but they cannot force her to.

The woman shouldn't have any say in this issue.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

Anytime you read an advertisement, say for some new procedure or some new drug, and it gives statistical data it is coming from doctors offices, hospitals, clinics, etc etc etc. You fill out paperwork for the first time you go see a new doctor for something that asks a hell of a lot more than those 8 basic questions and it is given out freely to a point for statistical purposes. It's when names and actual addresses come into play that violations are occuring. Anything you don't want being put out for public consumption on any kind of questionaire you fill out, you are within your rights to simply put n/a or nothing at all for that matter as an answer to any question you aren't comfortable answering.

 

[Immanuel]

So the government should butt out of this . . . but it's ok that the government funds abortions?

If the overall purpose of this law is to reduce abortions, thus saving lives and money . . . isn't that a goal worth attaining? This is one point that both pro and anti abortionists agree upon (reducing abortions).

In the proposed health bills, the government wants to mandate health insurance and fine and/or jail those who don't comply, thus saving lives and money (so they say).

But that's ok cause it's a 'good type of government butt-in', right?

Government butting in is a two way street; just depends which side you're on I guess.

I don't see how this law could even begin to reduce the number of abortions, but, I would not be surprised one iota if it proved that The Alan Guttmacher Institute was under reporting abortions by at least 50%

Immie

 

[Luissa]

it doesn't matter if it reduces anything, it is still violating the women's rights. If she wants to sign over her info then so be it but they cannot force her to.

The woman shouldn't have any say in this issue.

you shouldn't have any say in this issue and Hipaa laws say that they do have a say what is done with their medical records.

 

[Zoom-boing]

So the government should butt out of this . . . but it's ok that the government funds abortions?

If the overall purpose of this law is to reduce abortions, thus saving lives and money . . . isn't that a goal worth attaining? This is one point that both pro and anti abortionists agree upon (reducing abortions).

In the proposed health bills, the government wants to mandate health insurance and fine and/or jail those who don't comply, thus saving lives and money (so they say).

But that's ok cause it's a 'good type of government butt-in', right?

Government butting in is a two way street; just depends which side you're on I guess.

I don't see how this law could even begin to reduce the number of abortions, but, I would not be surprised one iota if it proved that The Alan Guttmacher Institute was under reporting abortions by at least 50%

Immie

The information they're gathering will tell them the demographics of those females having the most abortions. With that information perhaps alternate programs would be aimed at the areas with more abortions? Don't know, just a guess.

 

[Luissa]

Anytime you read an advertisement, say for some new procedure or some new drug, and it gives statistical data it is coming from doctors offices, hospitals, clinics, etc etc etc. You fill out paperwork for the first time you go see a new doctor for something that asks a hell of a lot more than those 8 basic questions and it is given out freely to a point for statistical purposes. It's when names and actual addresses come into play that violations are occuring. Anything you don't want being put out for public consumption on any kind of questionaire you fill out, you are within your rights to simply put n/a or nothing at all for that matter as an answer to any question you aren't comfortable answering.

those people also sign a waiver allowing their medical records to be used, they usually participate in a study or their doctor informs them that if they sign the waiver what their records will be used for.
You cannot use someone information other than for medical purposes if they didnot give you permission to.

 

[Luissa]

I will post again what Hipaa laws cover.
Limits on Use of Personal Medical Information. The privacy rule sets limits on how health plans and covered providers may use individually identifiable health information. To promote the best quality care for patients, the rule does not restrict the ability of doctors, nurses and other providers to share information needed to treat their patients. In other situations, though, personal health information generally may not be used for purposes not related to health care, and covered entities may use or share only the minimum amount of protected information needed for a particular purpose. In addition, patients would have to sign a specific authorization before a covered entity could release their medical information to a life insurer, a bank, a marketing firm or another outside business for purposes not related to their health care.
Protecting the Privacy of Patients' Health Information

 

[Luissa]

this part says it all, what this state is purposing is illegal without the women's consent, period!
"In addition, patients would have to sign a specific authorization before a covered entity could release their medical information to a life insurer, a bank, a marketing firm or another outside business for purposes not related to their health care"

 

[Lonestar_logic]

IMO, this is an act of intimidation by the government against women that seek to have a legal medical procedure. Unless ever single medical procedure is put online in the exact same manner this is just wrong.

Not surprising that "conservatives" can't see this.

As long as it keep unborn babies from being killed, I don't care what you call it.

Not suprising that liberals can't see the value in an unborn baby.

At three weeks after conception there is a heartbeat.
At 6 weeks there is brain activity.
Also at 6 weeks they can move their arms and legs this is called "quickening" which actually means" Becoming alive"
At 20 weeks the baby is viable.

even if it illegal and violated their rights? Yeah! I would call that hypocritical!

Of course I wouldn't want any laws to be broken. But they can amend their state constitution that would make it pefectly legal. And seeing that we're talking about the lives of unborn children it should be a no-brainer. I'm amazed that there are people out there that don't value the life of an unborn child.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

"those people also sign a waiver allowing their medical records to be used,"

And you know this how? How does anyone know when answering a 3 page form to see a doctor if ANYTHING on it is going to be used or not? You sign you name at the bottom of that form you're GIVING the info to the doctor to USE. As long as it is ONLY the statistical facts being reported there is NO VIOLATION of anyone's rights. Doctors put statistical data out that they saw 26 women on Jan.20th and out of those 26, 10 were treated for herpes. NO NAMES, NO ADDRESSES, but I'd bet not a damn one of those 10 signed some waiver saying that the fact they were in the 10 out of the 26 treated for herpes was or wasn't to be used.

 

[jillian]

Why is it a scare tactic? If you see nothing wrong with killing an unborn child then why would public opinion matter?

One, the details of the abortions being performed by any medical practitioner aren't any of your business.

Two, the information can easily be used to harass medical facilities which terminate pregnancy.

Three, it also may be a violation of HIPPA which prohibits dissemination of medical information absent the signing of a HiIPPA-compliant authorization.

*edit*

just saw that Luissa already educated you.