Going too far: Oklahoma’s Abortion Debate

When you hear any mention of abortion strong feelings and emotions may come to mind. Most people have an opinion on this issue especially here in the state of Oklahoma. Some believe that abortion is wrong because of their religious convictions while others believe that it is a choice that should be available to every woman. Of course there are those that may be in the middle, only considering abortion in cases of rape or incest. Yet no matter what the opinion of any individual in Oklahoma, abortion is legal in this state. A woman can undergo this procedure performed by any licensed physician before the first trimester (unless approved by a hospital after this time period), however partial birth abortion is illegal ("Learn About the Law"). Recently House Bill 3284 was introduced by the House of Representatives in the state of Oklahoma. This bill would allow additional statistical data to be gathered from mothers seeking an abortion in order to help make public policy decisions in the future (Peterson). While some are calling this an invasion of privacy others explain that it will protect lives. Yet finding agreement between two polar opposite opinions has only resulted in heated arguments and anger. No matter what you believe about abortion, you must decide if this law is constitutional or ethical. Many personal beliefs that a particular society holds, often becomes integrated into the laws. These laws provide protections and justice for the innocent citizens. This law does not stop abortion; it only requires that the physician submit a questionnaire to every woman requesting an abortion, all of which are posted online (Lohr). While this law does not outlaw this procedure it is being created in the hopes that these clearly invasive questions will prevent women from having abortions. While this may be the hope of many pro-life activists, this law would be detrimental to the state of Oklahoma.

Since 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade, abortion has been legal in all 50 states, including Oklahoma ("Touro Law"). This new law requires physicians to either give or mail these questionnaires to their patients. These questionnaires include inquiries concerning why the female is seeking an abortion. Some of the information gathered includes the age, sex, education, and financial status of the patient ("Conference Committee Substitute"). The answers to these questions are said to be used to help formulate future public policy. State Representative Pam Peterson (R) of Tulsa explains that, "If we truly want to reduce the number of abortions, we need really learn why women feel that abortion is their only option” (Peterson). It seems as though many proponents of this law say that they believe that this law will better serve women. Their reasoning is that with this newly gathered information, the reasons why women elect to have abortions will be discovered and the state can work on developing alternative solutions to help reduce the number of abortions. What I fail to understand is why such an invasive questionnaire is necessary to begin implementing programs, education, or services, that may help reduce the number of abortions in the state of Oklahoma. Providing more funding to help educate women on unprotected sex or adoption information as well as resources available to parents with children can be done without adding a new law. Another measure, house bill 2780, would also require physicians to perform an ultrasound and provide a detailed description of the fetus to the mother before performing an abortion ("Fox News"). This bill would not have exemptions for women that are the victims of incest or rape. They would still be required to undergo an ultrasound. It is unconscionable to imagine anyone having to undergo any medical test or procedure, such as an ultrasound, without their consent. And who will pay for these ultrasounds? The women that are paying through their own private insurance will be responsible for payment and may result in indeterminable consequences because of the patient’s inability to pay. An Oklahoma county judge has granted a temporary restraining order until July 19th since the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a suit to stop this measure from taking effect (Murphy, 2010).

The cost of this bill is also a matter of concern. The state of Oklahoma is currently facing a budget crisis and this type of unethical bill will only add to the deficit. The bill will cost an estimated $281,285 during the first year and $256,285 in subsequent years (Hoberock). I believe that if the interest of women is really at the heart of these bills, then this type of funding could instead be spent on various types of programs to help educate and inform women. Also, failure by physicians to submit these questionnaires within 30 days will result in a $500 fine or a misdemeanor (“Conference Committee Substitute). And when the statistics from these questionnaires are gathered what type of public policies will be created as a result? No planning or forethought has gone into what course of action will be taken as a result. It seems as though these bills only seek to discourage women from seeking an abortion. Since abortion is legal in this state and will remain so, this bill is only creating legislation that imposes someone else’s morality on another. Even though you may believe strongly that abortion is wrong, this bill sets a standard for states having the right to interfere with your moral conscience. While these particular laws may appeal to your moral convictions, you must consider that one day your personal beliefs may be challenged through this type of legislation. It is easy to ignore the constitutionality or validity of a bill when it agrees with your views but it is imperative that we realize the consequences.

