Shocking: Doctors Now Allowed to Hide Birth Defects from Pregnant Women to Curb Abortions

[Mari333]

Women are just slightly dumb animals who need to be drawn a picture and lectured to like a four year old before they can understand what they are doing. That goes without saying. But giving doctors immunity from liability for failing to tell their patients about fetal birth defects? That seems just a tad much to me. Sure the dumb bitches can’t be allowed to make their own decisions about taking on a lifetime of care or consider implications for their own health and well being. What the silly little twits don’t know won’t hurt them, right? But you’d think that the important members of society like insurance companies and employers would have a stake in something like this.

The Oklahoma Legislature voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to override vetoes of two highly restrictive abortion measures, one making it a law that women undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion.

The second measure passed into law Tuesday protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects. The intent of the bill is to prevent parents from later suing doctors who withhold information to try to influence them against having an abortion.








http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/28/oklahoma-lawmakers-decide-doctors-can-hide-birth-defects-from-pregnant-women-to-curb-abortions/


WTF???

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Oklahoma, Arizona, Texas, and Florida for sale -- cheap!

[SteppingRazor]

2. I get the AZ reference, but what'd Texas and Florida do recently? n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

7. Well, taking Jefferson out of the history books in Texas was pretty recent.

In any case, I think Texas and Florida have earned lifetime achievement awards.

[SteppingRazor]

13. Bah humbug! I'm standing up for my state!

Your state gave us Michele Bachmann. Check and mate. :D

[FiveGoodMen]

15. Oh, I'll give you that one!

I'm not going to defend Minnesota at all till we get rid of her.

:hi:

[krkaufman]

38. And Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar ...

And Paul Wellstone (GRHS), Mondale & Humphrey.

And then there's Delay, Armey, Bush, Bush, Cheney, Graham, and Perry... and that's just off the top of my head.

;)

[csziggy]

10. Florida has enough crap as law that we don't need new laws to add us to the list

But the legislature just passed a new voucher law - something about allowing corporations to fund vouchers and get tax breaks for doing so, immediately cutting the amount of money available to public schools. I don't have children but this worries me - what is going to happen to the future generations with no decent school system? Charter and private for profit schools are NOT the answer.

[SteppingRazor]

12. At least Crist vetoed the last rotten education bill. n/t

[csziggy]

23. Nope, this voucher bill was since that horrible anti-teacher one

Crist just signed this voucher one in the last week. Jeb Bush is almost ready to forgive him. :sarcasm:

[SteppingRazor]

30. Yeah, I was referring to the previous bill. As for the current one, I don't have much problem...

with it, since it's entirely based on contributions by businesses, not on tax dollars. (You'll recall Jeb tried to pass an actual voucher program a few years back, but it was struck down by the state supreme court.)

[csziggy]

34. Yes, it is based on tax dollars - the corporations get a tax write off

For their "contributions". That means that much less in taxes to be collected and used for education or other state needs. This, in a year when the state is cutting budgets drastically since the Republicans already got a bunch of tax cuts passed, is insanity. And the more they encourage parents to pull children out of public schools, the less money will be allotted to public schools and the worse they will get.

[BlooInBloo]

52. Looks like there's 11 states currently working on Jim Crow-style laws...

similar to Arizona.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/it-spreads.html

[KamaAina]

56. "I'm wondering if we look at the map of Congressman Grijalva's congressional district"

"if we haven't already ceded that component of Arizona to Mexico judging by the voice that comes out of him."

Another EPIC FAIL from Rep. Steve King (R-Mindnumbingly Stupid). Isn't an ad hominem attack on a fellow House member against House rules?

[krkaufman]

37. chuckle.

No doubt. Sadly, the proceeds wouldn't put a dent in the debt.

[Lars39]

3. I told my mild-mannered husband about this...

he said forget about seeking damages, he'd just do damage.

[krkaufman]

39. cheers to your hub. n/t

[SteppingRazor]

4. It's pathetic. They might as well call it the Shut Up And Make Me a Sandwich Act.

:eyes:

[csziggy]

5. If I were a young woman living in Oklahoma I'd have my uterus removed

So I would never be subjected to this obscenity of a law.

[JHB]

19. I'd recommend removing it from Oklahoma (with the rest of you)...

...as a less invasive treatment.

[csziggy]

22. There is that - and it would be as much a political statement

As a surgery.

[krkaufman]

40. seconded. n/t

[MountainLaurel]

55. Unfortunately, it's these states

Where it's the most difficult for women to get sterilized. A lot of physicians won't perform a tubal on a woman who hasn't had children or is younger than, say, 40. Then there are the costs associated with them, etc.

