>Oklahoma politicians have resorted to fear and intimidation in their efforts to reduce the number of abortions in their state. According to Think Progress and The Huffington Post, the new law requires physicians to post a slew of information online relating to abortions. The law goes into effect on Nov. 1 and women would be required to answer the following:
1. Date of abortion 2. County in which abortion performed 3. Age of mother 4. Marital status of mother (married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married) 5. Race of mother 6. Years of education of mother (specify highest year completed) 7. State or foreign country of residence of mother 8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother Live Births Miscarriages Induced Abortions
Doctors would be required to post this information online for the public to see. According to the Tulsa World, House Bill 1595, introduced by Sen. Todd Lamb, R-Edmond, and Rep. Dan Sullivan, R-Tulsa, is being with a lawsuit to stop the legislation from going into effect. Opponents are arguing the bill is unconstitutional because it covers more than one subject. Both former state Rep. Wanda Jo Stapleton, D-Oklahoma City, and Shawnee resident Lora Joyce Davis filed the lawsuit, which alleges the bill would cost “$281,285 the first year and $256,285 each subsequent year.” The lawsuit alleges that the bill covers four subjects, including redefining a number of abortion-related terms used in state law; banning sex-selective abortion; creating reporting requirements; and creating new duties for the Oklahoma State Department of Health, Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, and state Board of Osteopathic Examiners.
The Tulsa World also points out Senate Bill 1878, which required women to seeking an abortion to see an ultrasound one hour before the procedure, was found to be in violation of the state constitution because it also covered more than one subject.
I can’t imagine this type of legislation from going into effect. Not only does it violate the state’s constitution, it also violates a person’s right to privacy. These scare tactics and intimidation methods are a clear way to scare women from having an abortion. Plain and simple. Unsatisfied with repeated attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade being shot down by various courts, these politicians looking to impose their pro-life agenda onto their constituents have resorted to fear and public ridicule in order to eliminate abortion. These types of laws scare me not only because they violate one’s privacy, but they can also be used to justify the publication of information related to other medical procedures.
With this sort of law on the books, what’s to stop a state from posting personally identifable information relating to teenagers looking to seek birth control pills, mental health patients being treated with an array of medications and therapies, couples (whether singled or married) seeking fertility treatments or men seeking erectile dysfunction or premature ejaculation treatments?
But, as we all know, these die-hard anti-abortion politicians (who we all know are mainly men) would never enact legislation that would expose their problems with sexual performance.