Abortion: With veto quashed, curbs will become law on Nov. 1
Abortion: With veto quashed, curbs to become Oklahoma law on Nov. 1
Comments 
89
By Michael McNutt
Published: April 18, 2008
A measure will become law Nov. 1 requiring that a woman get a description of ultrasound images of her unborn child and be offered those images before getting an abortion.
Advertisement
What will law require?
SB 1878, among other things, requires that the woman be given a description of the ultrasound images and that medical providers display the ultrasound images so the woman can see them.
Nothing prevents the woman from "averting her eyes” from the ultrasound, according to the bill.
"Neither the physician nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if she refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images,” the bill states.
However, the measure states the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion must "provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting.”
The description shall include "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,” the bill states.
"As I have said many times, I support reasonable restrictions on abortion procedures and have signed several such bills into law during my time in office,” Henry said. "I continue to be open to such reasonable measures, but I will not hesitate to oppose initiatives that go too far and ultimately do more harm than good.”
Peterson said it still is up to the woman to decide "whether she wants to turn her head and look at it, but he (the abortionist) cannot obstruct the view if she wants to look at it. The pressure's on him to make sure that he makes it available.”
The ultrasound is to be made available to the woman an hour before anesthesia is administered, she said.
Lamb said the governor "was factually inaccurate in his assertion that this bill forces victims of rape and incest to view an ultrasound of their unborn baby. The bill in no way forces a woman to view the ultrasound that is conducted before an abortion.”
Lamb said a national survey showed that ultrasounds are already being conducted before abortions more than 90 percent of the time.
"They have to be conducted so that they know the size of the child inside the womb,” he said.
What do opponents say?
Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma opposed the bill. Keri Parks, director of external affairs, said the bill "requires a medically unnecessary, invasive procedure one hour before an abortion procedure. It interferes with a physician's ability to exercise his or her best medical judgment and with a patient's right to make medical decisions based on her doctor's advice and what is best for her.”
"Legislators have no business dictating medical procedures,” she said.
The legislation also is intended to protect health care providers' right not to participate in abortions and decisions whether to dispense a pill to end early pregnancies.
The bill won't be applicable when a woman is in imminent danger of death unless an abortion is immediately performed or induced.
House members voted 81-15 to override the governor's veto less than an hour after senators voted 37-11 to do the same. In the House, 68 votes were needed to override the veto while 32 votes were needed in the Senate.
No debate occurred in either chamber.
Last year, Henry vetoed an anti-abortion bill that would have banned state assets — including money or employees — from being used for abortions. The Senate failed to override his veto.
A second, similar anti-abortion bill — which included an exclusion if the life of the mother was at risk or if the pregnancy involved rape or incest — was passed in 2007 and became law without Henry's signature.
Contributing: John Greiner, Capitol Bureau
Related Topics:
U.S. State Government, U.S. Government, Culture and Lifestyle, Crime, Pregnancy and Childbirth, Sexual Offenses, Family, Abortion
Prev
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
-- Would you prefer for health practioners to have no "choice" about whether they have to participate in providing abortions? Still a free country isn't it?
-- Would you prefer the patronizing attitude of a technician turning the ultrasound screen away because the "little woman" doesn't "need" that information?
-- Would you prefer that women and girls who are being coerced, threatened and forced into their "choice" to abort NOT be informed about their rights to contact law enforcement? Would you prefer no penalties for performing coerced abortions? (Note to Planned Parenthood, abortion is a very "invasive" procedure.)
-- Would you prefer to keep OB/GYN doctors under the current law which allows "wrongful birth" lawsuits, raises malpractice premiums, puts doctors at risk for losing their practices and discourages many from choosing to specialize in OB/GYN?
-- Would you prefer that there be no legal remedy for women who are harmed by improper, unsupervised use of RU 486, which can cause massive bleeding, permanent damage, and even death? Very, very invasive, you Planned Parenthood proponents.
If that is how you prefer your society, all I can say is thank goodness for democracy and the level heads in the legislature.
So many in their zeal to protect the abortion business are forgetting to protect women first.