• 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

RyrineaHaruno said:
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....
Click to expand...

Ah, I see.

That would be a blatant violation of medical ethics.
 
texmaster said:
There is NO LAW she can cite to grant that request. Thats the point.
Click to expand...

She most certainly does have the power to grant that request, pending a full hearing. She has not ruled on the merits yet. It's purely a procedural thing.

Calling a temporary delay to allow for a hearing "judicial activism" is absurd.
 
Last edited:
Orion said:
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.
Click to expand...


Actually it is different. The woman is not carrying a tumor she is carrying a child. So it is absurd to compare a child to a tumor.

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.
Click to expand...

If they so convinced that the child they are carrying is nothing more than just a clump of cells then a ultrasound should not bother them and abortionist should not worry.

That, and it's a total waste of medical resources.
Click to expand...

I disagree.If it saves at least one child then it is not a waste of resources.
The ultrasound costs money, and who is supposed to pay for it?
Click to expand...

Doesn't someone who wants a gun in New york or some other anti-2nd amendment state have to pay for a permit/licenses themself?


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.
Click to expand...

Some of those clinics already did ultra sounds.
Patients Reacting To New Abortion Law - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com |
Counselor Sue Ames says her clinic already performs ultrasounds, but until now has never forced women to look at the results


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.
Click to expand...


So its okay to make someone who wishes to buy a fire arm which is clearly a protested constitutional right to jump though hoops, but abortion which is not even in the constitution so clearly it is not a constitutional right, you abortionist have a problem making people jump through hoops before they can get an abortion.
 
I have no issue with a doctor or clinic requiring a woman to have an ultrasound prior to having an abortion. I have no issue at all with a woman *having* an ultrasound prior to having an abortion. I think that ALL medical procedure decisions should be made with as much information as possible.

However, I have a serious issue with the government forcing a woman to undergo a medical procedure. Period. It has nothing to do with what the procedure is, or why they are forcing it. It simply has to do with the forcing of it. That would be overstepping their bounds and no person who values freedom and liberty should be okay with that. No matter WHAT your feeling on abortion is.
 
Mellie said:
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....?
Click to expand...

Not in the least. A ridiculous appeal to emotionalism, nothing more.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
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....
Click to expand...

It's actually two laws.

One requires, before an abortion, a woman to have an ultrasound with the monitor to be viewable by the woman, and the doctor must give her a full description of what she is viewing.

The other forbids women who have disabled babies from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects discovered while the fetus was in the womb.
 
BWG said:
It's actually two laws.

One requires, before an abortion, a woman to have an ultrasound with the monitor to be viewable by the woman, and the doctor must give her a full description of what she is viewing.

The other forbids women who have disabled babies from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects discovered while the fetus was in the womb.
Click to expand...



Thanks for the information about this law. ^^
 
Orion said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that to you, a new life forming is the same as tumor.


Orion said:
The lawsuit has teeth because there is clearly a discrimination in the medical practice here. Why are abortions required to have an ultrasound beforehand?
Click to expand...
Because teh people of Oklahoma
are sick of women killing unborn children without all the facts.


Orion said:
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.
Click to expand...
And that's the problem.

Orion said:
The law is a thinly veiled appeal to emotion to guilt trip the woman into not going through with it.
Click to expand...
Calling an unborn child a tumor isn't emotionalism? Maybe it's giving the woman all the facts like "Hey, THIS is what you're killing."

Orion said:
That, and it's a total waste of medical resources.
Click to expand...
Why, because some women might decide NOT to kill their own child. I think that's the greatest use of medical resources.

Orion said:
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.
Click to expand...
Roe Vs. Wade is terrible law and should be over turned.

Orion said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL I love this, so when the RIGHT supports a government action, we're hypocrites. Such emotionally charged intellectually dishonest drivel.

No one said we're ANTI-GOVERNMENT. Nice try, but that John Stewart level of "logic" don't fly with honest folk.
 
