Shocking Law: Doctors NOW ALLOWED to Keep Information About Birth Defects

[Danny]

what do the illustrious minds of this board think about this new law??

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/146662/shocking_law:_doctors_now_allowed_to_ keep_information_about_b irth_defects_from_women_ in_order_to_stop_abortio ns

 

[24KT]

what do the illustrious minds of this board think about this new law??

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/146662/shocking_law:_doctors_now_allowed_to_ keep_information_about_b irth_defects_from_women_ in_order_to_stop_abortio ns

 

I'm speechless!

[Dos Equis]

From the link:

"One requires that a woman seeking an abortion must look at her ultrasound -- the screen must be in her line of sight (she has the option of covering her eyes) -- as the health care provider narrates the state of the fetus. The other law prevents a woman from suing her doctor for withholding information about potential birth defects."

What is the specific language of the new law?  The ultrasound requirement is fine, but the other part sounds a little strange.   

[Skip8282]

Unfuckingreal...why can't they just leave women alone.  Hopefully the court will throw it out.

[drkaje]

Does it insulate doctors from all birth defects or just those that are undisclosed?

[Danny]

I'm still waiting for 3338  and company to post their opinions on this one.

[Straw Man]

You can read the entire text of the bills here (measure numbers HB2780 and HB2656)
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/WebBillStatus/main.html

the ultrasound provision makes no exception for victims of incest or rape and it's not clear how the doctor is supposed to compel the woman to watch if she doesn't want to.   Should her head be restrained and maybe her eyelids forced open ala "A Clockwork Orange."

The second bill specifically prevents doctors from being sued if their withholding of information about the fetus "contributed to the mother not having obtained an abortion."

The question I have is why would a doctor want to withhold medical information from his patient.   

Why should his personal objection (religious or otherwise) to abortion allow him to withhold vital medical information from his patient.

Hmmmmm ...... I wonder what the purpose could be ??

[drkaje]

You can read the entire text of the bills here (measure numbers HB2780 and HB2656)
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/WebBillStatus/main.html

the ultrasound provision makes no exception for victims of incest or rape and it's not clear how the doctor is supposed to compel the woman to watch if she doesn't want to.   Should her head be restrained and maybe her eyelids forced open ala "A Clockwork Orange."

The second bill specifically prevents doctors from being sued if their withholding of information about the fetus "contributed to the mother not having obtained an abortion."

The question I have is why would a doctor want to withhold medical information from his patient.   

Why should his personal objection (religious or otherwise) to abortion allow him to withhold vital medical information from his patient.

Hmmmmm ...... I wonder what the purpose could be ??

Maybe there's some aborter's remorse they're protecting doctors from, LOL! Plenty of couples fall into the high risk category for having children. Why only insulate the doctor from law suits in cases of abortion?

[Dos Equis]

Maybe there's some aborter's remorse they're protecting doctors from, LOL!

Maybe.  Still seems like a strange provision. 

[Straw Man]

Maybe there's some aborter's remorse they're protecting doctors from, LOL! Plenty of couples fall into the high risk category for having children. Why only insulate the doctor from law suits in cases of abortion?

I think the law is written specifically so that the patient can't sue and say she would have gotten an abortion if only her doctor had told her about birth defects

it's odd language but clearly written to give doctors legal cover to express their own moral (or religious) beliefs.    I guess Oklahoma thinks the moral/religious concerns of the doctor are more important than the health, financial and even moral concerns of the patient

[drkaje]

I think the law is written specifically so that the patient can't sue and say she would have gotten an abortion if only her doctor had told her about birth defects

it's odd language but clearly written to give doctors legal cover to express their own moral (or religious) beliefs.    I guess Oklahoma thinks the moral/religious concerns of the doctor are more important than the health, financial and even moral concerns of the patient

Medicine really isn't a place for causes and personal baggage.

[Danny]

Still waiting for 333 and his posse to comment on this one. Care to enlighten us? 

[Soul Crusher]

Please show me one post in my 25000 posts ever expressing support for these types of laws.

[Danny]

I'm not gonna go trough your posts. ...I was curious to find out how you guys feel about this.

[Soul Crusher]

Its no worse than obamacare so you should support it. 

[drkaje]

I wonder to what extent this law will affect routine prenatal care. Doctors could easily decide not to tell parents about birth defects regardless of if they thought abortion was a viable option or not.

[Straw Man]

Its no worse than obamacare so you should support it. 

this statement is jibberish

you must be channeling Palin

[BM OUT]

Unfuckingreal...why can't they just leave women alone.  Hopefully the court will throw it out.

I dont know,why cant they leave men alone and allow them to use steroids if they want to.Now,we are soon going to lose the right to use vitamins and supplements thanks to piss ant midgets like Henry Waxman[a man who doesnt even know the drinking age].This is what happens when we give government power.

[24KT]

I dont know,why cant they leave men alone and allow them to use steroids if they want to.Now,we are soon going to lose the right to use vitamins and supplements thanks to piss ant midgets like Henry Waxman[a man who doesnt even know the drinking age].This is what happens when we give government power.

not true, ..just a stupid internet rumour that of course 333 ran with.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as Utah has powerful representation, the vitamin & supplement industry is safe.

For the facts of the matter feel free to view this post:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=329299.msg4696500#msg4696500

[BM OUT]

not true, ..just a stupid internet rumour that of course 333 ran with.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as Utah has powerful representation, the vitamin & supplement industry is safe.

For the facts of the matter feel free to view this post:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=329299.msg4696500#msg4696500

Lets see.The government first banned d-bol.Then they made all steroids a controlled sunbstance.Then they banned pro hormones.If you think that this dirty rotten government will not put ALL supplements under control of the FDA in the guise of "performance enhancement" your nuts.If you give them an inch ,they take a mile.In 5 years you wont be able to get vitamin c without a perscription.

[kcballer]

horrible law. 

[24KT]

Lets see.The government first banned d-bol.Then they made all steroids a controlled sunbstance.Then they banned pro hormones.If you think that this dirty rotten government will not put ALL supplements under control of the FDA in the guise of "performance enhancement" your nuts.If you give them an inch ,they take a mile.In 5 years you wont be able to get vitamin c without a perscription.

Waxman's bill has to do with FTC powers vis-a-vis financial reform,  not the FDA's vis-a-vis the vitamin & supplement industry.

I'm not saying the vitamin & supplement industry should not be vigilant, ..simply that this isn't a shot across their bow

I've probably got more dogs in this fight than you because I have extensive networks in multiple vitamin & supplement nutritional mlm's. I AM ever watchful, ...but I'm not about to go running off half-cocked fighting & protesting something that is not a reality or on the verge of becoming one. If we're busy fighting a non-realities... the deeper threats slide right by unopposed & unchallenged.

[Dos Equis]

Lets see.The government first banned d-bol.Then they made all steroids a controlled sunbstance.Then they banned pro hormones.If you think that this dirty rotten government will not put ALL supplements under control of the FDA in the guise of "performance enhancement" your nuts.If you give them an inch ,they take a mile.In 5 years you wont be able to get vitamin c without a perscription.

Ephedra for a while. 

[24KT]

horrible law. 

Absolutely!!! For a number of reasons.

It's also extremely short-sighted. When the goverment starts instituting laws that prevent people from getting redress or justice under the law, ...they will get it outside of the law. And these are issues that affect people's lives forever... that's plenty of time to harbour a grudge and for desires for vengeance to fester. If people feel they have the right to murder doctors who have done no harm to them, ...how easily will people reserve the right to murder doctors who they feel have done actually harm to them by imposing their will through willfull, premeditated deception, resulting in lifelong consequences? ...and they are unable to get redress through the legal system?

That's like shielding doctors for failing to disclose a tiny cancer to a patient while it's still manageable, because the doctor is a Jehovah's Witness and doesn't believe in blood transfusions, and a cancer operation might require a blood transfusion.

Witholding information from a patient is egregious, and codifying it's practice into law is unconscionable.

[Tito24]

Ephedra for a while. 

Ephedra still banned in the US..

However the active ingredient (ephedrine is still legal to purchase without a script).