It is currently 05/12/24 9:09 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 26 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 10/08/09 2:24 am • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
While I personally would love to see the number of abortions decline significantly, I am fiercely "pro-choice" ~ I believe a HUGE number, if not the vast majority, of elective abortions are very difficult, very emotional, and very personal decisions ~ I can understand the state wanting to track the number, etc ~ but there is NO legitimate reason to post that information online in anything other than a summarized numbers/percentages format ~ this law is totally, completely, absolutely, 1,000% outrageous ~ Image ~ Sooz


By Amanda Terkel at 9:55 am

New Oklahoma law will publicy post details of women's abortions online.

On Nov. 1, a law in Oklahoma will go into effect that will collect personal details about every single abortion performed in the state and post them on a public website. Implementing the measure will "cost $281,285 the first year and $256,285 each subsequent year." Here are the first eight questions that women will have to reveal:

Quote:

1. Date of abortion
2. County in which abortion performed
3. Age of mother
4. Marital status of mother
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother
6. Years of education of mother
(specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
Live Births
Miscarriages
Induced Abortions

Although the questionnaire does not ask for name, address, or "any information specifically identifying the patient," as Feminists for Choice points out, these eight questions could easily be used to identify a woman in a small community. "They're really just trying to frighten women out of having abortions," Keri Parks, director of external affairs at Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma, said. The Center for Reproductive Rights is challenging the law, arguing that "it violates the Oklahoma Constitution because it 'covers more than one subject' - a challenge that previously worked to strike down an abortion ultrasound law."

http://thinkprogress.org



Top
  
PostPosted: 10/08/09 2:30 am • # 2 
This is disgusting! There's nothing more I can say about it.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 10/08/09 4:04 am • # 3 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 3638
Location: The DMV (DC,MD,VA)
It is actually good data to analyze ( I am pro choice) but I question why it has to be on a public website. It seems to me that it could be reported out in aggregate and just as useful.


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/08/09 4:19 am • # 4 
queenoftheuniverse wrote:
It is actually good data to analyze ( I am pro choice) but I question why it has to be on a public website. It seems to me that it could be reported out in aggregate and just as useful.

Agreed!


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/08/09 9:57 am • # 5 
get this , as part of the law , doctors failing to provide the information would face criminal sanctions as well as loss of their medical license.

I read that what was to be on public display via the first 8 questions alone of a very lengthy inquestioning to be displayed for the public to see , would be enough to identify the specific woman being identifed for towns up to 200. That is a horrible invasion of privacy. The data being collected is said to be for research purposes , however , the questionairre and format make that not a valid argument.

I think it's very clear that the intent is to frighten women into having an abortion or at least one that is not in some back alley or at home with the use of a hanger and the other means used through years upon years that put the woman at additional risk to die so I suppose death to a woman having an abortion is the other intent. The other intent it seems since a woman can be fully identified is to have her be a target for harrassment or worse.

Of course the law being a doctor would lose his medical license if being ethical to the patient and to him/herself and maintaining patients privacy/ confidentiality is for obvious and dark purposes.


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/08/09 9:59 am • # 6 
here is the law as written : http://www.sos.state.ok.u...52nd/2009/1R/HB/1595.pdf


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 10/08/09 11:02 am • # 7 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Selecting targets for harrassment?


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/08/09 11:46 am • # 8 
sure , makes it easier for the religious ( nutso ) extremists to target the patient and target the doctor. harrassment could include stoning the woman patient and executing the doctor , or isn't that a strong enough word? Image


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/08/09 12:24 pm • # 9 
susanneinohio wrote:
Of course the law being a doctor would lose his medical license if being ethical to the patient and to him/herself and maintaining patients privacy/ confidentiality is for obvious and dark purposes.

Since they want to make the records public, I hope many doctors will band together and disobey the law as a violation of HIPPA laws.

Though, I'm not sure how that information would identify a woman, unless those 8 questions are not all of them. That would only identify the state of residence, not city or town. If it is intended to provide information for research purposes, then it should require consent of the patient to participate in the study and have her information released.