So there will be thousands of ultrasound procedures performed for women that have their eyes closed.

Doesn't make much sense to me. Will the next step be to waterboard them until they watch with their eyes open and not rolled back into their heads?

Leave people alone Goddammit.
 
BWG said:
It's actually two laws.

One requires, before an abortion, a woman to have an ultrasound with the monitor to be viewable by the woman, and the doctor must give her a full description of what she is viewing.

The other forbids women who have disabled babies from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects discovered while the fetus was in the womb.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Wow, these are both incredible intrusions in the patient-doctor relationship.

Especially the latter. A doctor can deliberately withold information from a patient about a medical condition? That's so obviously unethical.
 
jamesrage said:
abortion which is not even in the constitution so clearly it is not a constitutional right
Click to expand...

Read the 9th amendment and get back to us.
 
texmaster said:
Not her job. That's pure activism. She has no right to stop it.
Click to expand...

That is precisely her job. She not overturning the law--she's just reviewing complaints (legal filings regarding the law).

Anytime a judge renders a decision you don't like, it's "activism"...
 
BWG said:
It's actually two laws.

One requires, before an abortion, a woman to have an ultrasound with the monitor to be viewable by the woman, and the doctor must give her a full description of what she is viewing.

The other forbids women who have disabled babies from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects discovered while the fetus was in the womb.
Click to expand...

Has their state legislature been totally overrun by the far-right?
 
misterman said:
Read the 9th amendment and get back to us.
Click to expand...

Yes I read the 9th. It doesn't say **** about abortion. Nice try though.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
jamesrage said:
Yes I read the 9th. It doesn't say **** about abortion. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

:doh:rofl

This has got to be one of the funniest posts ever!

Read it again. Carefully:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...
 
jamesrage said:
Yes I read the 9th. It doesn't say **** about abortion. Nice try though.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...

Nor does it say **** about television, popsicles or those funny beer drinking hats, yet somehow we understand that we have the right to have those things.
 
misterman said:
:doh:rofl

This has got to be one of the funniest posts ever!

Read it again. Carefully:
Click to expand...

It basically means that certain listed (edenumerate) rights shall not be used to deny rights retained by the people.
 
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...

The public option didn't force procedures on anybody, this is absurd.
 
Cardinal said:
Nor does it say **** about television, popsicles or those funny beer drinking hats, yet somehow we understand that we have the right to have those things.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure Television and beer drinking hats would fall under the first amendment under free speech. Popsicles on the other hand could probably be banned seeing how some areas ban certain foods and certain food ingredients.
 
texmaster said:
Not her job. That's pure activism. She has no right to stop it.
Click to expand...

WRONG!!!!!

It was a bad law created by a group of reglious zealots who cannot understand their religion has no place on the Senate floor.

That law is a direct violation of federal precedent. The republican party needs to be told to keep their religious beliefs out of politics or they need to be permenantly barred from holding office.
 
texmaster said:
There is NO LAW she can cite to grant that request. Thats the point.
Click to expand...

WRONG AGAIN!

There is federal precedent... it's called Roe vs Wade.

The right needs to learn to keep their religion and morality out of politics are they need to be removed from politics PERMENANTLY.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
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....
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the doctors DON"T have to tell the mother/parents that there unborn child has medical problems and cannot be sued for with holding the information. That to me is wrong. In fact, it is the part of the law that is most worrisome to me. I do not have a problem with the ultrasound if it is handled appropriately and not use as information and not as a battering weapon against the mother. When it sanity going to reamerge among our law making bodies and our citizenry.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

As is obvious by this case ... some states WILL NOT follow the law unless the federal government puts a foot up their asses.

This is especially true in states where republican religious zealots try to govern by making laws that force their religious beliefs on everybody. Clearly, Republicans need to be told to keep their office and their religion seperate. If they cannot, they need to be removed from office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom