Recently, the Oklahoma Legislature passed two very strict abortion laws, House Bill 1878 and HB 1595, that went into effect Nov. 1. Each of these laws is meant to reduce the number of abortions in this state.
Although many — both anti-abortion and abortion rights — want to see that happen, these laws could cost too much personal freedom in the end.
HB 1878 requires women to have intravaginal ultrasounds narrated by doctors before they have abortions. This procedure is incredibly invasive and unnecessary before having an abortion.
HB 1595 requires women and their doctors to fill out a lengthy survey, which includes questions about relationships, race and how the pregnancy occurred.
This information is then posted on a Web site.
Although the legislation does not require information such as names and addresses, there is enough information that those living in small towns in Oklahoma could identify their neighbors on the site.
Today’s column is not an anti-abortion/abortion rights debate. Instead, I am giving space to four people — liberal and conservative — who oppose all or portions of these laws because of their invasive nature. When requested, I have kept sources anonymous.
Karen Sisk is a Ph.D. student in creative writing. She received her M.A. in English literature at Wright State.
First of all, I think the survey itself — from what I’ve read about it — is fine.
I think it makes sense to ask about a woman’s race, education and reason for seeking an abortion. I think it makes sense only because, in the future, Oklahoma might want to find ways to help those women.
For instance, if we find out that there are high numbers of rapes in white communities in Oklahoma and that these women then seek abortions, perhaps we can find public programs to change that.
Or, if we find out that these women don’t have access to contraception and seek an abortion for that reason, perhaps Oklahoma could help change that, as well.
However, to post that information online is appalling — with or without someone’s name attached. In that case, you’re not trying to help these women; you’re only trying to make them feel guilt regarding their decision. Letting them know that information will be on a state-run, public Web site is just a masked deterrent. Anyone saying otherwise is lying.
Furthermore, the ultrasound mandate is despicable. Again, that mandate is only centered on inducing guilt and inducing women to feel bad about their decisions. Women who are having an abortion would not do so lightly, and, even if they did — which, in my mind, is impossible — it’s not the government’s job to pose those types of sanctions.
Right now, abortion is legal. Thus, it is acceptable in our country, and we should respect women’s rights to have enough knowledge about themselves to consider whether they want to make this significant decision about their body. By forcing women to look at an ultrasound, there’s an assumption that they don’t understand what they’re doing — that someone else has to show them.
If this were a case of incest, should the government be allowed to psychologically torture a victim in this way? It’s absurd, and immoral.
An ultrasound is just another sneaky tactic to force women to feel the guilt others think they should. And, whether Oklahoma legislators like it, this decision isn’t one that they can put their own morals on without causing outrage.
— Anonymous
Although I usually stay out of the abortion debate, my opinion is slightly for abortion rights. I believe that HB 1595 is a “Scarlet Letter” law intended to intimidate women into not getting an abortion.
This law is clearly not designed to provide information for research or education. It’s likely that the detailed information published could make it possible for some to identify the individual, potentially leading to one being harassed, ostracized or even harmed.
With all of the attention given to medical privacy, how could something like this be written into law? It’s quite disappointing to see anti-abortion legislators resort to strong-arm tactics like this.
— Scott, junior majoring in sociology and computer science
I think this law is an example of what makes Oklahoma a laughing stock around the country. Women have come too far to be discriminated against and threatened when they get a medical procedure.
It is nobody’s business except the woman and the doctor. Although I would find it funny if they made the woman show what church she and her parents belong to. Would Oklahomans support that? Would they just lie about their church to not embarrass it?
If you want to lower abortion rates, educate about sex and protection.
— Eric Martin, economics 2007 graduate, currently in New York City
10 comments
It's not about pro-choice or pro-life, it's about legislation that is anti-woman!
I think it's very condescending to assume that a woman who has made a choice to abort a pregnancy isn't already informed. I believe that if a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to make the decision on her own. If a woman doesn't want to abort, she doesn't have to. No matter how unfit of a mother she might be, she isn't harassed by groups who think she is making the wrong choice, so why is the other woman harassed?