Oklahoma laws on abortion

[lupo pazzesco]

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/...okla_abortion/

As if it wasn't bad enough this state has doctors describing ultrasounds in vivid, graphic detail to women who want abortions despite their wishes to the contrary, now a law has actually been passed which requires any woman who has an abortion to have her information publicly listed on a website. the questionnaire that has to be filled out and posted? Disgustingly long, and some of the questions are fucking insane!! We're talking almost 40 questions, all of which are invasive to a degree in which we might as well just plaster a person's full medical records online and get it over with!

this makes my head hurt. A lot...

[Gravekeeper]

Ugh, they actually passed that bullshit? I remember them considering it but I didn't think it would actually pass. That HAS to violate some sort of right somewhere.

That's the same tactic they use to shame johns caught with prostitutes for fuck sakes.

[blas87]

That just cannot be right......that has to violate HIPPA somehow.

[Boozy]

I don't agree with this law, but for those who won't bother reading the link, it is important to note that the website and questionnaires do not include the patient's name or identifying details.

[lupo pazzesco]

I don't agree with this law, but for those who won't bother reading the link, it is important to note that the website and questionnaires do not include the patient's name or identifying details.

But as is also pointed out in the article, in a smallish town, the first few questions are enough to identify the woman regardless of whether or not her name or identifying details are mentioned.

I'm with Blas, this has to violate HIPPA somehow. It would be one thing if this were a voluntary basis, but it's not. If a woman wants an abortion, she has no choice, all the details are getthing thrown online. But question 11 is really irksome, asking if a live birth resulted from the abortion, and whether lifesaving measures were taken.

The questionnaire also reinforces the earlier law passed where a doctor has to show a woman her ultrasounds and describe them in minute, vivid detail, before she's allowed to have an abortion, regardless of whether she wants to hear about it or not.

My thing is, it's already a difficult decision for the woman, one that is usually considered for more than just a few hours. And this is essentially Oklahoma trying to prevent any woman from exercising her right to choose to terminate, regardless of her reasoning (which, incidentally, is also a question on the form, which includes responses such as "Mother felt her quality of life would be severely diminished").

[BlaqueKatt]

*note* I'm not defending the law just pointing out how OMG! personal information on teh interwebz! This article is trying to be.

(especially with listing the website as "shameonyouwhore.com")

But as is also pointed out in the article, in a smallish town, the first few questions are enough to identify the woman regardless of whether or not her name or identifying details are mentioned.

Date of abortion
County where abortion performed(there are only two clinics in oklahom-both in tulsa)
Age, marital status, and race of mother
years of education of mother
state of residence or foreign country of mother
total number of previous pregnancies of mother

that's simple demographics-not sure how that would id anyone

an unmarried, 22 year old, Caucasian, resident of oklahoma, with a college education, and 2 previous pregnancies, obtained a suction abortion on january first 1907 in Tulsa county-that's what it would be filled out-how many people does that identify?

Heck I'll put in my information:
Married, 34 year-old, Caucasian, resident of WI, with a high school education, and three previous pregnancies(2 live birth, one miscarriage) obtained an abortion through use of RU-486 on January first 1907 in tulsa county.

Wow that would totally pin me down......in any small town heck if I lived in a town of just me I couldn't be id'd with that

which includes responses such as "Mother felt her quality of life would be severely diminished").

It also includes:
Mother was asked but declined to give a reason


apparently the article's writer failed to actually read the law:

from Salon:
The law's supporters claim they want this information to be made public so it can be used for "academic research," but according to the Center for Reproductive Rights*, its collection method makes it useless for that purpose. (If a woman sees more than one doctor concerning her abortion -- primary care and abortion provider, say -- the data, collected each visit, will appear to represent more than one patient.)

no it won't-

From the Law:
740.2 of title 63 of the Oklahoma statutes:
but does not subsequently perform an abortion on the female or minor, the physician shall electronically submit an IAF to the state dept. of health , and shall mark as "not applicable" those items of information that may accurately be provided only when an abortion is performed. The physician SHALL NOT SUBMIT such a form if the physician knows that the abortion was performed on the female or minor by another physician.


*currently involved in a legal challenge against the law-so totally non-biased I'm sure

The questionnaire also reinforces the earlier law passed where a doctor has to show a woman her ultrasounds and describe them in minute, vivid detail, before she's allowed to have an abortion, regardless of whether she wants to hear about it or not.

My thing is, it's already a difficult decision for the woman, one that is usually considered for more than just a few hours.

yes and the 24-hour waiting period law has been in effect in WI for around 10 years-it can be waived in the event of a sexual assault resulting in pregnancy-you are required to receive an ultrasound and be given information on fetal development, and information on the father's financial responsibility if you elect to not have an abortion-if a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, additional information is not going to alter her decision-the only way it would would be if she wasn't sure and she got new information that changed her mind-which would mean her previous decision was not made with informed consent(didn't have all the info could not make an informed choice).

Or would you prefer "ok it's your choice, we won't bother telling you any of the bad things that could happen"-any other doctor performing a medical procedure without informed consent would be sued to high heaven for malpractice-...."but but but it could upset a woman's "delicate sensibilities", or make her upset"

Guess what I was upset when I signed the consent form to have my wisdom teeth removed, due to all the possible complications-maybe we should all just hide our heads in the sand and think happy thoughts.

It's a medical procedure, it carries risks, your doctor should inform you of those risks, and give you all the information you need to make an informed choice on your medical decisions-it is after all a medical decision-not a "personal decision"-it should be made by you AND your doctor.

To clarify that-say you want a suction abortion but have some medical condition that precludes it-should your doctor just let you make your "personal decision" or does he/she have a MEDICAL RESPONSIBILITY to suggest a safer method?

[AdminAssistant]

I still think it's a violation of HIPPA for anyone's medical information to be made that available, even if name, address, and SSN is left off of it. And, yes, in a small town, race, age, marital status and date of abortion could be used to identify someone. (Grew up in a town of 1200, I should know). All they'd have to do is say, "Hey, didn't so-and-so fall sick on that day? Call into work for a couple of days?* I bet they had an abortion!" And then the poor woman gets harrassed.

All this is meant to do is bully women into not getting abortions, which is so wrong it makes me sick. This is not an easy decision for people to make. Are there any qualifiers at all? Does a rape victim go through this process? Someone getting an abortion for a medical reason (either danger to the mother or severe deformity of the fetus)? Incest victims?

* I have no idea on this, but I imagine that an abortion calls for some recovery time.

[Greenday]

Easily a clear violation of HIPPA. I don't see how this could possibly be allowed.

[BlaqueKatt]

Wow I thought "outrage porn" was limited to the extreme right-guess I was wrong.....

Easily a clear violation of HIPPA. I don't see how this could possibly be allowed.

I don't think that word means what you all think it means

Here's the bottom line: HIPAA rules give you new rights to know about -- and to control -- how your health information gets used.

* Your healthcare provider and your insurance company have to explain how they'll use and disclose health information.
* You can ask for copies of all this information, and make appropriate changes to it. You can also ask for a history of any unusual disclosures.
* If someone wants to share your health information, you have to give your formal consent.
* You have the right to complain to HHS about violations of HIPAA rules.
* Health information is to be used only for health purposes. Without your consent, it can't be used to help banks decide whether to give you a loan, or by potential employers to decide whether to give you a job.
* When your health information gets shared, only the minimum necessary amount of information should be disclosed.
* Psychotherapy records get an extra level of protection.


how does this violate any of that?

And, yes, in a small town, race, age, marital status and date of abortion could be used to identify someone. (Grew up in a town of 1200, I should know). All they'd have to do is say, "Hey, didn't so-and-so fall sick on that day? Call into work for a couple of days?* I bet they had an abortion!" And then the poor woman gets harrassed.

you're awfully focused on that small town thing except it does not list the town only the state. So state of residence=town of residence-I don't think so. Even if there was a clinic in every county that provided abortions(there are only two both in Tulsa-I looked it up) how many women reside in that county, how many are closer to the next county and go there for medical treatment? the form asks for (I'll say it again) STATE of residence and county the procedure was performed in-not town they live in.

the state of oklahoma has a population of 3,642,361-50.6% female-saying Pt was a 21 year-old, unmarried, hispanic female, with 17 previous pregnancies that resides in the state of oklahoma does not identify anyone now does it? go ahead attempt to id someone with that information even living in a small town-because THE TOWN is not listed just the STATE.

to put it on a smaller scale-statistically-out of every 1000 US teens age 15-there are 16.3 abortions-so if I have a group of 1000 15 year-olds I can safely say that it's likely one of them has had an abortion-can I identify which one by saying a 15 year old unmarried woman in this group had an abortion-no you can't

this is the same manufactured outrage that the right is always being accused of-but you refuse to see it that way because it's one of the issues you believe in.

Does a rape victim go through this process? Someone getting an abortion for a medical reason (either danger to the mother or severe deformity of the fetus)? Incest victims?

the physician fills out the form the patient does not ever even see it-and there is an option for "pregnancy resulted from rape, pregnancy resulted from incest, and termination of pregnancy medically necessary.

you're acting like the doctor says "here fill out this form"-when in reality it's physician gets patient history and fills out form

ohhh look hippa "violation"

Look another one
OMG they're everywhere
this one has pictures

google search the phrase "patient presented with" you get 38,300,000 results-of patient histories mostly from medical journals-but OMG releasing medical info is a HIPPA violation!!!

No it's not-as long as there is no identifying information it's perfectly legal

Here's a study on appendectomies
used 60 kids(really small group-make it smaller the groups were divided by procedure, 30 in each)-one had a complication-would you be able to id the child in question from their medical history of age, state of residence, and prior hospitalizations?

[Greenday]

* When your health information gets shared, only the minimum necessary amount of information should be disclosed.

how does this violate any of that?

Um, really? What part of the information is even close to being necessary to disclose?

[blas87]

HIPPA violation or not, I think being able to distill the fear into a woman that someone could know about her getting an abortion.....the whole idea is probably set up to be a detourent from getting abortions, especially because a lot of women get them and *at least attempt* to keep them secret for years.

That's just not right. Look, I don't think abortion should be used as birth control or a way to try to erase mistakes, but this takes it too far.

[tropicsgoddess]

That just cannot be right......that has to violate HIPPA somehow.

My thoughts exactly. I mean, that is invasion of privacy AND violation of patient confidentiality to the nth degree. All that just to appease the conservatives is really what the law was passed for, NOT to deter abortions. If you want to really deter abortions the right way (IMHO), people need to be more informed of sex ed, not that abstinence only bullshit. But also make MAPs more accessible as well, not just to victims of rape/incest.

[violetyoshi]

I'd say something, but it'd most likely be just stark raving angry nonsense. There's no need for any of this. Sometimes I wonder if they were that far off in Masters of Horror's Pro-Life, where a pro-life father of a daughter who was about to have an abortion, well..it's very graphic so let's just say, he managed to give the male doctor an "abortion".

[BlaqueKatt]

HIPPA violation or not, I think being able to instill the fear into a woman that someone could know about her getting an abortion

how?

Again

Heck I'll put in my information:
Married, 34 year-old, Caucasian, resident of WI, with a high school education, and three previous pregnancies(2 live birth, one miscarriage) obtained an abortion through use of RU-486 on January first 1907 in tulsa county.

Wow that would totally pin me down......in any small town heck if I lived in a town of just me I couldn't be id'd with that

Um, really? What part of the information is even close to being necessary to disclose?

um that would be made necessary under that law that has been passed-and don't you all think that if this was a HIPPA violation they would be fighting the law for that reason? But they aren't they're issuing a procedural challenge to the law-saying it was passed with improper procedure because they know it doesn't violate HIPPA.

Oh newsflash-if you are treated for any STI your health information in the same type of form(age, race, gender, etc) is sent to your state health department-freedom of information act allows me to access that info if I would so choose-so yup OMG your "private" health info is already being gathered. They also gather the demographic data on other communicable diseases-such as H1N1 infection, TB, HIV, strep throat......

If you want to really deter abortions the right way (IMHO), people need to be more informed of sex ed, not that abstinence only bullshit. But also make MAPs more accessible as well, not just to victims of rape/incest.

And I totally agree with this-which is why I'm thrilled that my state offers the MAP to anyone(they were trying to get it OTC but due to the potential side effects that was not done)-local pharmacies have a list of physicians to call to get the Rx without being seen.

[lupo pazzesco]

I think it's more the thought that if you choose to have a medical procedure, a private, personal choice, you essentially have to agree to have statistics about you posted online for others to access, whether it's your name or any other identifying info or not. It's like being told you can't get buy condoms without registering yourself, or something of a similar ilk.

and again, the decision to have an abortion is already not an easy decision to make for some people. Being told they can have one, which can be an invasive procedure as it is, but first let's go through this 40 question form, and dig into every aspect of the abortion, except asking your name, is even more invasive. On top of that, having been to an abortion clinic to be there as support for a friend in a largely conservative, republican area, I can also tell you that you have to also run the gauntlet, being called names, yelled at by protestors, just to get inside. Then, you get into the medical facility and the people who are supposed to be there to help you are being equally as rude, except in this case, it's all nice and legal and a requirement if you want to have a medical procedure done.

Just my POV, of course.