Oklahoma lawmakers pass bill banning abortions after ‘fertilization’

[Fuerteventura 29]

Oklahoma lawmakers on Thursday passed a bill that would ban abortions from the moment of “fertilization,” effectively prohibiting almost all abortions in the state.

If signed into law by Gov. Kevin Stitt (R), it would be the strictest prohibition in the country and further change the national landscape for abortion, as millions of patients face the prospect of traveling hundreds of miles to undergo the procedure in the face of multiple states imposing severe limits. Oklahoma had been a refuge for some women from neighboring Texas, where a six-week ban went into effect last year.

 

Stitt has said he wanted Oklahoma to be “the most pro-life state in the country,” and Republicans there have sought to make the state the vanguard in banning abortion. Two weeks ago, Stitt signed into law a prohibition on abortions in the state for pregnancies past six weeks, and now he will have an opportunity to impose more far-reaching restrictions.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/oklahoma-abortion-ban-fertilization/

[TBoneTX 43,058]

54 minutes ago, Fuerteventura said:

Stitt has said he wanted Oklahoma to be “the most pro-life state in the country,”

So?  California obviously wants to be the most hosed, and Michigan wanted to be the most repressive (ask Comrade Half-Whitmer), and other states and their leaders have other goals.  If we can't find what we want in one place, we go to another.

[laylalex 7,247]

It matters because people will die as a result of this bill, if it is passed. There are many reports of doctors in states that already have strong restrictions on abortion turning away women who are actively but incompletely miscarrying because the doctors are afraid that they will be accused of violating the law by performing a D&C, which is the correct procedure. But it could look like performing an abortion after whatever the state's time limit is. If the miscarriage is incomplete, there is a real danger that a woman may suffer from sepsis unless a D&C is performed. 

 

Miscarriage is terrifying enough. I cannot imagine being turned away when my first husband and I rushed to the emergency room. I didn't know what was going to happen to me and I was terrified and beside myself with sorrow, as well the pain I suffered as it was happening. I didn't have to worry about getting the care I needed -- it never even entered my mind. But why should I have the right to medically appropriate care when my sisters in Oklahoma do not?  I'm mentioning incomplete miscarriages here not to exclude women who just want to dictate their own family planning decisions. They too need to be able to receive the healthcare their doctors believe is medically appropriate.

 

This law is forcing doctors to make decisions that violate their ethics and ignore the health of their patients. It is wrong. I am NOT okay with the government telling me (like Governor Stitt has) that God has a "special plan" for me. I am a non-believer. I respect people's right to their religious beliefs but I do NOT respect them legislating those beliefs upon me and my body for non-medical reasons. 

 

It is also important to point out that when Governor Stitt was asked about what the state will do to support families now that there are going to be more children being born into financially/socially precarious environments, he dodged the question. What is the conclusion to be drawn here? How is this truly pro-life if there is no thought or action given to the real, live children who will be born as a result of this law? If you are a poor woman who wants to limit the size of her family for financial reasons, going to another state for a few days to take advantage of women's healthcare is a pipe dream. Who's going to take care of your kids while you're away? How can you afford to take time off of work? How will you pay for your travel costs, especially in a time of inflation? Will your job be there for you when you get back? 

 

Women like me who can afford to take time off work and travel will be inconvenienced but will receive the healthcare they need. The biggest harm will be having to leave their local communities, which they might not want to do. It is the people who are already most at risk of failing who will be failed by this bill. 

 

We can disagree about these matters on a philosophical level but this law will lead to real harm. Even if we put to one side the women who will be negatively affected, this will also affect the ability of Oklahoma companies, colleges and universities to attract workers and students, and may lead to a loss of people who do not want to work in a health-restrictive state. This affects state income, which in turn leads to all sorts of worse outcomes for residents. This is neither a fiscally nor a medically prudent bill.

 

Sorry to rant here. I know it's a lot. I haven't been posting a lot on this in here recently because this is very real to me, and I have been where these women will be, but I had the right to handle my healthcare as I saw fit. To blithely say, well, they can always leave, is to ignore the reality of how very hard that can be for many people.

