Oklahoma has approved new legislation that would protect doctors from malpractice suits should they decide NOT to inform a pregnant woman about possible birth defects or health issues of her child.

The state also approved legislation that would require women seeking abortion (no matter what the cause, even in cases of rape, etc.) to view an ultrasound of the fetus beforehand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html?src=mv

While I am pro-choice, I can understand the thinking behind the ultrasound law. Perhaps some considerations should be made for those impregnated through traumatic circumstances, but if a woman is in good mental health I don't have an issue with her fully understanding the action she is taking.

However I have a huge issue with the law that essentially gives doctor's the right not to disclose vital health information to a pregnant woman. Yes, I know that many women when learning about potential problems for their unborn child will choose abortion, but many do not and just want to be able to prepare the best they can for their child. Caring for a special needs child costs money, time and emotion, and the pregnant woman, as well as anyone who will have a close relationship with the child needs time to prepare. When the time comes for me to have children, I'd want to know everything I can so I can provide the best life for them.

I really hope this law doesn't set a new standard for the rest of the country. As a woman, this scares the hell out of me.

Actually the majority of states in this country either do not allow for or limit "Wrongful Birth" cases. In Ohio, the plaintiff's are only able to recover damages for the costs of the birth and pregnancy and are not able to recover for pain and suffering and future economic damages.

However, if it is discovered the physician intentionally did not advise the mother of the birth defect then the parents would have a separate cause of action.

One other nugget to Ohio law pertaining to Wrongful Birth lawsuit- the plaintiff must assert that (a)they would have terminated the pregnancy had you known of the defect, or (b) that you would have elected not to get pregnant had the patient received genetic counseling advising they carried a birth defect gene.

Without reading the law, it seems ultimately silly to me since any reduction in liability can be circumvented by the patient and doctor agreeing early in the pregnancy that information about potential birth defects will be disclosed - all of the doctors we've had conversations with concerning pregancy not only would have no problem giving that information during the pregnancy, but even recommend chromosomal testing pre-pregnancy for likelihood of birth defects in the event of an IVF pregnancy. At any rate, I wonder how much (if any) of the law was driven by actual malpractice suits, and of those suits how many involved IVF. The NYT is so slanted on the subject (as usual) that the article doesn't provide much guidance on that issue. The quotes in the article make the GOP legislature look like fools and the abortion rights advocates look like mindless zealouts (in other words, not it isn't about being safe, legal and rare...at least not the rare part).

The law was most certainly was driven by medical malpractice lawsuits. Attached is the decision from the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Ohio law again pertains to failing to diagnose a birth defect prior to birth and/or a genetic defect. If the physician intentionally withholds the information from the patient it is another matter all together.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-942.pdf

Websurfinbird wrote: Oklahoma has approved new legislation that would protect doctors from malpractice suits should they decide NOT to inform a pregnant woman about possible birth defects or health issues of her child.

Is there also a law protecting me from beating said Dr. to death?

Websurfinbird wrote: However I have a huge issue with the law that essentially gives doctor's the right not to disclose vital health information to a pregnant woman. Yes, I know that many women when learning about potential problems for their unborn child will choose abortion, but many do not and just want to be able to prepare the best they can for their child. Caring for a special needs child costs money, time and emotion, and the pregnant woman, as well as anyone who will have a close relationship with the child needs time to prepare. When the time comes for me to have children, I'd want to know everything I can so I can provide the best life for them.

Couldn't agree more. We did all the tests knowing full well that the result of them was only to prepare us mentally for what to expect.

Websurfinbird wrote: I really hope this law doesn't set a new standard for the rest of the country. As a woman, this scares the hell out of me.

I doubt it will, but it reinforces my intense hatred for the bible belt. These conservative blowhards are always preaching (literally) the importance of adhering to the Constitution, which calls for a separation of CHURCH AND STATE, and then they put laws like this in place with a clear and unabashed RELIGIOUS overtone.

Fuck Oklahoma.

Websurfinbird wrote: However I have a huge issue with the law that essentially gives doctor's the right not to disclose vital health information to a pregnant woman. Yes, I know that many women when learning about potential problems for their unborn child will choose abortion, but many do not and just want to be able to prepare the best they can for their child. Caring for a special needs child costs money, time and emotion, and the pregnant woman, as well as anyone who will have a close relationship with the child needs time to prepare. When the time comes for me to have children, I'd want to know everything I can so I can provide the best life for them.

When initially reading your post, I thought the same exact thing. What's the purpose of prenatal care, then?
And why wouldn't doctors want to practice this?

It just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

I also like the ultrasound part of it. This isn't just like having a ingrown toenail or a large splinter being removed from your body, after all.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Without reading the law, it seems ultimately silly to me since any reduction in liability can be circumvented by the patient and doctor agreeing early in the pregnancy that information about potential birth defects will be disclosed - all of the doctors we've had conversations with concerning pregancy not only would have no problem giving that information during the pregnancy, but even recommend chromosomal testing pre-pregnancy for likelihood of birth defects in the event of an IVF pregnancy. At any rate, I wonder how much (if any) of the law was driven by actual malpractice suits, and of those suits how many involved IVF. The NYT is so slanted on the subject (as usual) that the article doesn't provide much guidance on that issue. The quotes in the article make the GOP legislature look like fools and the abortion rights advocates look like mindless zealouts (in other words, not it isn't about being safe, legal and rare...at least not the rare part).

I agree NYT is slanted. It was just an article I came across that got me thinking. If someone wants to post the actual wording of the legislation, please do so. I think it would strengthen the discussion.

Maybe Ohio has a similar law, but for all the abortions I paid for they gave the broads an ultrasound to see how far along they were in the pregnancy...then I had to wait 24 hours while these chicks had to mull over changing their minds! Talk about anguish!

Stripper~"what if we had it? We could name her "Zanzibar"", Shoes "Well I would live a life of shame knowing that I procreated with a woman who is probably missing a chromosome or two and bound to be a terrible mother likely selling the child's diapers for meth all because you agreed to go A2M for a bus pass."

To paraphrase Big Ern, Shoulda pulled out waaaaay early on that one!

j_crazy wrote:

I doubt it will, but it reinforces my intense hatred for the bible belt. These conservative blowhards are always preaching (literally) the importance of adhering to the Constitution, which calls for a separation of CHURCH AND STATE, and then they put laws like this in place with a clear and unabashed RELIGIOUS overtone.

Fuck Oklahoma.

I love when people screw this up.

Separation of Church and State is NOT anywhere to be found in the Constitution or any of its Amendments.

If you can show me that phrase (separation of Church and State) in the Constitution I'll scream "I'm an idiot" right here at work in my office.

The Constitution solely states that the government will not create a law limiting anyone's religious rights and it won't create a law establishing a state religion (creating a religion endorsed by the government like England had at the time).

Now, while I don't agree with this law in any shape or form (I think parents should be as informed as they can be about their babies health) but if this law has "religious overtones" as you say, then so does most of our laws in place today.

Murder (thou shalt not kill), theft (thou shalt not steal), perjury (thou shalt not bear false witness), and I could go on all have religious overtones.

Should we get rid of all of those as well?

BoatShoes wrote:all because you agreed to go A2M for a bus pass."

If all you did was go A2M, I'm pretty sure that you are not the father.

The beauty of it all is that if what is inside a woman is not a baby, then the said woman is not pregnant. I'm unclear as to why this fact is overlooked.

Fact: If the pregnancy is wanted, This equals baby

Fact: If the pregnancy is not viable , This could be seen as a baby or a parasite (depending on the hosts point of view)

I love the abortion debate!

It's my choice!
No it's not!
It's not a baby!
Yes it is!

Pregnancy = baby. Parasite? How do you sleep at night?

Do you know how the scientists found absolute zero for the Kelvin scale? They worked backwards from a certain point. Do that with a life. It's a life when it comes out; it was a life 10 seconds before it came out; and doggonit, it was a life 5 weeks before that. Now let's just keep working our way back to conception. Or would that make it more difficult to disconnect one's self from choice and consequence?

