Online posting of women's abortion information challenged in Oklahoma

(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.

Nosy neighbors with some effort could identify or, even worse, misidentify these women.

"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/index.html




What's your opinion? Should anyone be questioned to this extent? Did anyone read the choices, what happens if they don't apply? No where was there a choice for rape, incest, etc.

i dont think that the woman should have to fill that out, for thats a bit of privatcy they dont want to share.
i had a abortion when i was 16 and yea i regret that now, but i also know that my son i aborted is around me in spirit.. but i do think in some ways they could use some counseling for many may have expereince brake downs and depression. .i was depressed for years and i didnt know why and i finally found out that i had experience post abortion syndrome

I would think that would go against patient confidentiality. Regardless of what side of the argument you are on....it shouldn't be public like that. Not to mention that it could open these women up to harassment, threats or danger.

supposedly the questionnaire nor data will not include a persons name, address, etc., but article continues and says



Why is there not a website for the men who got these women pregnant?
Just asking?

good question. Are we going to put people that go into rehab for alcohol or drug abuse too? How about when someone gets their tubes tied or snipped????

How is this anyone's business?

I can see something like this bringing back the dark alley abortions were women have died horribly because they feel forced to hide

some of those back alley abortion babies have actually survived

I don't know the statistics on it, but either way...it's not safe.

Agree or not...abortion is legal and should be protected under the law IMO

just amazes me how we are all under such economic stress and yet the state of Oklahoma is willing to pay 1/4 million dollars on information which is none of their business. Did you all read where it states the state of Oklahoma is conservative yet they want to do away w/abortions altogether.

Hmmm wondering how many people were polled to have this statement in fact read true!

How can this information prevent future unwanted pregnancies?????

The only way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is either to not have sex at all, or to have responsible sex by protecting yourself and your partner. Can't fathom how this information can prevent anything, much less pregnancy. jmo

I agree, doesn't matter where you sit on this issue (pro/con) just remember these are our rights slowly yet surely trying to be taken from us. The next right maybe one closer to your own lifestyle or heart.

I'm not even going to argue to pro-life or pro-choice thing because that is really beside the point. It is legal and this would go against patient confidentiality.

If they want to do something to try to prevent unwanted pregnancy....try education or something like that

they have been trying for years to make it illeagle and in some ways i think its a good idea. for after i had my abortion, i had told myself i wouldnt do it again unless it depended on my life or the child... i went through crap after i did mine... im relived i know what the problem is now.. when i got pg with my daughter at 19, my mom was trying to get me to have abortion (her baby was 19) she took me to this one clinic and the dang doc that i had admited she had 4 abortion by the time she was 19. what the heck was she thinking... i couldnt go through that again. and i couldnt see myself not having my child with me. so i had her, and with the help of my family they help me raise her.. and then i had my son.. i went through crap with his dad for his dad was talking nothing about abortions and then my sisters brought it up, i had alot of health issue but if there was a problem im sure the doc would had mention a abortion and then it may had been questionable.
when his dad brought abortion, i had enough of his crap and i actually broke up with him and 3 weeks later he came runing back,
we had broken up many times during our relationship, he didnt see our son untill he was about 3/2weeks old for i didnt want him around

Kim, they are getting around the confidentiality part, they claim not to use the womans name, address, etc.

Christian fundamentalism (extremists), not christians in general, but the 'fundamentalists', it is known, have no regard for the Constitution: 'SEPARATION OF STATE AND CHURCH', and the laws of the land (privacy laws in this case), and are at the heart of the 'evil' that won't go away.

Performing abortions in the US is a totally legal procedure. To deny that fact is subversive, counterproductive and downright evil.

Furthermore my defending the wisdom and right of a woman to chose, does not make me a 'baby killer'. It does not make me a PRO ABORTION.

No one is in favor of abortion outright. No one ever goes around enthusiastically 'promoting' abortion. Performing professionally sanctioned and legally available abortions is a modern society's moral obligation.

I'd be the first one to suggest that in an idea world, there would be no abortions. But ideal, our world is not, and abortions will take place whether it agrees with one's life principles, or religious beliefs.

Pragmatism and a sense of dignity and compassion must then direct our actions. It would be unacceptable for a modern society to hypocritically close an eye on the inevitable occurrence of unwanted pregnancies, and the dramatic human consequences if such were to be relegated to the back ally practices of old.

Call it a legally necessary 'evil' if you will, but LEGALLY NECESSARY FOR SURE!!! It will happen anyways, and only cause more harm!

That being the reality of the land, religious fundamentalists must be denounced for their deceptive tactics, attempting to make it both hard and shameful to access that which is legal and safe. They are only pushing for the re-emergence of back alley shops, and that for sure is nothing other than pure EVIL!!!

It is then the Nation as whole that will be put to shame.

it is a violation of the constitution but they do that now days to everyone . if you didn't say anything for all the other people why would you expect them to care when it your turn . It is a court tort that if you don't fight when your rights are ended then you lose that right . I don't like abortion and would rather have them post your name ,the donors name and a pic of the kid posted . But I don't want the constitution over turned . I want it enforced to the highest degree . SO WHEN ITS ALL SAID AND DONE GO AHEAD AND KILL IT IT ISN'T REALLY A KID IS IT ?
READ THE CONSTUTION .

it says "that it is a taxpayers waste of money" this makes me wonder so is it only the poor that are gonna have to report this? while the people that can just afford to pay for it in cash not gonna have to answer the questions at all.. i wonder where the middle class come in that have health isurance to pay for some of it? if they even pay for it i do not know... sounds like just another good ole hit on the poor to me.

whats next? who came to the doctor and needed treated for crabs? we are finding the stastistics on how many got them of the toilet seat, how many got them from their partner , or if their partner had any on them.but hey u came in and needed to get the kwell for the perscription so u did not spread these little wigglys on the toilet seats at maceys..

perhaps we all should have numbers stamped on our heads to tell our life stories.. i think that is the answer...

Exactly - when is the government going to allow us to be individuals and live our own lives as we see fit.

As to this post, it is not to find out who is pro/con abortion/life - that is not the issue, the issue is that they are going beyond the scope of any relevance, by naming or describing people who use this service. It's none of anyone's business but the woman (esp if an adult), her physician and who ever else she chooses to responds to. It is none of her neighbors, bosses, girlfriends, etc.

What about those in NA? AA? Rehab? Etc. Will there be a questionnaire and public information on these people as well. Why are women being singled out? Why are these women's right to privacy being so easily disregarded? The government is taking steps to very quietly and discreetly take away any rights we have and most are not even aware.

'... Christian fundamentalism (extremists), not christians in general, but the 'fundamentalists', it is known, have no regard for the Constitution: 'SEPARATION OF STATE AND CHURCH', and the laws of the land (privacy laws in this case), and are at the heart of the 'evil' that won't go away...'