[Echo In Light]

6. Next, on ...

[Arugula Latte]

8. It's becoming like the Handmaid's Tale

This is what religion does.

[Lars39]

9. I wonder when women's right to own property is on the agenda?

[csziggy]

11. Right after their right to vote is removed. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Right after a woman's status AS property has been decided. nt

[seabeyond]

28. along with the other side of merely being a cum receptor. it is not just about the right

it is the corrosion of female actually being a human being.

but i have got to read this book handmaid tales that you and others keep mentioning.

[Dogtown]

41. You MUST read "Handmaid's Tale", seabeyond.

Horrifyingly prophetic.



:hi:

[catrose]

59. and therefore really depressing

[Dogtown]

63. Yeah. It is a depressing read.

Primarily because it requires zero "suspension of disbelief".

[Shallah Kali]

35. Something like it already happened in Romania under Nicolae Ceausescu

http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/overplanned_parenthood.htm

Ceausescu made mockery of family planning. He forbade sex education. Books on human sexuality and reproduction were classified as "state secrets," to be used only as medical textbooks. With contraception banned, Romanians had to smuggle in condoms and birth-control pills. Though strictly illegal, abortions remained a widespread birth-control measure of last resort. Nationwide, Western sources estimate, 60 percent of all pregnancies ended in abortion or miscarriage.

The government's enforcement techniques were as bad as the law. Women under the age of 45 were rounded up at their workplaces every one to three months and taken to clinics, where they were examined for signs of pregnancy, often in the presence of government agents - dubbed the "menstrual police" by some Romanians. A pregnant woman who failed to "produce" a baby at the proper time could expect to be summoned for questioning. Women who miscarried were suspected of arranging an abortion. Some doctors resorted for forging statistics. "If a child died in our district, we lost 10 to 25 percent of our salary," says Dr. Geta Stanescu of Bucharest. "But it wasn't our fault: we had no medicine or milk, and the families were poor."

Abortion was legal in some cases: if a woman was over 40, if she already had four children, if her life was in danger - or, in practice, if she had Communist Party connections. Otherwise, illegal abortions cost from two to four months' wages. If something went wrong, the legal consequences were enough to deter many women from seeking timely medical help. "Usually women were so terrified to come to the hospital that by the time we saw them it was too late," says Dr. Anca. "Often they died at home." No one knows how many women died from these back-alley abortions.

"Celibacy tax": A woman didn't have to be pregnant to come under scrutiny. In 1986 members of the Communist youth group were sent to quiz citizens about their sex lives. "How often do you have sexual intercourse?" the questionnaire read. "Why have you failed to conceive?" Women who did not have children, even if they could not, paid a "celibacy tax" of up to 10 percent of their monthly salaries.

[Rex]

14. Sounds like Okies were getting jealous at the parts of the world

the get to treat women like cattle. They wanted some of that totalitarianism too! As a male, I am sometimes really-really-really embaressed at how my gender treats women. This is one of those times.

[mfcorey1]

16. Georgia is voting today to make women who seek termination.......

submit to an ultrasound. To add insult to injury, the woman has to pay for the ultrasound. Georgia never moved out of the fifties....the eighteen fifties that is.

[TheKentuckian]

17. This one is absurd. Even if one was anti-abortion as imaginable they

should still be against this measure.

Oklahoma needs to be hit hard as hell with serious economic pressure until they get it or choke on tumbleweeds.

[rocktivity]

18. Can the overrides be overriden?

What can the OK governor do?

:shrug:
rocktivity

[AnArmyVeteran]

20. What if the fetus had three heads or no brain? Would the female be forced to beat it?

What if the fetus is hideously deformed, or even didn't have a brain. This is not a ridiculous question. In the 1990s in south Texas many women began giving birth to babies without brains. I suppose they had brain stems to keep their lungs and hearts operating, but they had no brains and no chance of surviving for any length of time. Because of the phenomenon was concentrated in such a small area in Texas these birth defects were thought to be the result of some toxin in the environment. I don't remember what the investigation uncovered, but what about the women who bore babies without brains? Should the government force a woman to bear anything that comes out of her womb? It's ridiculous how the right wing talks about libertarianism and wants government out of people's lives, yet cheers when government takes command over a woman's body.

I mentioned a 'three headed fetus' as an example of 'What If?'. I've always wondered what a theologian or religious person thought about how many souls would such a baby have? Would they conclude that because there were three heads that it had three souls? And what if a fetus had one head and two bodies? Would it be considered to have one soul regardless of the fact that it had two bodies and two hearts? What is the criteria for a living creature to have a soul? Does it originate in the brain or the body? But if a baby is born without a brain does that mean it doesn't have a soul?

I know a lot of people reading this will just say what I've written is absurd. I think it's absurd too. But for different reasons. Do the physical characteristics of a fetus determine if it has one soul, or more than one soul? Should women be forced to bear babies that have no brain and no chance to live more than a few days in an ICU ward of a hospital?

Pro-life right wingers want to prevent any and all fetuses from being aborted, regardless of it's physical or mental condition. They also don't care of the woman was raped or was the victim of incest. They believe once an egg is fertilized it's a baby, and should have all the rights of a human being. But a strange, but predictable, thing happens after the delivery of one of these 'miracle babies'. All of the people who forced the woman to bear the child scatter with the wind. They are nowhere to be found. They won't have to live a lifetime caring for person in a permanent vegetative state. They don't have to experience all of the devastating emotional traumas that will haunt the mother for the rest of her life. Pro-lifers only care about the unborn, and once they squirm out of the protection of a woman's womb, they are on their own.

The same pro-life right wingers who are so concerned with the life of a fetus, however deformed, eagerly support our tax dollars going to build weapons to kill and maim other human beings. But that is okay to them. I haven't heard one pro-lifer protest against our taxes being used to kill people in wars, even wars started entirely on lies.









' '

[Odin2005]

21. I'm conflicted.

I support a woman's right to choose, but I am greatly bothered by pre-natal tests for things like Down's Syndrome or Autism and a person getting an abortion just because if that. That said, there is a big difference between Autism and some horrible defect, and this stuff is total anti-woman BS.

[Dogtown]

42. I have to disagree with you, Odin2005

It should always be about the woman's choice.

Suppose she knows that she hasn't the resources to properly care for a baby with Down's or some other impairment? If she's poor, or already has two children. Maybe she knows she isn't emotionally capable of providing adequate care for the child.

Her body, her life; her decision.

Suppose, for example, she's going to run for Vice-President. Should she choose to have the child to use it as a stage-prop on the campaign trail, or do the humane thing and *not* produce a child she'll treat as a trained-bear?

Her choice. Even for monsters.

[JCMach1]

69. Exactly, it's the woman's choice and frankly it's malpractice

to withhold information...

[moc]

43. The problem is the screening test for Down's Syndrome during pregnancy has very poor predictive

power. The "triple screen" or "quad screen" (basically, the blood test screening they do mid-second trimester) have a false positive rate of upwards of 98+%. Even the screening done during the first trimester has a FP of about 95%. In other words, for every 100 women told they're carrying a fetus at higher risk for Downs based on these screeners, at least 95% of them are carrying a normal fetus.

The only definitive test is amnio (second trimester) or CVS (first trimester) in which fetal cells are extracted and the chromosomes mapped. In practice, I can't see how a doctor could hide results of an amnio or CVS. The baby either has Trisomy 21 or s/he doesn't. What's a doctor supposed to say about the results? "I'm not going to tell you?" That's just not plausible after an invasive and risky procedure like amnio and CVS.

There is no prenatal test for autism, by the way.

In terms of other defects, if they're significant to be visible on sonogram, then they often have some implications for care during the pregnancy, plans for delivery, and/or care of the newborn after birth. Again, I don't see how it's feasible that doctors would withhold such information from the woman.

[crikkett]

57. If it's the woman's body, it's the woman's choice. Period.

[KamaAina]

58. It's not the prenatal tests that are the problem

it's the counseling* that the expectant moms receive from ableist doctors, basically telling them how horrible life will be with a child with Down's (as already mentioned, no such test exists for autism).

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. Can the doctors give a bald faced lie?

What if a mother asks, "Will the kid have any birth defects?"
Must the doctor respond truthfully? Can he flat-out lie?

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Seems to me that if a doctor doesn't want to get sued he should

TELL HIS PATIENT THE TRUTH.

Not that I would ever be in such a position, but if I were I would sue anyway and force it all the way to the fucking supreme court to overturn a bad law.

If a doctor can't do his job without lying to his patients, he needs to find a different job.

[mainer]

27. Surely they can sue for economic damages?

e.g., the multimillion dollar costs of caring for a child with multiple defects?

[Bluebear]

29. A LAW? To make you "listen" to a description? This is just beyond incredible

[elias7]

31. It is unethical and archaic for an MD to make decisions for patients

Withholding information is not in the best interest of the parents, period. Even if they don't believe in abortion, they have a right to know, to plan, etc... An doctor cannot make a unilateral decision based on personal views in a diverse and pluralistic culture. This law does not pass the legality sniff test. If parents can't sue, the doc, then they should go ahead and sue the state.