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/08/09 1:12 pm • # 10 
Calluna ... there are indeed more than 8 questions , in fact far more and many have multiple parts to the questions. There is no consent of the patient whatsoever and the doctor faces criminal charges and loss of license if he does not complete the form. I can easily see how towns with 200 or less people and with the detail in the questions ask how an individual person can be identifed to those so inclined. The design and the requirments of a physican or more than one physican in the process could present one woman as more than one person , and other sorts of things aside from lack of consent making the claim that this is for some academic research type purpose suspect. And even so , there is that ethical and legal problem of lack of consent. It sure doesn't even pass the " smell test"

I would hope too that doctors would band together and disobey the law as a violation of HIPPA laws. Then again , maybe there is the hope that those doctors in Oklahoma will decide to practice in other locations or get out of the business of providing certain services to woman even if that means women in the state out in the cold.


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/08/09 7:14 pm • # 11 
How are they going to get around HIPPA rules on this? This would be a clear violation of HIPPA rules.


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/09/09 1:10 am • # 12 
What HIPAA rules are violated?


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/09/09 1:12 am • # 13 

The law only provides for the publication of summarized statistics, and the reporting by the doctor doesn't included any identity information.



Top
  
PostPosted: 10/09/09 1:19 am • # 14 
The statistics don't need to be posted on a publicly-access web site if their intent is presumably for research. It seems to me the real intent is public humiliation.


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/09/09 1:25 am • # 15 
I would be fine with that, but there is a movement for government transparency when it comes to the information collected by the government. Barack Obama is one of the prime proponents of government transparency. Using a web site is one of the current standards for making information available more readily to researchers. I think one of the things they should be careful about is that the statistical information reported should be aggregated enough that low-population counties aren't exposed too much.


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/09/09 1:26 am • # 16 
How does summarized statistical infomation provide for public humiliation?


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/09/09 1:28 am • # 17 
The Thinkprogress article reminds me a bit of the Sarah Palin "death panel" comments, as it misrepresents what is actually going to be posted on the web site.


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/09/09 1:36 am • # 18 
There's the intimidation factor just by making the data publicly accessible to anyone who would want to use the information to effect their own agenda. For example, one town having a high rate of abortions and all of a sudden being swamped by "pro life" agitators. That's just the obvious misuse of a publicly accessible database dealing with a subject matter that is supposedly private. I see no other use for posting this data... it's ideologically driven and nothing more.


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/09/09 1:44 am • # 19 
The data isn't going to be summarized by city or town.


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/09/09 1:52 am • # 20 
The fact that the data is submitted on forms leaves the patients' and doctors' privacy vulnerable. In a perfect world, those forms will be kept secure. We all know this is not a perfect world.


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/09/09 3:12 am • # 21 
I will take another look at the law as written in the entirety to be far.

Perhaps I am missing something here however it seems to me that each abortion is going to have a ' papertrail 'online as the individual form of an "individual abortion report," which is many pages long and quite specific with what I do happen to think have the potential to surmise the particular female's information. The form questions and questions within questions is quite extensive imho.

I personally think there are privacy concerns here. Maybe I am missing something here. I readily admit I am suspect of Oklahoma as it pertains to abortion law given the 2008 law having to do with females and ultrasound and doctors having to go into developmental fetal information before an abortion can be performed . ( I would have to double check the details to be more specific ) . However I think on appeal that law was overturned.

HIPPA w/ PHI has been interpreted quite broadly to include any part of a patients medical record.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 10/09/09 3:53 am • # 22 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/21/09
Posts: 3638
Location: The DMV (DC,MD,VA)
HIPPAA allows for research WHEN the information is reported out in aggregate. That is, they could not post each individal incident as it occurred, but could post information like- there were three abortions in Smith County. Two were in the fourth week, one was in the 7th week. All were married women. etc etc.

But, just as it has enraged some of us by making us think the worst, so it could discourage women from having the procedure for the same reason.


