OK wants to post abortion data online

[believe09]

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/oklahoma.abortion/index.html

 

[southcitymom]

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/oklahoma.abortion/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.

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

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.

 

[not_my_kids]

Note to self: Boycott the state of OK.

 

[ziggy]

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.

 

[southcitymom]

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.

 

[ChasingMoxie]

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.

 

[PeteyGirl]

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

 

[luthersmama]

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.

 

[believe09]

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? :waitasec: 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....:angel:

 

[southcitymom]

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!!!

 

[6angels]

Note to self: Boycott the state of OK.

Sure because there is nothing bad about your state.:innocent:

 

[mae]

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.

 

[mae]

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.

 

[not_my_kids]

Sure because there is nothing bad about your state.:innocent:

Oh, everything else here sucks. Except for abortion...the right to privacy there is still intact.
It's a trade off.

 

[RLynne]

State Sen. Todd Lamb helped draft the abortion legislation and describes it as "a common sense measure with bipartisan support."

Is State Sen. Lamb willing to have all of his medical records posted online? I mean, if they black out his name, there's no problem, right?? [/sarcasm]

 

[Kimster]

Although I am against abortion, I feel this would be a HIPPA violation and I'm very surprised they are able to get around the privacy laws. Abortion is legal and is considered to be a medical procedure, right? :waitasec: I have to agree this is wrong.

 

[Melanie]

Where is our privacy? I've never had an abortion, but that doesn't mean I want other women to have their hearts laid out for anyone to look at! Is this for employers to determine if they want to employ someone? I've had an STD from my ex-husband, what's the difference? I've had tumors and a full hysterectomy - will that be released to the public as well.

I'm STILL ashamed that the grocery stores follow our purchases (via those stupid cards) and the insurance companies are trying to get ahold of said purchases to see if you smoke or drink and what your eating habits are.

We might as well all live in North Korea and live under a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship. I find this so terribly wrong. I also believe if the US goes with a government health care system, we will have NO privacy whatsoever.

Lord help us!

Mel

 

[Truthful Lies]

I ache for these women. I actually published my entire name in Ms. Magazine when Roe vs. Wade was going through the grinder....I was terrified...but wanted to stand up. How dare they do that to women who are not choosing to take a stand? It was 5/6 years after the fact, and it was in a hospital (pregnancy was endangering me), and I couldn't have posted that stuff until years later....I feel so badly for these women. How horrible. It took years for me to even "get over it" mildly, although you never really do.

 

[Buzz Mills]

The current abortion issue is not whether it is right, or wrong, but whether our tax money should be used to pay for it.

I personally am against paying for someone else's abortion

with few exceptions