Oklahoma Supreme Court Does It Again

Oklahoma Supreme Court Does It Again November 12, 2013

Oklahoma’s Supreme Court overturned a second pro life bill this week. This one concerned trans-vaginal ultrasounds.

I’ve been waiting for this decision before I commented on all this. Now, I’m going to wait and get my head organized.

Then, I imagine I will have a few things to say.

Here is the CNN Report:

Washington (CNN) — Oklahoma lost another round in its effort to restrict abortions when the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday declined to hear an appeal in a case that would force women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound first.

The justices, without comment, refused to accept the state’s appeal over HB 2780, which would require healthcare providers to perform an ultrasound scan before terminating a woman’s pregnancy.

Lower state courts found the law unconstitutional. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said those judges did not give proper legal weight to previous high court rulings allowing some regulation and restriction on abortions.

The new law mandated that pregnant women seeking an abortion be given the chance to view the ultrasound image and be given a medical description, including “the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, if present and viewable, and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable.”

Neither the woman nor her doctor would be punished or penalized if she refused to look at those images, but the procedure, performed either vaginally or abdominally, and the explanation would be required.

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

7 responses to “Oklahoma Supreme Court Does It Again”

  1. These laws against abortion inducing drugs and requiring ultrasounds promote an ideology that is not shared by everyone. It can’t be forced upon people who have different worldviews on issues like abortion. The notion that the unborn must be protected from their mothers if their mothers choose to terminate their pregnancies is based on sentimentality and religious fervor. Women choosing this alternative probably feel bad enough about it without the government making laws that make it more difficult and emotionally painful. I know you must feel bad enough about seeing laws that you worked hard to pass shot down by the courts. But we can’t be imposing our religious taboos on one another. That is not what this country is all about.

  2. I can’t imagine being required to have a vaginal ultrasound—-that is an unnecessary invasion. Having abdominal ones are easier to take (unless one is required to fill up with water first—don’t know if that is necessary at 12 weeks). The decision to terminate is hard enough without attempting to block it by forcing the test. Do I think a woman should be offered alternatives? Yes, either carrying to term and putting the child up for adoption, or helping financially and medically if reason is financial for termination. Mandating a woman to have either test is, IMO going to far. Fortunately there was a provision that the woman didn’t have to look at it after being forced to have it, nor punishing the doctor if she said no to viewing. Most women do not take the decision to abort lightly. Guess the court saw it as unnecessary also.

  3. Pagansister, you do know how they do abortions, don’t you? Aside from the fact that an ultrasound is part of making sure that they don’t damage the woman and get all the pieces of the baby, so it’s necessary, anyway, how is an ultrasound more invasive than an abortion?

  4. Yes, Rebecca, I know how they are done. At that stage a fetus is a little over 2 inches. Yes, you can see what it is for sure. The pictures make a fetus look much larger. Hopefully an abortion is done before 12 weeks, and most certainly not after that date. No woman should be forced to have one if she comes in for a termination—-she will be “invaded” enough if she chooses to terminate. I’m sure that many women now can look on Google and find out what a 12 week or less fetus looks like if they are having doubts. My objection is the law would FORCE this procedure on an already stressed woman. She could be offered the choice to have one as part of the alternatives presented–“would you like to see what the fetus looks like now?” as an approach to helping make sure the woman is determined to carry out the termination.

  5. I agree. Also, for men choosing this alternative to terminate the guy that is impinging on their business or cheating with their wife or girlfriend, we should just leave them alone. They must feel bad enough already that the situation has deteriorated to the point that they had to kill someone.

  6. So, Dave. You agree that the state should disregard a woman’s right to have an abortion without being unnecessarily inconvenienced and harassed? The laws are obviously intended to make it more difficult on the woman.

  7. No, I don’t really agree. I was just trying to apply your logic to other situations where one person kills another.