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.
At first, I thought this was like an abortion registry or something similar. Basically, a “who got an abortion” list. Sounds pretty scary, actually. Of course, those against the bill are perfectly happy with you thinking that even though it isn’t even close to being true.
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.”
The opposition to this law proves two things in my mind.
1. That the pro-abortion crowd has no interest in reducing the number of abortions or learning why they’re happening. Safe, legal, and rare, is bullshit. On-demand and at will are more like what’s really happening.
2. Fear mongering is alive and well. Nowhere in the law does it say individual profiles would be made available online to the general public. In fact, the survey wouldn’t even collect individual names. While you could argue that a profile could be built by people, there’s no indication that they’d have individual data. If the questions are vague enough, this concern is moot and can only be defined as a scare tactic.
Now, that’s not to say the law is all peaches and cream.
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.
Now that is ridiculous. Not because I disagree with it, but because abortion is (unfortunately) legal. There’s no obvious intention here except to create a hurdle for a legal medical procedure (despite how awful it is). That, my friends, is wrong.
The questionnaires, however, should stay. They could prove to be a valuable resource in preventing abortions and unwanted pregnancies, and should stick around as long as very strict standards for how vague, anonymous, and identifying the information collected is. With those precautions, this law is a very good idea and should go a long way toward making abortion, in the words of Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama “Safe, Legal, and Rare.”
Unless, of course, that’s all buzzword bullshit.