A pro-choice advocacy group filed a lawsuit Thursday in an attempt to block Oklahoma legislation that would require women obtaining abortions to have an ultrasound and hear verbal descriptions of the fetuses from doctors.
The Center for Reproductive Rights filed the suit on behalf of Nova Health Systems, which operates Reproductive Services, an abortion provider in Tulsa.
The suit, titled NOVA Health Systems vs. Brad Henry, states that Senate Bill 1878 invades patients’ privacy, assaults their dignity and could endanger their health, said Dionne Scott, senior press officer for the center.
SB 1878 is scheduled to take effect Nov. 1. It was authored by Sen. Todd Lamb, R-Edmond/Oklahoma City. It would make Oklahoma the fourth state in the U.S. to enact such a law.
Scott said the bill includes the most extreme ultrasound requirements in the country, because it forces the patient to listen to a description of the ultrasound.
The law also prevents a woman from suing her doctor for intentionally withholding other information about the fetus, such as the presence of birth defects.
“Their lawsuit seeks to undo important reforms that provide women with information that helps them give informed consent prior to receiving an abortion,” Scott said.
Lamb said this measure helps prevent “wrongful-life suits” that claim a disabled baby would have been better off aborted. He also said the patients do not have to view the ultrasounds.
However, Scott said if a woman chooses to avert her eyes from an ultrasound screen, she is required to hear a description of the fetus from her doctor.
The law also requires doctors to follow a specific protocol when administering the abortion pill RU-486, which is more costly and has higher side effects than the one recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Scott said.
Lamb said the provision changes Oklahoma’s law to mirror federal regulations on the abortion pill.
Keri Parks, director of external affairs for Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma, said the law’s provisions do not protect the health of women, but rather, put more burdens on women and health care facilities. She said that applying the abortion pill provision to rape victims is also inappropriate.
Gov. Brad Henry originally vetoed the law because it did not include an exemption for rape and incest victims, but Oklahoma lawmakers overrode his decision.
The Oklahoma State Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the override last April, according to a press release.
Dr. Dana Stone, an Oklahoma City obstetrician, said she lobbied against the bill before it was passed and believes the legislature should not be able to mandate medical procedures.
“Women who come to the decision to have an abortion do not do it lightly,” she said. “The government does not need to require that women do specific things before they make a medical decision.”
Before SB 1878, Oklahoma law already required that women be offered a free ultrasound before an abortion, Stone said.
Mark Hiehle, executive director of the Eden Clinic, a Norman reproductive health care center, said in an e-mail that he is in favor of the law. He said the lawsuit is troubling because women should be as informed as possible before having an abortion.
“It is a sad commentary that pro-abortion activists desire to keep factual information from women as they struggle to make difficult decisions during a time of crisis in their lives.”
Planned Parenthood is in favor of women receiving the necessary information to make private health care decisions, but it opposes the legislation because doctors, not politicians, should decide what information and care is best for their patients, Parks said.
Stone said lawmakers in favor of the bill want to change women’s minds about getting an abortion, but she does not think it will be effective.
“Putting one more step in the way will probably not alter their behavior that much,” she said.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
stuffman 3 years, 7 months ago
How the heck can showing the ultrasound be a violation of privacy?
As for eightbitgirl, abortion isn't just about a woman's own body. It's about violently killing and removing the baby or fetus or whatever you want to call it. Seriously, if we let people do to animals what they can do to a human fetus, no one would stand for it. At the very least, I would think that everyone would agree that abortion is a serious matter and a woman should really know what she's doing before choosing to have one. I think showing the ultrasound would be a crucial part of that. I also wonder how giving information about an important decision could be considered an assault on the woman's dignity. Also, how could showing someone a picture be considered endangering their health?
Charles 3 years, 7 months ago
They can make the doctor describe it but they can't mandate good nararative. "The sort of grey blotch in the middle of the screen, that's the baby. Anything else you want to know?"
ougirlkristy 3 years, 7 months ago
It is a violation of privacy because it is forcing a women to had a medical procedure before she is allowed to have an abortion. According to this article a women is already offered a free ultrasound by law, so this law is now mandating something that for now at least is voluntary. Why unless a women is deaf....does she really need to "listen to a description of the ultrasound."? Sounds like our state is trying to emotionally manipulate women into not having abortions! I think religious objections are starting to show in our legislation. As a women I am ultimately offended by this law which "prevents a woman from suing her doctor for intentionally withholding other information about the fetus, such as the presence of birth defects." If nothing else THAT is certainly something a mother should be able to know and if a doctor knowingly withheld information about my child I would think that is a gross act of malpractice and definitely seek legal justification!
A supporter of the bill states, “It is a sad commentary that pro-abortion activists desire to keep factual information from women as they struggle to make difficult decisions during a time of crisis in their lives.” but that is what this bill allows doctors to do!!!!
God forbid, but if I ever am in this situation looks like I'm going out of state to get it done.
eightbitgirl 3 years, 7 months ago
It is ludicrous for some people to make the connection that pro-choice is equal to pro-abortion. Nobody wakes up in the morning, cackles maniacally like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons, and plots to have an abortion. What we're fighting for is the right to make that decision without interference from people who have nothing to do with us, and to extend that right to all women in this country. It is nobody else's business what a woman and her partner do with her body. To the pro-life crowd: I respect your beliefs and the fact that you would choose to have the child. Please respect me as well.
eightbitgirl 3 years, 7 months ago
stuffman, I'm pretty sure that a woman plunking down $350-$400 on a procedure knows enough about what she's doing without being emotionally terrorized about it. Planned Parenthood offers free ultrasounds already. They also require a patient to be counseled both before and after the procedure. Please research your facts before you spew inaccuracies. This law is not necessary and is emotional manipulation.
Laws like this aren't going to stop abortions or change people's minds. They're going to lead to more "back alley" abortions and dangerous procedures, jeopardizing the lives of women.
stuffman 3 years, 7 months ago
Do you really think that women would not go to the abortion clinic just because they would see the ultrasound (which I think is usually taken anyways so the doctor knows how far along things are and how much to charge, so it's not making the woman pay for anything more)? It seems hard to believe that this would result in any back alley abortions.
I don't see why this would be emotional terrorism. It might be emotional, but I think it would really convey the idea that abortion involves the violent removal of something that can look pretty dang human. While it's one thing to know in a general way what abortion is, it's another to have the visual/direct knowledge of what it entails. I would think that we as a society should think that abortion is a serious enough matter that we make sure the woman knows exactly what she's doing--not just in a general way, but really know what's going on. This may be emotional, but the assurance that the woman making the choice can make an educated decision outweighs this.
Mark 3 years, 7 months ago
Women are very intelligent plus deeply concerned and interested about their medical health and decisions. Every woman deserves and should insist on complete disclosure about a life altering procedure that will affect every part of her.
At the Eden Clinic women are seen every day that desire to be completely informed concerning their pregnancy that many times is unplanned. With the many misunderstandings and misconceptions concerning pregnancy and fetal development, limited ultrasounds provide factual medical information that women need in order to make informed choices. The factual, up to date medical information that the Eden Clinic provides is presented by professional nurses and physicians.
Being that abortion is the largest unregulated business in our country, lessons should be learned from the financial crisis we are currently in. Oversight and governmental imposed standards need to be in place for the protection of women. Women deserve to have all the information available to them before they make life altering decisions. The Oklahoma law respects women by providing the information they need, so that they know, they had all the information possible prior to their decision.
TheJuke77 3 years, 7 months ago
"It's about violently killing and removing the baby or fetus or whatever you want to call it."
I'm going to cut through the crap and provide you a bit of my overactive imagination.
Stuffman, does the doctor climb into the womb and punch the thing or whatever you want to call it to death?