[mwooldri]

32. So the doctors can hide the birth defects so that ...

... people who are pregnant can't plan on how to care for a child with a birth defect?

Gosh.

What The ???????

What banana republic (no not the clothing company) decided to pass this law?

I'm a little bit puzzled about this... since the first we learned about our eldest son's condition was right at birth. I'm still taking this in, because I don't know what would have been the case - us better prepared on how to care for our son before his birth or terminate??? I can't turn back the clock and say if I knew 3 months before my eldest sons' birth would I feel any different than what happened on his birth day??? We could have planned things better, we could have researched things, know what to expect, seek out expert help, and prepare for our childs' arrival better rather than have the crash team come in upon birth and having our baby whisked away from us just as he has come into the world, having to make split second decisions as to what to do for a birth defect you have never heard of in your life until the doctor explained about it to you 15-30 minutes after your child was born... and instead of the usual healthy birth and go home enjoy baby 3 days later... have your life turned upside down, the emotional turmoil right there when you should be enjoying your new child and not knowing what is going to happen next. I know with our youngest child I myself was particularly concerned and asked the doctor and ultrasound technician many times - is the baby's X organ OK? Is is there? Is it complete? Does it function correctly?

Sorry, this has hit a personal sensitive nerve and to all those who think that this is a sensible thing for doctors to HIDE news about "birth defects" to parents-to-be need to walk a mile in someones' shoes - firstly with someone who knew about the "defect" before birth, kept and raised the child, - and then with someone who didn't know about the "defect" until actual birth day... and then decide whether knowing about the "defect" before the birth is better than learning about it on birth day.

There are a lot of birth "defects" that a child can have that despite that will lead to them living a good quality of life, albeit having to manage a few things differently than the usual "normal" population. My eldest son is one of them. I'm proud of him, because he's gone through so much in his short 7 year lifespan.

Yes, if we found out about my eldest son's "defect" early on in birth and an early non-viable forced delivery was performed, then yes the insurance company would have saved about $1 million dollars about right now. (not that this was *ever* on our mind). However he is a blessing to us and yes I get mad at him, and I get frustrated about him and I have lost my mind over him but I wouldn't trade him for anything else in the world.

So OK legislature? You hear me? Don't think you will be reading this... plus I don't live in OK... and don't plan on moving any time soon. This law is just about as stupid as the law in Chapel Hill that elephants aren't allowed downtown, or that you can't have an ice cream sandwich in your back pocket in Montgomery, AL.

Thanks for listening... but this one hits me hard.

Mark.

[YOY]

33. Well...this will present some interesting lawsuits.

Within the law or not...some very instesting lawsuits...

[Eg-ptiangirl]

36. But no doctor will do that

If any doctor allows himself/herself to force personal and religious ideas on patients he/her is a very bad doctor. No doctor will hide birth defects from pregnant women and succeed. And they also can't protect those idiotic doctors because what if the woman asks the doctor Directly and he replies NO when he knows it is a YES, Will they also allow them to fabricate a screening test? They can't allow doctors to lie like that and parents will sue the doctor, the new law only allows hiding information but still doctors are not allowed to lie replying to a direct question, and eventually all moms will ask Doctors fearing they will hide informations. So practically this law has no meaning.

In hospitals and clinics, doctors will not tell a woman you have a healthy baby and let her expect a healthy baby while they know he is a Downs syn for example, they will not be able to lie to their faces especially in follow ups where the woman should trust her gynecologist for months. Doctors themselves will not agree that women will not trust them any more. I think most of the cases were negligence and few were a decision made by the doctor to prevent an abortion. I just can't imagine any sane doctor fabricating a screening test for example to serve his agenda this is sooooo unbelievable.

Plus even if a mom wants to have this baby she and the dad should have the time to read and enter educating courses to deal with their child, it will also protect them from the shock of discovery after birth. And certainly she deserves to be treated with dignity and not to be treated like a passive carrier for a human being. She is the mum she deserves to know the truth.

[Dogtown]

44. "I just can't imagine any sane doctor fabricating a screening test..."

We can quibble over "sane", but I can certainly imagine some fundy with a degree lying to a woman about defects to prevent her aborting.

They justify it to themselves and absolutely *believe* that to do less is a "sin". They are compelled by their "faith" to prevent any abortion at all costs.

Pharmacists are allowed, in some jurisdictions, to refuse to provide medicine prescribed by a doctor due to their "faith". Their "faith" can over-ride a doctor's decision about a patient's health. If doctor's are protected from liability for with-holding information, some doctors will do so.


