840 users online (127 members and 713 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Oh Captain, My Captain
    Posts
    28,119

    OK wants to post abortion data online

    Snip
    "According to state estimates, the Oklahoma State Department of Health will spend roughly $250,000 a year to carry out the law.
    "To spend a quarter of a million dollars on this is absolutely ridiculous," Stapleton says, adding, "Oh goodness, all the publicity over this has severely blighted the image of Oklahoma."
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1969 drafted criteria for vital statistics around abortion to look at infant and maternal mortality in an effort to make the procedure safer.
    The CDC's guidelines have long been considered the standard and "all the states pretty much follow that," says Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state abortion legislation for the Guttmacher Institute.
    "You compare the law in Oklahoma to the CDC standard, and you see the law in Oklahoma goes far beyond what has been considered appropriate for vital statistics purposes," Nash says."
    Snip

    Women and DR's will be forced to contribute data based on a 10 page questionnaire. The data will then be posted online. The legislators who drafted and passed the legislation are anti choice, avowedly so.

    So I ask myself, what other medical procedure should require this level of "counseling?" Tubal Ligation? Vasectomy? Condoms, birth control? Organ transplant? If I were the women in this state, I would feel strongly that the state government does not believe for a hot second that I have the ability to make good choices about my own body. JMO.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/18/okl...ion/index.html
    email me


    Long Lost Love: The Bob Harrod Story Disappeared/ID Network
    Amazon: Purchase Long Lost Love $1.99


    Bob Harrod SAR


    “The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.”
    ― Maya Angelou

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,021
    Quote Originally Posted by believe09 View Post
    Snip
    "According to state estimates, the Oklahoma State Department of Health will spend roughly $250,000 a year to carry out the law.
    "To spend a quarter of a million dollars on this is absolutely ridiculous," Stapleton says, adding, "Oh goodness, all the publicity over this has severely blighted the image of Oklahoma."
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1969 drafted criteria for vital statistics around abortion to look at infant and maternal mortality in an effort to make the procedure safer.
    The CDC's guidelines have long been considered the standard and "all the states pretty much follow that," says Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state abortion legislation for the Guttmacher Institute.
    "You compare the law in Oklahoma to the CDC standard, and you see the law in Oklahoma goes far beyond what has been considered appropriate for vital statistics purposes," Nash says."
    Snip

    Women and DR's will be forced to contribute data based on a 10 page questionnaire. The data will then be posted online. The legislators who drafted and passed the legislation are anti choice, avowedly so.

    So I ask myself, what other medical procedure should require this level of "counseling?" Tubal Ligation? Vasectomy? Condoms, birth control? Organ transplant? If I were the women in this state, I would feel strongly that the state government does not believe for a hot second that I have the ability to make good choices about my own body. JMO.

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/18/okl...ion/index.html
    Very true. But I am not holding my breath until the day that we uniformly decide that abortion isn't "more" than a medical procedure. All of these types of privacy invasions are attacks against a law that many loathe.

    As you know, I am grateful for the Roe v. Wade decision. I find it irritating that some states want to treat woman who make the hard decision to abort like they are drooling idiots.
    I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death!

  3. #3
    I agree with Nash, it does seem to go beyond the norm for statistical review/reporting. I do hope this legislation is shot down. Medical privacy is a serious issue and one I wouldn't want my state's legislation to get their hands on. Statistics are one thing. A ten page questionnaire is unnecessary.

    I don't see this as anything other than anti-abortion politicians attempting to dissuade women from seeking abortion services. They aren't able to put a stop to it, so they make it more personally invasive to the woman. Governmental red tape.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Around here somewhere
    Posts
    12,690
    Note to self: Boycott the state of OK.
    JMO. Unless there's a link, I can't prove it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SoCal LB area
    Posts
    4,748
    Quote Originally Posted by southcitymom View Post
    Very true. But I am not holding my breath until the day that we uniformly decide that abortion isn't "more" than a medical procedure. All of these types of privacy invasions are attacks against a law that many loathe.

    As you know, I am grateful for the Roe v. Wade decision. I find it irritating that some states want to treat woman who make the hard decision to abort like they are drooling idiots.
    I would like to know how many are drooling idiots, and the fact of the matter is- some may be, a good percentage might not be but your suggetion that ALL are treated like that is not rational, imo. We get opinions thrown around from both sides...I feel it would be a good idea to get some serious stats on who is getting them and why - there's fraud and also taxpayer money involved so why not? There are no names, just stats.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,021
    Quote Originally Posted by ziggy View Post
    I would like to know how many are drooling idiots, and the fact of the matter is- some may be, a good percentage might not be but your suggetion that ALL are treated like that is not rational, imo. We get opinions thrown around from both sides...I feel it would be a good idea to get some serious stats on who is getting them and why - there's fraud and also taxpayer money involved so why not? There are no names, just stats.
    Ziggy, perhaps I am not following your train of thought, but all people ARE expected to give data based on this 10-page questionnaire and therefore, they all ARE being treated like drooling idiots, IMHO.

    Now, what percentage of them ARE actual drooling idiots? - I truly don't know and personally don't care. But I do believe this - their answers on a questionnaire is not going to tell me that.

    It's just invasive and insulting. There's fraud and tax payer money deeply intertwined in all sorts of health procedures (Medicare comes to mind), but we're not making everyone jump through silly little hoops.

    This is being done because lots of folks are anti-choice and can't stand that abortions happen legally.
    Last edited by southcitymom; 12-18-2009 at 04:25 PM.
    I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    393
    Currently abortion is a legal medical procedure, and opinions on this should be just the same as if they were suggesting all breast cancer or heart disease patients be required to fill out extensive and intrusive paperwork in order to obtain care, or requiring people with depression to divulge their deepest feelings of worthlessness to someone other than their therapist in order to obtain care. To believe otherwise is logical fallacy.

    If you don't like the law attack the law, don't pass tangential legislation that opens the door for invasive government intrusion into personal health records. This is ridiculous.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by ChasingMoxie View Post
    Currently abortion is a legal medical procedure, and opinions on this should be just the same as if they were suggesting all breast cancer or heart disease patients be required to fill out extensive and intrusive paperwork in order to obtain care, or requiring people with depression to divulge their deepest feelings of worthlessness to someone other than their therapist in order to obtain care. To believe otherwise is logical fallacy.

    If you don't like the law attack the law, don't pass tangential legislation that opens the door for invasive government intrusion into personal health records. This is ridiculous.
    Beautifully said

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,868
    Well, I think it is about high time that men seeking ED prescriptions should have to fill out such forms.

    - Why do you feel you need this medication?
    - When was the last time you managed to "perform" without medication?
    - Was it good for your partner, too?
    - If you didn't HAVE a partner, what is your problem?
    - If it WAS NOT good for your partner,perhaps ED is not your only problem. Have you considered learning how to please your partner?
    - Do you really need to ask me "What the hell do you mean by that?"?
    - Have you tried other ED medications?
    - Did you believe that stuff in the ad about "erections lasting longer than 4 hours"?
    - Are you paying for this yourself, or is it being paid for by Medicare?

    etc.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Oh Captain, My Captain
    Posts
    28,119
    Quote Originally Posted by ziggy View Post
    I would like to know how many are drooling idiots, and the fact of the matter is- some may be, a good percentage might not be but your suggetion that ALL are treated like that is not rational, imo. We get opinions thrown around from both sides...I feel it would be a good idea to get some serious stats on who is getting them and why - there's fraud and also taxpayer money involved so why not? There are no names, just stats.
    Fraud? I find that hard to believe given how closely people watch the statistics on this issue.

    This legal medical procedure is being singled out for special treatment which is something that is rarely supported in our courts of law. The fact is, it should be all or none to be fair. I would like to know the number of sex offenders who have prescriptions for performance enhancing drugs based on the generic description of ED but I would not pass legislation demanding a criminal background check for anyone looking for certain kinds of medication....
    email me


    Long Lost Love: The Bob Harrod Story Disappeared/ID Network
    Amazon: Purchase Long Lost Love $1.99


    Bob Harrod SAR


    “The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.”
    ― Maya Angelou


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    16,021
    Quote Originally Posted by luthersmama View Post
    Well, I think it is about high time that men seeking ED prescriptions should have to fill out such forms.

    - Why do you feel you need this medication?
    - When was the last time you managed to "perform" without medication?
    - Was it good for your partner, too?
    - If you didn't HAVE a partner, what is your problem?
    - If it WAS NOT good for your partner,perhaps ED is not your only problem. Have you considered learning how to please your partner?
    - Do you really need to ask me "What the hell do you mean by that?"?
    - Have you tried other ED medications?
    - Did you believe that stuff in the ad about "erections lasting longer than 4 hours"?
    - Are you paying for this yourself, or is it being paid for by Medicare?

    etc.
    LOL, luthersmama! You post reminded me of a comedy bit I saw Wanda Sykes do once. She said that men over a certain age who wanted ED medicine from their doctors should be required to bring in a notarized Affidavit with the signatures of at least 3 women who wanted to have sex with them!!!
    I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,171
    Quote Originally Posted by not_my_kids View Post
    Note to self: Boycott the state of OK.
    Sure because there is nothing bad about your state.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by ChasingMoxie View Post
    Currently abortion is a legal medical procedure, and opinions on this should be just the same as if they were suggesting all breast cancer or heart disease patients be required to fill out extensive and intrusive paperwork in order to obtain care, or requiring people with depression to divulge their deepest feelings of worthlessness to someone other than their therapist in order to obtain care. To believe otherwise is logical fallacy.

    If you don't like the law attack the law, don't pass tangential legislation that opens the door for invasive government intrusion into personal health records. This is ridiculous.
    Well said, Chasing Moxie.

    It's appalling that anyone thought up this policy and also thought that it might be effective or beneficial in any way.


    It's a glaringly obvious attempt to discourage women to get abortions. It's not meant to provide statistical information to help OK better meet the needs of it's female citizens or to give them better medical options. It's an invasion of privacy. It's a waste of money. And it's bad policy with a very bad basis for being posed.
    Last edited by mae; 12-19-2009 at 07:37 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by ziggy View Post
    I would like to know how many are drooling idiots, and the fact of the matter is- some may be, a good percentage might not be but your suggetion that ALL are treated like that is not rational, imo. We get opinions thrown around from both sides...I feel it would be a good idea to get some serious stats on who is getting them and why - there's fraud and also taxpayer money involved so why not? There are no names, just stats.
    What fraud are you talking about? You think this is some kind of abortion fraud going on? Really?

    And what issue do you have with the use of taxpayer money with regards to abortion? Do you have the same issue with this law? Because "According to state estimates, the Oklahoma State Department of Health will spend roughly $250,000 a year to carry out the law." That money is coming from somewhere.

    What exactly do you think they that roughly $250,000 will show? What beneficial information do you think they will get? And what will they do with it?



    Oddly enough, our country loses millions in corporate welfare and we are spending billions on a war, but no one is focusing on that. Instead, we focus on other, less important issues relatively speaking. And here Ok has chosen vulnerable women who are making difficult decisions. Interesting.
    Last edited by mae; 12-19-2009 at 07:36 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Around here somewhere
    Posts
    12,690
    Quote Originally Posted by 6angels View Post
    Sure because there is nothing bad about your state.
    Oh, everything else here sucks. Except for abortion...the right to privacy there is still intact.
    It's a trade off.
    JMO. Unless there's a link, I can't prove it.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Federal Workers's 2011 Salary Data Exposed Online
    By Reality Orlando in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-15-2012, 10:19 AM
  2. Child Online Protection Act; Feds seek Google data in child porn case
    By PrayersForMaura in forum General Information & Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-25-2006, 02:46 PM