• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge stops Oklahoma abortion law

ADK_Forever

ADK_Forever

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
3,706
Reaction score
1,001
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OKLAHOMA CITY, May 3 (UPI) -- Oklahoma's new law requiring women to submit to an ultrasound procedure shortly before getting an abortion was put on hold by a judge Monday.

Oklahoma County District Judge Noma Gurich signed an agreement stopping enforcement of the law and scheduled a July 19 hearing to hear complaints about it, The Oklahoman reported.

Abortion facilities contend the ultrasound law requiring women to undergo ultrasounds within an hour before terminating a pregnancy is unfair because it treats treats abortion providers differently than other medical personnel.

Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry vetoed a bill with the ultrasound requirement but the state Senate overrode him Tuesday and the law had gone into effect immediately.
Click to expand...
Judge stops Oklahoma abortion law - UPI.com

Once again, the party of "small government" :roll: , the Repubs, continues its efforts to give gov't more and more intrusive powers, this time allowing them to stick their arrogant noses into women's health rights.
 
I knew that rationality would eventually prevail.
It generally does, in the end.
 
This is what the law does under this law it makes the abortion doctor not obligated to tell you, if they baby has defects, if you deiced to keep it. It also what I would call emotional blackmail, and it does seem too signal out Abortion clinics.
 
Last edited:
Not her job. That's pure activism. She has no right to stop it.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Judge stops Oklahoma abortion law - UPI.com

Once again, the party of "small government" :roll: , the Repubs, continues its efforts to give gov't more and more intrusive powers, this time allowing them to stick their arrogant noses into women's health rights.
Click to expand...

Spare us your phony indignation. Most Liberals LOVE big government. They just oppose it when its something they don't agree with.

That was voted on by the people who speak for the people. This activist judge circumvented that process and imposed her own personal politics.
 
Last edited:
ADK_Forever said:
Judge stops Oklahoma abortion law - UPI.com

Once again, the party of "small government" :roll: , the Repubs, continues its efforts to give gov't more and more intrusive powers, this time allowing them to stick their arrogant noses into women's health rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, because making a woman see the child she is killing is so... big gov't. It's so WRONG! Better to just let her think she's killing a mass of her own cells she doesn't want to deal with.

:roll:
 
MrVicchio said:
Yes, because making a woman see the child she is killing is so... big gov't. It's so WRONG! Better to just let her think she's killing a mass of her own cells she doesn't want to deal with.

:roll:
Click to expand...

If you had an internal tumor that was hours away from being removed, it wouldn't make sense for the doctor to stop everything and give you an ultrasound, just to make sure you want it removed. This is no different.

The lawsuit has teeth because there is clearly a discrimination in the medical practice here. Why are abortions required to have an ultrasound beforehand? In the case of pre-natal ultrasounds, they are conducted to inspect the health of the embryo or fetus. If it's about to be aborted, its health status is irrelevant.

The law is a thinly veiled appeal to emotion to guilt trip the woman into not going through with it. That, and it's a total waste of medical resources. The ultrasound costs money, and who is supposed to pay for it? The woman? The taxpayers? The clinics? It is little more than an obstruction to try and prevent an abortion from taking place, and it's an attempt to bypass Roe v Wade.

It's also definitely a big government attitude, except this time it comes from the side of social conservativism, which you obviously support. You can't be against the health care bill but be in favor of this law. It equally lacks logic and is an intrusive use of power.
 
Wow she signed an agreement, and is scheduling a hearing and this gets labeled "activism"

she has not even made any kind of judgment and she is an activist judge :doh

How dare the parties involved in this case come to an agreement! She should refuse to add her signature and not validate this agreement nonsense. :roll:
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
Wow she signed an agreement, and is scheduling a hearing and this gets labeled "activism"

she has not even made any kind of judgment and she is an activist judge :doh

How dare the parties involved in this case come to an agreement! She should refuse to add her signature and not validate this agreement nonsense. :roll:
Click to expand...

What she did was impede the implementation of a law based on her own political beliefs. Thats the definition of an activist judge.
 
MrVicchio said:
Yes, because making a woman see the child she is killing is so... big gov't. It's so WRONG! Better to just let her think she's killing a mass of her own cells she doesn't want to deal with.
Click to expand...

psst::: It's her choice.

It's HER body.

It's certainly not YOUR choice or anybody else's choice.

Why don't you people get this? :roll:

No-Bod-dee has the right to "MAKE" her look at anything Anything!
 
texmaster said:
What she did was impede the implementation of a law based on her own political beliefs. Thats the definition of an activist judge.
Click to expand...

Yo, we have laws that limit what kind of laws can be made. For instance, Texas can't pass a law that all everybody in the state has to wear a ten gallon hat.

Amazing concept, I know.
 
texmaster said:
What she did was impede the implementation of a law based on her own political beliefs. Thats the definition of an activist judge.
Click to expand...

The plaintiff made a request for this temporary stop pending a hearing, then the State Attorney General agreed to a temporary stop pending a hearing and then the judge signed the agreement.

Did this "activist judge" tie the AG down, whip him into submission and force her political beliefs onto him resulting in this agreement?
 
Last edited:
Absolutely correct decision by the courts. This is unconstitutional in my mind, the government has NO authority to force you to undergo medical procedures.

I am laughing my ass off watching democrats in this thread and are all for a full on public option having a problem with the government mandating a certain type of procedure while on the other hand some republicans that cry, cry, cry non-stop about the public option and government in health care defending a law that mandates an individual to have a medical procedure performed on them.

However I will say that the passing of this law is a symptom of a larger problem, and that's the federal government interfering with states rights in regards to Roe V. Wade. This should be a state issue and because the Federal Governments have taken that away then its only natural that States are going to try to assert their rightful dominion over this kind of law in some way shape or form to reflect the beliefs of their people. That does not make this particular law correct, it absolutely isn't, but its the reason why these kind of end around type things are done.

The "conservatives for small government" issue is much like my view in regards to Net Neutrality. There comes a point where you realize that the obvious small government option ("remove it") is not going to happen so you then are forced to find a way to act within the system to count-act it as best as possible.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Judge stops Oklahoma abortion law - UPI.com

Once again, the party of "small government" :roll: , the Repubs, continues its efforts to give gov't more and more intrusive powers, this time allowing them to stick their arrogant noses into women's health rights.
Click to expand...

I don't grasp this issue.

These women ARE PREGNANT - whether they like it or not - until they are no longer PREGNANT they ARE different than any other regular patient. If they were intending to have an abortion and were in a car-wreck they would be treated at the hospital based on their pregnant status. It's just a fact, there.

I fail, though, to see why this is an issue one way or another. What's the point of the ultrasound? If it was to assist medical personnel that would be one thing but I gather it's a heart-string thing. Even then - why is that so bad? States have various requirements including "officially separated" time restraints for a couple wanting to divorce purely for the sake of having them slow down and think about the finality of divorce - why can't a state have a 'pre abortion screening' requirement?

I support abortion but don't mind the ultrasound requirement because If I had to wait 6 months before I could be granted a divorce then surely someone should be required to *know* what they're aborting. It definitely shouldn't be done in ignorance. I prefer, overall, that people WANT to keep their children and WANT to raise them.

If someone, after seeing what they're aborting, doesn't want to abort and has a change of heart - what's wrong with that?
If someone, after seeing what they're aborting, doesn't have a change of heart then I see nothing wrong with that, either.

Honestly - while I fully support abortion I feel it shouldn't be a walk-in thing. If I have to wait weeks or months to have a surgery then so should a pregnant woman. (Not an excessive amount of time - a few days maybe). During that time the clinic should be required to contact parents if the patient is a minor.

