I'm pro-choice, but think there are a lot of positive ways to reduce abortions through short waiting periods, parental notification, etc. However, this is a new and absolutely ridiculous method being implemented by Oklahoma: public shame. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/oklahoma-abortion-law-det_n_313779.html Oklahoma Abortion Law: Details To Be Publicly Posted Online A new Oklahoma law requires physicians to disclose detailed information on women's abortions to the State's Department Of Health, which will then post the collected data on a public website. The controversial measure comes into effect on November 1 and will cost $281,285 to implement, $256,285 each subsequent year to maintain. Oklahoma women undergoing abortion procedures will be legally forced to reveal: 1) Date of abortion 2) County in which abortion is performed 3) Age of mother 4) Marital status of mother 5) Race of mother 6) Years of education of mother 7) State or foreign country of residence of mother 8) Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother Proponents of the legislation claim that women should not be concerned over their privacy since no names or "personal information" will be reported. This defense is questionable. Feminists For Choice argues, "In reviewing the actual text of the law, the first 8 questions that will be asked and reported could easily be used to identify any member of a smaller community." The Center For Reproductive Rights, Rep. Wanda Jo Stapleton (D-Okla.), and Okla. resident Lora Joyce David have filed a lawsuit to prevent this contentious abortion bill from going into effect, on the grounds that it violates the state's constitution.
There will soon be a glorious day when everyone's federal medical records and health habits goes online. It will make it easier for the master liberals to recognize the dissenters and the lebensunwertes leben.
And yet, the one known example of making this information is from conservatives. Sucks when the facts blow up your theory, eh?
To me, this screams unconstitutional, however the FFC argument that you can easily identify someone off this database is ridiculous. You can't tell me that someone is going to look at this site, see a married hispanic woman who went to school through highschool, was born in Mexico, was previously pregnant 3 times, is 23 and single, and had the abortion in the states, and say "HEY! THAT'S DEBRA FROM DOWN THE STREET!" the only possible way they could take a GUESS is if all this information corresponded with Debra AND you knew when her abortion date was...which if you knew she already had a date for an abortion, you would know she was getting an abortion, and the privacy would have been lost long before anyone checked this database...still seems like a gross interference in privacy, but if it was being used for study and not available to the local public i don't think it would matter. i am pro-life, but i have a difficult time arguing with what a woman can and can not do with her body, to me abortions are wrong, make better decisions, use condoms, be more careful, and you won't have to go through such a difficult process, certainly there are circumstances beyond peoples control (pregnancies caused by rape), but for the most part you have absolute control over your tubes and because i find abortions to be fundamentally wrong, i find it difficult to sympathize with those who get abortions that's not to say that i hate women who have abortions, or have any ill-feelings towards them, it's just a personal opinion of a man who has no idea what being a woman is like, except that they generally can get drunk for free : /
Or they can exercise a constitutionally protected right in Oklahoma, which is part of the US, without official state-sanctioned harassment.
So... what are the posted odds for each formerly banned nutjob poster that is running around as Shovel Face now? I want to put my money down before its too late.
My state previously had one of the highest teen pregnancy rates. I'm assuming that hasn't changed. This will turn things around for Oklahoma! (Am I doing this right?) I think my favorite part is the way the bill was described, "as a way to prevent abortions based on the gender of the fetus." http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20090930_16_A13_OKLAHO555435
I disagree on the part of identifying a person. Your example is true in Oklahoma City. But what about the town with 200 people? Half would be women, how many of those would be of child-bearing age, and of those, how many are the same race/age/marital status/# of kids? It seems if there were ever an abortion in a small town, everyone would basically immediately know about it.
but it doesn't ask for your town! it simply asks for the state or foreign country of residence of mother, THIS database won't HELP people identify others