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/09/09 4:12 am • # 23 
In research , and of course with much more rigid at least in my experience , an IRB goes through a rigourous process , that leads to a patient consent that is acceptable for a patient to eventually sign or refuse to sign and then the process stops all together , as well as a very detailed HIPPA form to be signed by the patient ( or legal guardian should that apply ). With out both signatures the process ends and should any medical information be revealed inadvertently or prior to the signatures , that information can not be used. This applies to aggravate information to be used summarized to protect identity and more rigourous means that I think is inherent in this public display plan , be it for use in publications or otherwise.

If doing joint research , all IRBs of all health institutions must get the approval that their patient consents and well as the HIPPA one , be approved.

This public information is reported to be for academic research use as a rationale.

If I am missing something here of course I am always willing to stand corrected.


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/17/09 4:28 am • # 24 
New Abortion Law Challenged in Oklahoma

(CN) - Two Oklahoma women are challenging a new state law set to take effect next month that requires publication of an "Annual Abortion Report" and forces doctors to give details about their patients under threat of criminal sanctions and loss of their medical license, according to a suit in Oklahoma County Court.
The Oklahoma law, H.B. 1595, also changed definitions of abortion terms, used terms already thrown out by a court and barred certain procedures for the first time, according to the filing.
H.B. 1595 changed several statutory definitions, banned abortions sought "solely on account of the sex of the unborn child," imposed new reporting requirements on physicians who administer abortions or treat patients for complications of abortions, and created new, and expensive, responsibilities, including enforcement of state laws on abortions and gathering and reporting of statistics on abortions, state agencies and medical boards. The law will take effect Nov. 1.
According to the complaint, the bill employs the undefined term "certified technician" by referring to a previous law, Senate Bill 1878, of the 2008 session, which was "invalidated by the District Court of Oklahoma County without ever going into effect."
H.B. 1595 redefined the terms "unemancipated minor" and "attempt to perform an abortion," and applied them in the section that bans "sex-selective abortions," according to the complaint. It adds that the definitions of those terms in one section of the Act are different from the definitions applied to other sections of it.
The bill requires the state Health Department to create and publish an "'Annual Abortion Report,' based on the extensive abortion-related data to be provided by physicians to the Health Department, and an 'Annual Judicial Bypass of Abortion Parental Consent Summary Report,'" among other things.
The plaintiffs say the bill will require "an unlawful expenditure of public funds," to the tune of more than $250,000 a year. Defendants include Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, Health Commissioner Terry Cline, and the directors of the State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision and State Board of Osteopathic Examiners. Gov. Brad Henry signed the bill into law on May 21.
A group called "Pro-Choice of Oklahoma" claims that the reporting requirements of HB 1595 are so extensive that the reports could reveal the names of physicians and patients who perform or receive abortions in small towns.
The plaintiffs say the bill violates the state constitution. They want it enjoined. Their lead counsel is Anne Zachritz with Andrews Davis. Image

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/0 ... lahoma.htm


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/19/09 7:22 am • # 25 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Collecting this information, for ANY purpose, is deeply intrusive ~ altho I can understand some of it being part of the confidential and protected medical history ~ but I cannot fathom, nor accept, that posting the information online in ANY format serves ANY valid purpose ~ emphasis/bolding below is mine ~ Sooz


Online posting of women's abortion information challenged in Oklahoma

By Wayne Drash, CNN
December 18, 2009 7:38 p.m. EST

(CNN) -- A judge in Oklahoma extended on Friday a temporary restraining order on a law that would post information online about women who get abortions in the state.

In extending the restraining order, Oklahoma County District Judge Daniel Owens denied the state's motion to dismiss the case, putting the measure on hold until a February 19 hearing.

"We are very pleased with today's ruling. This law is a profound intrusion on women's privacy and a waste of taxpayers' money," attorney Jennifer Mondino of the Center for Reproductive Rights said in a written statement. The New York-based center had filed a suit on behalf of former state Rep. Wanda Jo Stapleton and another Oklahoma resident.

"Women in Oklahoma should not have to jump through hoops to access legal medical care and the government has no business violating the state constitution to impose those obstacles," Mondino said.

The law, passed in May, requires doctors to fill out a 10-page questionnaire for every abortion performed, including asking the woman about her age, marital status, race and years of education. In all, there are 37 questions the women are to answer.

Critics say the act would be harassment and an invasion of privacy.

State Sen. Todd Lamb helped draft the abortion legislation and describes it as "a common sense measure with bipartisan support." He said the left has tried to skew the law's intent through a campaign of misinformation.

"We're not trying to embarrass anybody, hurt anybody or make anybody's identities known. That's not the purpose of the legislation," the Republican lawmaker said.

"We want to collect hard data that can be a useful tool in helping prevent future unwanted pregnancies."

One section of the "Individual Abortion Form" says the woman must state her reason for seeking an abortion and answer this checklist. "Having a baby:
• Would dramatically change the life of the mother;
• Would interfere with the education of the mother;
• Would interfere with the job/employment/career of the mother."

A Democratic former state legislator called the law "abusive and invasive."

"Nosy neighbors with some effort could identify or, even worse, misidentify these women who answer these questions," said Stapleton.

Lamb, who is running for lieutenant governor, rejects that notion. How can it violate women's privacy, Lamb said, if their identity is kept confidential?

The measure specifies women's identities will be protected. "Nothing in the Individual Abortion Form shall contain the name, address or information specifically identifying any patient," it says.

"Nobody's identity will be made known," Lamb said.

Troy Newman, the head of the Kansas-based anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, said the law is "designed so that the pregnant mother can have as much information as technology and medicine will allow."

"Naturally, the abortion industry wants to block this, because they know the more information the mom has, the less likely she is to abort her baby," Newman said.

The Center for Reproductive Rights argues that the measure is unconstitutional and in violation of the state's "single subject rule" because it covers different aspects of abortion. The law also bars women from seeking abortions solely because of the sex of the fetus, with fines up to $100,000 for doctors who "knowingly violate" it.

"We are very committed from keeping the law from going into effect," Mondino said. "The law represents a very serious invasion of women's privacy interests."

Lamb said he believes the law will stand. "None of the bill is being challenged on the merits of the legislation," he says.

Abortion rights supporters are extremely concerned about the intrusiveness of the questions, and fear that identities of women could be compromised, especially in small communities.

"It requires doctors to ask and submit answers to at least 37 intensely personal questions. There are details in those questions about rape, incest, abuse, relationship problems and emotional health," Stapleton said. "I think women can be identified."

According to state estimates, the Oklahoma State Department of Health will spend roughly $250,000 a year to carry out the law.

"To spend a quarter of a million dollars on this is absolutely ridiculous," Stapleton said, adding, "Oh goodness, all the publicity over this has severely blighted the image of Oklahoma."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1969 drafted criteria for vital statistics around abortion to look at infant and maternal mortality in an effort to make the procedure safer.

The CDC's guidelines have long been considered the standard and "all the states pretty much follow that," said Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state abortion legislation for the Guttmacher Institute.

"You compare the law in Oklahoma to the CDC standard, and you see the law in Oklahoma goes far beyond what has been considered appropriate for vital statistics purposes," Nash said.

The law's co-sponsor, Lamb, said legislators drafted the measure using portions of a Guttmacher study. "Some of this was gleaned from the Guttmacher Institute," he said. "It's not Draconian."

"If we collect this evidence, we can better treat, we can better counsel, we can better provide alternatives," Lamb said.

Why draft the legislation?

"I'm pro-life," he said. "Oklahoma is a conservative state. We are a pro-life state, and I believe it's important public policy to stand on the side of sanctity of life."

Stapleton, who served in the state House of Representatives from 1986 to 1996, said the law is another example of the GOP "onslaught" in recent years in Oklahoma, with lawmakers taking aim at abortion.

"They're trying to do away with abortions completely," she said. "They can't because of Roe v. Wade. But they're finding ways around Roe v Wade."

If the law does go forward, the state Department of Health is to have the Web site up and running by March 1, 2011. Doctors are to begin submitting completed questionnaires 30 days later.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/18/oklahoma.abortion/



Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 26 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.