Yesterday, our colleagues at Jezebel wrote about a new Oklahoma law that will require the details of every abortion to be posted on a public website. Proponents say this will prevent abortion — apparently by shaming and burdening women and doctors.
Anna N. wrote:
The law (which you can look at here — it's HR 1595) mandates that a 34-item questionnaire be filled out by abortion providers for each procedure. The questionnaire doesn't include the woman's name or "any information specifically identifying the patient," but it does ask for age, race, level of education, marital status, number of previous pregnancies, and the county in which the abortion was performed, information which opponents of the bill argue would be enough to identify a woman in a small town. The questionnaire also asks about the mother's reason for the abortion, her method of payment, and even what type of insurance she has, as well as whether the fetus received anaesthetic and whether there was "an infant born alive as a result of the abortion."
Lynn Harris, quoted in the Jezebel piece, writes,
According to proponents of the law, this extensive abortion data — which will include the reason the procedure was sought — will help health officials prevent future abortions. Yeah, I can see that. Because the requirement itself would scare the shit out of me.
Harris also points out that the way the data is collected will make it very difficult to use in any scientific or sociological research.
But, Harris goes on:
It's unlikely that those who devised the questionnaire intended it to be used for objective science. Its questions (especially those related to ultrasound and providing the patient with written materials prior to abortion) seem geared toward figuring out the best way to keep women from aborting. And the questionnaire itself looks like one more way of shaming women out of the abortion process. It may also deter doctors, who now have a new and very long piece of paperwork to complete. As if that weren't enough, the law also bans sex-selective abortions.
The Center for Reproductive Rights is working with others in Oklahoma to challenge the law. Last week, former Oklahoma state representative Wanda Stapleton joined Shawnee, Oklahoma resident Lora Joyce Davis in filing a legal challenge against the law, charging it will:
[I]mpose a host of restrictions on women's access to abortion and cost the state over a quarter of a million dollars a year to enforce. The plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights and argue that the state legislature overstepped its authority by enacting a statute that will both violate the Oklahoma's Constitution and waste taxpayers' money.
CRR stated that:
The Oklahoma Constitution requires that laws address only one subject at a time, but the new measure covers four distinct subjects, including redefining a number of abortion-related terms used in the Oklahoma code; banning sex-selective abortion; requiring doctors who perform abortions or treat patients who have had abortions to report extensive patient information to the state health department; and creating new responsibilities for the State Health Department, the State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, and the State Board of Osteopathic Examiners relating to gathering and analyzing abortion data and enforcing abortion restrictions. According to the legislature's own estimates, implementing the new reporting requirements will cost the state $281,285 during the first year and $256,285 each subsequent year.Â
In filing the suit, Stapleton stated:
As taxpayers in this state, we expect our representatives to follow the state constitution, not pick and choose what measures suit them, then pass unconstitutional legislation that shortchanges their constituents by a quarter-of-a-million dollars.
The 2009 statute is the Oklahoma legislature's second attempt in the last two years to restrict abortion by bundling numerous provisions into one bill. Last month, a state district court struck down a 2008 abortion ultrasound law that included, among other abortion restrictions, the most extreme ultrasound requirement in the country and a requirement that would have limited the availability of abortions performed with the medical abortion pill. The court in that case ruled that the statute included too many disparate topics and therefore violated the state constitution.