[TBoneTX 43,058]

26 minutes ago, laylalex said:

rant here. I know it's a lot.

Upvoted because of clarity, sincerity, and literacy.

27 minutes ago, laylalex said:

a poor woman who wants to limit the size of her family

[said without rancor ===>]  If preventive steps failed, then the next step is not a procedure where two heartbeats go in and only one comes out.  Adoption is one alternative.

[Fuerteventura 29]

Fetus yes! Feed us? Nope!

[Redro 4,598]

3 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Upvoted because of clarity, sincerity, and literacy.

[said without rancor ===>]  If preventive steps failed, then the next step is not a procedure where two heartbeats go in and only one comes out.  Adoption is one alternative.

If they're going to state it begins at fertilization

Two preventative steps: Plan B and IUDs are off the table. 

Some women cannot take hormonal birth control. 

Sometimes a condom breaks... 

[yuna628 9,528]

 

8 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Upvoted because of clarity, sincerity, and literacy.

[said without rancor ===>]  If preventive steps failed, then the next step is not a procedure where two heartbeats go in and only one comes out.  Adoption is one alternative.

You understand that this bill prevents the preventative steps in the first place right? Again, personhood is now defined as an egg before or at fertilization. And that is where the stupidity of these laws come into play, as if this is now the case, women abort personhooded-eggs naturally every month during their cycle. Will we soon be denied hysterectomies? It is hard to take your comment without rancor, as this bill would force a child or any woman that has had her bodily autonomy taken away by rape to deliver that rapist's child. The female has been harmed by the rape, and now the law forces the rapist to have rights over that female, by forcing her to put her body at severe physical and psychological harm, and for what exactly? None of this is even Biblical. The argument against abortion is a religious one, and the individuals that wrote and promoted this bill in Oklahoma make no bones about it. Why exactly is one group's religious views allowed to make decisions on someone else's bodily autonomy? Any Jew living in the state would have the right to sue based on religious infringement. Women having miscarriages do not provide adoptable babies. Women, like in the article I described in the thread on this very same subject, do not provide adoptable babies.

Edited May 20, 2022 by yuna628

[yuna628 9,528]

I wanted to further point out, and I cannot edit now - that had the woman from that article been in Oklahoma she would have been forced to give birth, and what would have been gained by this? A woman that was already severely psychologically and physically scarred, is now being forced to give birth to a baby that will suffer an excruciating few moments of ''life'' before it is dead on the table. And remember, this was originally a very wanted baby from that woman, that had a medical team be unaware of the true gravity of the situation before it almost too late, and she needed to have a very late term abortion, which required her to go out of state and then return to her own state to have an agonizingly difficult labor anyway. She still had to give birth to a dead infant, but at least she ensured that infant would not suffer. Her cause was a dignified one and is one the state does not belong being involved in.

[Rosalind F 178]

I cannot believe that women in US have less control over their bodies than women in Soviet Union. 

This is medieval.

 

I'm also going to leave this here even though somebody else posted it earlier in other thread. I think it's important for everybody who supports abortion ban to recognize that in this situation woman is given less rights than a corpse. 

[Dashinka 23,238]

1 hour ago, Rosalind F said:

I cannot believe that women in US have less control over their bodies than women in Soviet Union. 

This is medieval.

 

I'm also going to leave this here even though somebody else posted it earlier in other thread. I think it's important for everybody who supports abortion ban to recognize that in this situation woman is given less rights than a corpse. 

I don't disagree on the abortion issue, I am fine with elective abortions up to birth, it is not my decision.  As to the posting, it is interesting that this does not apply when discussing vaccines.  The part "Nobody has the right to use your body against you will, even to save their life, or the life of another person."  seems to destroy the public health argument.

 

As to the OP, this law should be aborted as well, but I don't really have any plans to live in OK in the future.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

11 hours ago, laylalex said:

It matters because people will die as a result of this bill, if it is passed. There are many reports of doctors in states that already have strong restrictions on abortion turning away women who are actively but incompletely miscarrying because the doctors are afraid that they will be accused of violating the law by performing a D&C, which is the correct procedure. But it could look like performing an abortion after whatever the state's time limit is. If the miscarriage is incomplete, there is a real danger that a woman may suffer from sepsis unless a D&C is performed. 