I think the quickness of this procedure really dulls people's thoughts on it - it IS a medical procedure with risks and and consequences other than the aborted fetus.
 
God, I just wish the federal government would stop sticking their noses into people's business! If I want to kill it, let me! It's MY property! They have no right to tell me what to do with my property! I can do with it what I want and no government should stand in my way!

Doesn't that sound like Mississippi circa 1858....?
 
really? how in the world do you know that?
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
This is what the law does under this law it makes the abortion doctor not obligated to tell you, if they baby has defects, if you deiced to keep it. It also what I would call emotional blackmail, and it does seem too signal out Abortion clinics.
Click to expand...

What? That came out garbled.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I don't grasp this issue.

These women ARE PREGNANT - whether they like it or not - until they are no longer PREGNANT they ARE different than any other regular patient. If they were intending to have an abortion and were in a car-wreck they would be treated at the hospital based on their pregnant status. It's just a fact, there.

I fail, though, to see why this is an issue one way or another. What's the point of the ultrasound? If it was to assist medical personnel that would be one thing but I gather it's a heart-string thing. Even then - why is that so bad? States have various requirements including "officially separated" time restraints for a couple wanting to divorce purely for the sake of having them slow down and think about the finality of divorce - why can't a state have a 'pre abortion screening' requirement?

I support abortion but don't mind the ultrasound requirement because If I had to wait 6 months before I could be granted a divorce then surely someone should be required to *know* what they're aborting. It definitely shouldn't be done in ignorance. I prefer, overall, that people WANT to keep their children and WANT to raise them.

If someone, after seeing what they're aborting, doesn't want to abort and has a change of heart - what's wrong with that?
If someone, after seeing what they're aborting, doesn't have a change of heart then I see nothing wrong with that, either.

Honestly - while I fully support abortion I feel it shouldn't be a walk-in thing. If I have to wait weeks or months to have a surgery then so should a pregnant woman. (Not an excessive amount of time - a few days maybe). During that time the clinic should be required to contact parents if the patient is a minor.

I think the quickness of this procedure really dulls people's thoughts on it - it IS a medical procedure with risks and and consequences other than the aborted fetus.
Click to expand...
your analogies don't make sense. what is the purpose of an ultrasound for a fetus that is going to be aborted? there is no earthly reason for it. given that, this law is ridiculous.
 
Zyphlin said:
I am laughing my ass off watching democrats in this thread and are all for a full on public option having a problem with the government mandating a certain type of procedure while on the other hand some republicans that cry, cry, cry non-stop about the public option and government in health care defending a law that mandates an individual to have a medical procedure performed on them.
Click to expand...

What an incredibly absurd comparison.

A public option would simply have been a government-run health insurance plan. It would not have forced anyone to have any medical procedures whatsoever.
 
misterman said:
:rofl

Really? So I need to see a picture of my tumor to make sure I want it out? I might change my mind when I see it?

Wow, that was really lame. Especially since we already know exactly what the fetus is, and don't need a picture to tell us.
Click to expand...
you misunderstood the post. ;-)
 
misterman said:
What? That came out garbled.
Click to expand...
Basically I read somewhere that this law would also give doctors the right to not tell the mother that they baby has a birth deficit, and this is emotional blackmail....
 
Last edited:
ADK_Forever said:
Yo, we have laws that limit what kind of laws can be made. For instance, Texas can't pass a law that all everybody in the state has to wear a ten gallon hat.

Amazing concept, I know.
Click to expand...

Nice job ducking the role of a judge.
 
marduc said:
The plaintiff made a request for this temporary stop pending a hearing, then the State Attorney General agreed to a temporary stop pending a hearing and then the judge signed the agreement.

Did this "activist judge" tie the AG down, whip him into submission and force her political beliefs onto him resulting in this agreement?
Click to expand...

There is NO LAW she can cite to grant that request. Thats the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom