Oklahoma HB 1595

Posted by Jason Douglas on 10.27.2009

Should government legislate medical decisions based on motive?

To begin this article, I want to state clearly that I am writing specifically about Oklahoma House Bill 1595 and its implications, not the larger subject of abortion in general. I can't kid myself; some people will jump at any opportunity to sound off on abortion rights as a whole. I will just say one thing about that. Over several articles, I've communicated many ideas, some of which are highly debatable and stir strong emotions. Because my give and take with those making comments has been respectful and civilized, they have been receptive to my ideas, even when I couldn't persuade them. Whatever you have to say, check the personal attacks at the door, or you're just wasting keystrokes.

Oklahoma HB 1595 can be read in pdf format at http://www.sos.state.ok.us/documents/Legislation/52nd/2009/1R/HB/1595.pdf if you like. It's not that long at thirty pages, and is written in plain English, so it's at least worth skimming. It has been passed into law but its enactment is currently stalled by a legal challenge. The main points of the bill are stated as banning abortions which are "solely on account of the sex of the unborn child", and to set up information gathering on abortions. There are other implications but for the sake of keeping this shorter than a Harry Potter book I'm focusing on the main points. If anyone thinks I've glossed over something important in the bill I encourage you to expound in the comments section.

First, it should be noted that the federally-funded Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the CDC, in Atlanta already has collected state-by-state abortion data since 1969, which is available online. Oklahoma state Rep. Dan Sullivan, a Tulsa Republican and co-author of House Bill 1595, said that the law is intended "to find out why people are seeking abortions and see if there is something we can do as a state to have a positive impact." So while on the surface it appears this law advocates redundant information gathering, its sponsors assert that the more specific data they seek will presumably lead to legislation which could lower demand for abortions. Let's turn our focus to the information being sought via a form which the law would require be filled out and submitted for every abortion performed. This list of 37 questions must either be filled out by the woman or verbally asked and checked off by her doctor. The list does not require divulging the patient's name, but asks for info which put together could be used to identify women in rural areas through process of elimination. It could also potentially lead to women being misidentified by nosy neighbors as having gotten abortions. The age of the woman, marital status, years of education, number of previous pregnancies and their outcomes, etc. are all required to be given. Many of the questions are of a nature that a reasonable person could see as keeping with Rep. Sullivan's stated purpose. But then comes the very lengthy section for question 15: Reason given for abortion.

After the phrase "reason given for abortion" is a list of 35 possible options (plus "other" and "patient declined to give a reason" at the end), with a directive to check all that apply. Seems benign enough, right? The first problem is the wording. The abortion seeker is not referred to here as "the patient" or "the woman", but as "the mother". For question 15 alone, the word "mother" appears over 30 times. You would think a list this long would cover every possible reason a woman could give, but there's a glaring exception. While the themes of financial hardship, interference with education, and relationship status are covered in several different ways, and "mother is not ready for a, another child" is included, the choice "does not WANT a child" is conspicuously absent. Nearly 40 reasons, and the simple concept of a woman opting against motherhood isn't there. Any options that indicate a willing choice rather than health or practical considerations depict the woman as inept, such as "mother does not feel mature enough" and "emotional health of the mother is at risk". I think it's fair to say the structure and phrasing of this form are less than impartial. It is just a thinly veiled attempt to heap guilt and shame on a patient seeking a legal medical procedure.

Speaking of motives, as mentioned this law would ban abortions which are solely on account of the sex of the fetus. I find it curious that this hasn't been a bigger part of the story. Since when does the government have the power to disallow personal medical decisions based on motivation? There is growing concern over the notion of genetic manipulation and cloning being used one day to create "designer babies". Personally, I find it grotesque to picture a couple asking for a kid who will have blond hair, hazel eyes, high cheek bones, and stand 5'10", as if they're at the drive-thru ordering a meal. That issue, however, is not addressed by this law. This law prohibits an otherwise legal procedure if the given reason for seeking it is distasteful. If the woman checks gender AND any other reason, the abortion is allowed. Who empowered the Oklahoma Legislature to decide which reasons for legal conduct are acceptable and which are not? If I enrolled in medical school for the sole purpose of making a lot of money, could they ban me from receiving a license? How about someone getting plastic surgery out of sheer vanity? Aren't they effectively becoming a designer baby post birth? I don't think any of us wants to have to seek the approval of bureaucrats before we can get a face lift or hair plugs. It is not government's place to pass judgment on the personal morals of individuals, and to then use such judgment to selectively apply the law. Regardless of your stance on abortion, this precedent alone should be soundly rejected.

As a nation of laws, there are certain principles we must adhere to. The accused have a right to legally defend themselves. If they can't afford legal counsel, it is provided by the state (quality notwithstanding). If that were not the case, for many the right would be an illusion. Along similar grounds, we have a reasonable expectation that behavior which has been established as lawful will not be undermined by the very people charged with maintaining the integrity of the system they purport to serve. Efforts to hinder a citizen's ability to act in accordance with the law, free of harassment, are not in keeping with our best legal principles. Imagine being wrongly accused of a crime, finally exonerated, then having the state build a ten foot electrified fence around your house on a flimsy excuse. Disingenuous efforts to chip away at laws or court rulings some people don't like are unacceptable. Oklahoma's law should be struck down, and those who oppose abortion should try persuading women to make a different choice, rather than exploiting the law to intimidate them.