I made no reference as to when life begins. Read it again......

This could be seen as a baby or a parasite (depending on the hosts point of view)

I was commenting on differences of viewpoint.

And I sleep quite well... Thank You

Let me guess, you were playing Devils Advocate? Very clever.

Jason Bourne wrote: Or would that make it more difficult to disconnect one's self from choice and consequence?

I would suspect that this is a viable answer for these folks for are pro-abortion.

Honestly, I am pro choice because of two main reasons.

1: It's not my place to tell people what to do with their body.

2: I as a man will never be confronted by this decision and as such I'll leave it up to the lady to decide themselves.

Oh, and Jason Bourne: Flour, eggs, and sugar make a cake. But they aren't a cake until they come out of the oven.

I Wear Pants wrote: Honestly, I am pro choice because of two main reasons.

1: It's not my place to tell people what to do with their body.

Unless its smoking in a bar.

I Wear Pants wrote: 2: I as a man will never be confronted by this decision and as such I'll leave it up to the lady to decide themselves.

I thought you wore the pants? Guess not.

I Wear Pants wrote: Oh, and Jason Bourne: Flour, eggs, and sugar make a cake. But they aren't a cake until they come out of the oven.

A human life has infinitely more value than ingredients in a cake. But since you have mentioned it, once you mix the ingredients you mentioned above and put them in a pan in the oven it is a cake.

No it isn't. It's batter.

Unless you're trying to tell me that batter is the same as cake.

And I got a chuckle out of the pants thing.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

Jason Bourne wrote: Or would that make it more difficult to disconnect one's self from choice and consequence?

I would suspect that this is a viable answer for these folks for are pro-abortion.

No one I have ever met is "pro-abortion", no one. I simply don't think a rapist should get to see the fruits of his labor, I don't think it's cool to force a girl to give birth to their own brothers and sisters, and I also care about the health of the living human being who is involved.

I'm not pro-root chanal either, they have to happen sometimes as well.

girevik wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

Jason Bourne wrote: Or would that make it more difficult to disconnect one's self from choice and consequence?

I would suspect that this is a viable answer for these folks for are pro-abortion.

No one I have ever met is "pro-abortion", no one. I simply don't think a rapist should get to see the fruits of his labor, I don't think it's cool to force a girl to give birth to their own brothers and sisters, and I also care about the health of the living human being who is involved.

I'm not pro-root chanal either, they have to happen sometimes as well.

Wow! Comparing a baby to a root canal?

Al Bundy wrote:

girevik wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

Jason Bourne wrote: Or would that make it more difficult to disconnect one's self from choice and consequence?

I would suspect that this is a viable answer for these folks for are pro-abortion.

No one I have ever met is "pro-abortion", no one. I simply don't think a rapist should get to see the fruits of his labor, I don't think it's cool to force a girl to give birth to their own brothers and sisters, and I also care about the health of the living human being who is involved.

I'm not pro-root chanal either, they have to happen sometimes as well.

Wow! Comparing a baby to a root canal?

You may not like my opinion, but would it trouble you to be honest about it?

I was clearly comparing a medical procedure that I'm not fond of to another that I am also not fond of.

Well on this thread we have had cake batter and root canals. What is next?

We are talking about human life here.

girevik wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

girevik wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

Jason Bourne wrote: Or would that make it more difficult to disconnect one's self from choice and consequence?

I would suspect that this is a viable answer for these folks for are pro-abortion.

No one I have ever met is "pro-abortion", no one. I simply don't think a rapist should get to see the fruits of his labor, I don't think it's cool to force a girl to give birth to their own brothers and sisters, and I also care about the health of the living human being who is involved.

I'm not pro-root chanal either, they have to happen sometimes as well.

Wow! Comparing a baby to a root canal?

You may not like my opinion, but would it trouble you to be honest about it?

I was clearly comparing a medical procedure that I'm not fond of to another that I am also not fond of.

I am being honest. I don't see a dental procedure and executing a baby as the same thing. The next time I need to schedule a dental appointment, I'll just call up Susan Smith.