Reproductive Rights

A local judge recently ruled a draconian 2009 anti-abortion law is unconstitutional, but for pro-choice advocates it’s a bittersweet victory.

Oklahoma County District Judge Dan Owens ruled that legislators violated the state constitution when they placed multiple laws in a single piece of legislation. The ruling struck down a law that made it illegal for doctors to perform abortions on women based on the gender of the fetus.

It also struck down a law requiring doctors to submit detailed and personal information about their patients to the state Health Department. That information, supposedly protecting the identities of individual women, would be published on a web site.

It’s important to note that Owens ruled only on a technical aspect of the legislation and not the substance of the bill. Legislators have simply introduced separate bills this session covering the same topics and those bills will probably pass the Republican-dominated legislature. This is what makes it a bittersweet victory for people who support reproductive freedom for women.

The law that makes it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion based on the fetus’s gender is simply superfluous, political calculation. As I wrote in a 2009 commentary in the Oklahoma Gazette:

Are Oklahoma women really seeking abortions based on gender? Where is the evidence? How would a doctor determine that gender was the reason for a particular abortion unless a woman volunteered the information?

The other law is a way to intimidate and harass women seeking abortions. It would require doctors to give the state Health Department personal information about their patients, including race, age, marital status and the county in which the abortion was performed. Women would have to give the reason for the abortion as well, and this information would go on a web site costing the state an estimated $280,000 to create and then even more money to maintain.

The anti-abortion crowd argues the law is simply a way to study the abortion issue.

Some pro-choice advocates have argued women from small towns might get identified if the bill makes it into law. Women seeking abortions here would be faced with a barrage of questions about their personal life, knowing this information would be made public, even if their identities are protected. The law could also be viewed as a first step to publicly disclose the identities of women who get abortions here.

Another law requiring women receive an ultrasound before an abortion was earlier struck down by a judge because of the single subject rule. The law would have also required medical staff to describe the ultrasound in a detailed way to women. A new ultrasound bill has been filed this session.

As I’ve written many times before, all this anti-abortion legislation really targets poor women, who might not be able to afford to travel outside Oklahoma for an abortion procedure.

It’s welcome news some local college students and outside forces are now protesting the draconian abortion-reporting bill passed by the Oklahoma Legislature last session, but where were these people when the bill was first proposed and signed into law?

House Bill 1595 would create a government-run website that would include information about each abortion performed in the state. Personal information about women receiving abortions would be revealed on the Internet, although their names would remain anonymous.

As I wrote in a Oklahoma Gazette commentary titled “Pro-life intimidation” in April before the bill was signed into law, “The reporting form would apparently include the age, marital status, race, education level and total number of pregnancies of the women seeking abortions. It also asks for the name of the county in which the abortion was performed and the reason for the abortion.” I also wrote about the bill in this May post in which I urged Gov. Brad Henry to veto the bill.

The 10-page questionnaire will obviously intimidate some women, though its anti-abortion proponents say the bill is only about studying abortion.

Here are some of the major problems with the bill: There is a possibility women from small rural towns could be identified through their personal information, an obvious violation of medical privacy, and, as I mentioned, it could intimidate women from seeking an abortion in Oklahoma. It also adds an unnecessary burden on physicians. It would cost the taxpayers more than $250,000 annually to run the website, money that could be used elsewhere in this bad economy. What if legislators decide later to publicly identify women on the site?

The bill is just another step in the local anti-abortion crusade to take away reproductive freedom rights from Oklahoma women. Of course, Oklahoma women can easily go to another state to get an abortion, but that can be cost prohibited for those who are poor.

Fortunately, the bill has been put on hold by a court order. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which is based in New York, filed a lawsuit against the bill, arguing it violated the Oklahoma Constitution, which requires legislation have only one subject. (The bill also includes a provision that would outlaw abortions based on the gender of the fetus.) An Oklahoma County judge blocked the bill from becoming law on November 1. A hearing on the law is scheduled for Dec. 4.

Also, a group of college students gathered at the State Capitol Friday to protest the bill, according to NewsOK.com.

The New York Times editorialized against the bill, but it did so in October, months after the bill was passed. Salon.com got interested in the bill about the same time.

As I mentioned earlier, it’s absolutely great there’s growing opposition to this terrible, insensitive bill, but where was everyone when it was debated and passed? The state’s major media outlets did cover the issue. Some of us spoke up against it.

The larger issue is this for state pro-choice proponents: The Republican-dominated legislature here will continue to propose and probably pass more anti-abortion laws, which will be some of the strictest in the nation. Those Oklahomans concerned about reproductive freedom for women can count on it and should speak up when the bills are proposed. Swift, organized responses from activists and progressive media to pending legislation would probably be more effective than after-the-fact action.

Will a new draconian abortion law force some Oklahoma women with problematic pregnancies to leave the state to receive treatment?

According to a recent story by Jennifer Mock in The Daily Oklahoman some local experts believe it could.

The new law, passed last session by the Oklahoma Legislature, prohibits state money from being used to perform abortions unless the mother’s life is at risk or she is a rape or incest victim. Some say the law directly affects lower-income women and OU Health Sciences Center, which in the past has performed abortions to save the mother’s life or because the fetus would not survive out of the womb.

But a Planned Parenthood spokesperson and a state legislator, according to the story, said they are even unsure if any hospital in the state can treat “crisis” pregnancies with the abortion procedure if the mother’s life is not in danger. This argument is based on the fact hospitals accept Medicaid patients, and some Medicaid money is provided by the state.

A crisis pregnancy can be defined this way: It is a medical emergency in which either the mother's and/or or fetus's life is in jeopardy.

Under the new law, Oklahoma women with crisis pregnancies may well be turned away for full treatment unless their life is in danger. It seems logical that even the most affluent women with crisis pregnancies would want to go to a hospital that offered a full-range of treatment options. Also, who would want to get treatment for a crisis pregnancy at an Oklahoma hospital when its staff might be filled with religious extremists not interested in treating the mother? It’s obvious those legislators who pushed for the law and voted for it were elected by at least a percentage of these people.

This is why it is important concerned citizens in our state form and/or support some type of discreet organization or program that will help the state’s women get treatment for their crisis pregnancies in other states if the need arises. This help could be financial for lower income women or just informational for women who do not want to risk their health. The organization could network with regional hospitals.

The fact Oklahoma might have to send its problematic and difficult pregnancy cases to other states can be another one of its dirty little secrets the chamber-of-commerce types never talk about. But, remember this, the Christian fundamentalists and extremists are not going to stop their legislative assault on the abortion procedure with this one law. This is just the beginning, not the ending. What will happen next legislative session? What’s next?

,