This is a very bad law. It's only objective is to prevent abortions. They will not stop until Roe V Wade is overturned.

[bullwinkle428]

50. Tom Coburn is a physican - I have to believe there are

other doctors out there just like him, as horrifying as that may be.

[MountainLaurel]

54. Oh yeah

I used to work at a private university med school affiliated with the Catholic church, and I'd stake a year's salary based on my interactions with a couple students that there are doctors out there who think this law doesn't go far enough.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

45. This is every bit as evil as the AZ hate bill --but since it's a women's issue....

we the public will hear very little about it.

:rage:

[Solly Mack]

46. k/r

fuckers

[BlueIris]

47. The troglodytes in the Oklahoma legislature are the epitome of everything wrong with government.

To me, they should be made the laughing stock of our entire nation.

[MadMaddie]

48. What I am about to say is nasty but it should be done!

When these women whose drs lied to them have their catastrophically damaged (unable to sustain life) outside of the womb, they need to take the baby's body and deliver it to the OK Senate in mass. And when they are done there they need to take the dead body to each Senators home and show the families. They need to make posters and stand on street corners and show what the OK legislature did to them.

Here's what will happen. Funny thing the Republicans won't want to see the pictures, they will say that children shouldn't be exposed to the horrific pictures. They will say that it's inhuman to subject them to the horror. And they should picket across the street from these bastards churches.

That's right I said it. They want to torture these women and have governmental interference in womens health choices well they should experience these womens lives.

I am sorry this white male led legislature does not get a free pass on this.

[HillWilliam]

53. Maddie, it's their very own medicine

The anti-choice crowd already parade with pictures and grotesque models. It's always "ok" when they do it to us, but somehow "horrific" and "unconscionable" when they receive a wake-up call with their own tactics.

As aghast as we both are at ourselves for thinking it, yeah, we're thinking it. And it may just be the medicine they need. A bully never backs down until they get the poke in the nose they've been handing out. Then almost always they go flyin' home to mama.

I'm so exasperated with the nut-wing and their ever-escalating antics, I've about hit my limit with them, too. I'm almost fresh-out of nice.

[havocmom]

49. Do women get to sue such doctors for the costs of raising the children?

[Lyric]

65. Nope. The new law specifically forbids such lawsuits.

[havocmom]

67. Thanks for answering. Any idea why any female would live there now?

Absolute rubbish. Pay for medical care and get lied to by omission? Get the fuck out! Let the control freaks fuck each other.

[Lyric]

68. I agree. I believe that if a doctor chooses to lie to a woman about her medical care

then he shouldn't be allowed to charge her money. Who the hell thinks that it's fair for a woman to have to PAY to be lied to?

[unabelladonna]

51. that's totally immoral....

and that's the most civil thing i can say about this abomination.

[riderinthestorm]

60. Trying to think of a male analogy: having prostate surgery and becoming impotent

but they wouldn't know about that potential life long consequence until after the surgery was performed?

I mean, absolutely no one - male or female - should have their doctor withhold information about their "condition", treatment, side effects, or post-surgical impact.

No one. That anyone believes this is justified is crazy.

For a long time, I thought the fundies were simply fringe but this law demonstrates just how many inroads they've made into political organizations. They truly hate women.

Beyond that, this is dangerous interference into the historically trusting relationship people TRY to have with their doctors. Abortion rights should always be framed as a privacy issue (ie. this is a private matter between a woman, her doctor and her family) otherwise laws like this find a way to emerge from the cesspool of anti-choicers.

A sad K & R. Not because I like this OP but because it's imperative that more people see it.

[mainer]

61. The state should pick up the medical costs of malformed babies

If the mother isn't even informed that she's carrying a child that will bankrupt their family and will require lifelong institutionalization, there should be a provision added to the bill that such babies are the responsibility of the state.

That should change things in a hurry.

[Lyric]

66. Yep. The law says that doctors can't be sued.

It doesn't say a damned thing about the state.

[TheKentuckian]

62. Bump...seems folks aren't catching this stuff because of other issues or something

[ismnotwasm]

64. That can't be legal,

I mean really legal, not women hating freaky religious weirdos who happened to get into public office and pass some stupid shit legal.

At best, it's gross negligence as well as clear malpractice. At moderately worst, plain old malfeasance. At worst, they're simply the spawn of satan. Or maybe Ted Nugent.

I wouldn't get an cursory ear exam in Oklahoma if this is their standard for Physicians. They are out of their rabbit-assed minds