In the state of Oklahoma, performing an abortion based solely on the gender of the fetus is illegal and this bill is also aimed at preventing women from undergoing an abortion due to the fetus having a disability. In fact, this measure would also restrict women from receiving damages if their doctor fails to provide or omits information about the fetus (Talley). Most abortions are done in the very early stages of pregnancy when an ultrasound can only accurately be performed vaginally (Talley). It is horrific to imagine that politicians can force a woman to undergo such a procedure that may cause her great mental or physical trauma. These types of decisions should only be made my physicians and their patients. Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry, who unsuccessfully vetoed both abortion bills, explained that, “State policymakers should never mandate that a citizen be forced to undergo any medical procedure against his or her will. To do so amounts to an unconstitutional invasion of privacy" (Talley). This law would allow doctors to lie to patients leaving them without any legal recourse. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life any measure that will allow a physician to knowingly lie or mislead a patient cannot be allowed.

House bill 3290, which would ban insurance companies from covering elective abortions, was also recently vetoed by the Governor (Ertelt). This will severely limit a patient’s health care options. A common concern among the pro-life community is that tax dollars may be spent on providing abortions. The logic that insurance premiums paid by individuals are just like tax dollars and this money is used to pay for medical expenses, which would result in pro-life individuals being forced to pay for abortion procedures. This logic fails since insurance premiums are simply not tax dollars. Based on this reasoning, the majority of health insurance policy holders should have the right to decide what they deem to be a necessary medical expense. This measure takes the choice out of the hands of women and their doctors, the very thing that so many who are pro-life feel threatened by with the new federal health care bill presented by Obama. For a group of people who insisted that the government being involved in health care would bring about its end, they appear far beyond driven to insert themselves between a woman and her doctor.

I do not suggest that you change your stance on abortion; I only propose that you consider the implications that these types of bills will have on the state of Oklahoma. While this bill may not affect you personally, these kinds of bills threaten our constitution as well as our civil rights. You may be strongly pro-life but the type of legislation that allows doctors to lie to patients, forces individuals to undergo unwanted medical procedures, and fill out invasive questionnaires, is not helpful to anyone in the state of Oklahoma. Giving the legislature the power to legislate morality may seem fine while you agree, but what if your personal convictions ended up on the wrong side of a bill? I urge you, no matter what side of the moral debate you fall on, to contact the Oklahoma legislature and let them know that this is not these are not the type of measures we need. It seems that many politicians would have you to believe that these bills are simply a question of pro-life or pro-choice. Here in Oklahoma the overwhelming majority of the population consider themselves to be pro-life. The politicians are counting on the fact that citizens won’t take the time or effort to educate themselves on the intricacies of these bills. And yet this legislation not only has consequences for the citizens today, it also has unforetold costs for the future. These bills threaten the rights of patients and physicians and Oklahomans should stand up against these measures.















Works Cited

Ertelt, S. "Oklahoma Gov Vetoes Bill to Make State Fourth to Stop Abortion in Health Care." Life News 27 May 2010: n. pag. Web. 27 May 2010. .

Hoberock, B. "Abortion Bill is Challenged." Tulsa World 30 Sep 2009: n. pag. Web. 27 May 2010. .

Lohr, Kathy. "Oklahoma Abortion Law 'Invasive,' Critics Say." National Public Radio. NPR, 17 Dec 2009. Web. 25 May 2010. .

Murphy, S. (2010, May 25). Okla. legislature overrides another abortion veto. Associated Press, Retrieved from http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iPIrwf4Yqy-oC7em4W1E6JFhiz2gD9FU3EK81

"Oklahoma Abortion Bill to Become Law Following Senate Override of Governor's Veto." Fox News. Associated Press, 27 Apr 2010. Web. 27 May 2010. .

"Oklahoma Abortion Laws." Learn About the Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 May 2010. .

Peterson, Pam. United States. House Approves Abortion Statistics Bill. Oklahoma city:, 2010. Web. 25 May 2010. .

"Roe v. Wade." Touro Law. n.p., 2010. Web. 27 May 2010. .

State of Oklahoma. Conference Committee Substitute. Oklahoma city: State of Oklahoma, 2010. Web. 27 May 2010. .

Talley, T. "Oklahoma Legislature Poised To Enact Abortion Restrictions By Overriding Governor's Vetoes." Huffington Post 26 Apr 2010: n. pag. Web. 27 May 2010. .