 

Miscarriage is terrifying enough. I cannot imagine being turned away when my first husband and I rushed to the emergency room. I didn't know what was going to happen to me and I was terrified and beside myself with sorrow, as well the pain I suffered as it was happening. I didn't have to worry about getting the care I needed -- it never even entered my mind. But why should I have the right to medically appropriate care when my sisters in Oklahoma do not?  I'm mentioning incomplete miscarriages here not to exclude women who just want to dictate their own family planning decisions. They too need to be able to receive the healthcare their doctors believe is medically appropriate.

 

This law is forcing doctors to make decisions that violate their ethics and ignore the health of their patients. It is wrong. I am NOT okay with the government telling me (like Governor Stitt has) that God has a "special plan" for me. I am a non-believer. I respect people's right to their religious beliefs but I do NOT respect them legislating those beliefs upon me and my body for non-medical reasons. 

 

It is also important to point out that when Governor Stitt was asked about what the state will do to support families now that there are going to be more children being born into financially/socially precarious environments, he dodged the question. What is the conclusion to be drawn here? How is this truly pro-life if there is no thought or action given to the real, live children who will be born as a result of this law? If you are a poor woman who wants to limit the size of her family for financial reasons, going to another state for a few days to take advantage of women's healthcare is a pipe dream. Who's going to take care of your kids while you're away? How can you afford to take time off of work? How will you pay for your travel costs, especially in a time of inflation? Will your job be there for you when you get back? 

 

Women like me who can afford to take time off work and travel will be inconvenienced but will receive the healthcare they need. The biggest harm will be having to leave their local communities, which they might not want to do. It is the people who are already most at risk of failing who will be failed by this bill. 

 

We can disagree about these matters on a philosophical level but this law will lead to real harm. Even if we put to one side the women who will be negatively affected, this will also affect the ability of Oklahoma companies, colleges and universities to attract workers and students, and may lead to a loss of people who do not want to work in a health-restrictive state. This affects state income, which in turn leads to all sorts of worse outcomes for residents. This is neither a fiscally nor a medically prudent bill.

 

Sorry to rant here. I know it's a lot. I haven't been posting a lot on this in here recently because this is very real to me, and I have been where these women will be, but I had the right to handle my healthcare as I saw fit. To blithely say, well, they can always leave, is to ignore the reality of how very hard that can be for many people.

Upvoted because you are right and it's a lot of werds

[Mike E 11,723]

6 hours ago, ROK2USA said:

If they're going to state it begins at fertilization

Two preventative steps: Plan B and IUDs are off the table. 

Some women cannot take hormonal birth control. 

Sometimes a condom breaks... 

FTA:

 

”The bill defines “fertilization” as the moment a sperm meets the egg. It explicitly allows for the use of the Plan B pill, a widely used form of emergency contraception,”

 

 

[Redro 4,598]

Just now, Mike E said:

FTA:

 

”The bill defines “fertilization” as the moment a sperm meets the egg. It explicitly allows for the use of the Plan B pill, a widely used form of emergency contraception,”

 

 

Good to know for now...

But, I've heard or a few pharmacists who've interpreted Plan B as being a big NO NO even though it is legal~ 

So, I'm not holding my breath. 

[Mike E 11,723]

1 minute ago, ROK2USA said:

Good to know for now...

But, I've heard or a few pharmacists who've interpreted Plan B as being a big NO NO even though it is legal~ 

So, I'm not holding my breath. 

FUD is protected by the first amendment and alas is  used to counter the 13th amendment. I however exercise my rights as a free being and don’t follow FUD.  

[Redro 4,598]

1 minute ago, Mike E said:

FUD is protected by the first amendment and alas is  used to counter the 13th amendment. I however exercise my rights as a free being and don’t follow FUD.  

I don't know what FUD means...