[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AGDee

It is saying that the doctor does not have to inform you if he thinks your baby has birth defects period. The intent is to keep people from aborting babies who are severely deformed. A doctor wouldn't know whether parents might choose to abort if they know that their baby is going to be so severely deformed that it cannot live more than a few hours after birth or require lifetime institutionalization, etc. Is the next step to exempt a doctor if they choose not to tell you that your own life is in danger if the pregnancy continues???

Like most of this bill, this part is unconstitutional. The Oklahoma Constitution, believe it or not, is pretty progressive. These sorts of immunity statutes have been disposed with in the past and this one ought to be no different. The Oklahoma Constitution requires that for every wrong there shall be a remedy.

This particular statute is to prevent wrongful birth suits and the above is one such fact patter which would ordinarily lead to these sorts of suits.

As for the checklist, I think I'd check "Other" with "None of your business" (perhaps with an expletive too!) if given that form.

This is maybe the one area where I don't see a problem with the bill. Nothing is personally identifiable. It could still be found that the purpose of this survey is intimidation and that'd probably be an undue burden situation. Or how about if the mother was unable to fill out the form because she had been raped and beaten into a coma and was now pregnant? Maybe the lack of a health of the mother exception is fatal here as well?

As for whether there is a separate human being involved, that is the part that is up to debate and that will always be a big difference between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Some of us do not believe it is a separate human being until it can survive on its own without the host. The question of when life begins (along with religion) is the real root of this debate, always and nobody has a real, definitive answer.

At the point of viability, according to present law, the state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of the child. As long as there's some health of the mother exception, prohibitions past week 20 or so on abortion could theoretically be permissible.

It's fairly likely ALL of these things will be struck down though. And in that event, this highly conservative, right of right legislature is simply funneling money (attorneys fees) into the coffers of the ACLU and other pro-choice legal consortiums. I'm sure these groups appreciate Oklahoma's efforts because like most non-profits, their donations are probably down because of the economy.

ETA: Just heard the District Judge assigned to the case is my cousin. She's a fair judge, will not be swayed by politics. Hella smart lady too. She'll make the right call.