Former Oklahoma legislator challenges bizarre new abortion law in well-publicized case

I think most folks would like to see a reduction in the number of abortions that take place. As a feminist, I support the right to choose abortion because it is sometimes the best solution to a bad situation, and because I support the right of women to make decisions about what goes on inside our own bodies.

If we want to reduce abortion, the most practical way to do that is to empower women to keep from becoming pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant. We might do everything in our power to make contraception and family planning services available. And -- call me an old school lesbian feminist if you like -- we might even work to overturn compulsory heterosexuality.

Instead, the Oklahoma Legislature takes the patriarchal approach of trying to bully and humiliate women who seek to end an unwanted pregnancy.

I first learned of this story in an e-mail update from the National Partnership for Women and Families. Their post relied largely on an online article in the Guardian of London, which linked to a piece on Salon.com about an off-the-wall new Oklahoma law that takes truly bizarre steps to interfere with the rights of women to have an abortion. The Salon.com piece linked to the web site of the Center for Reproductive Rights, and this is the best place to begin to read about this bizarre new Oklahoma law.

According to CRR, back at the end of September

former Oklahoma state representative Wanda Stapleton, along with Shawnee, Oklahoma resident Lora Joyce Davis, filed a legal challenge against an Oklahoma law that will impose 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.

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.

Lynn Harris at salon.com has a chilling description of the new law :

The required questionnaire (see PDF of entire law), practically as long and elaborate as eHarmony's (and containing fishy questions such as "Was there an infant born alive as a result of the abortion?"), does not include the name, address or "any information specifically identifying the patient." But opponents argue that the first eight questions alone would be enough to out any woman in a town of 200 or smaller.

Also, doctors failing to provide this information would face criminal sanctions and loss of their medical license.

It isn’t unique for a state to post health data on its Web site. However, Oklahoma’s requirements are by far the most extensive as such. The law's supporters claim they want this information to be made public so it can be used for "academic research," but according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, its collection method makes it useless for that purpose. (If a woman sees more than one doctor concerning her abortion -- primary care and abortion provider, say -- the data, collected each visit, will appear to represent more than one patient.)

The good news is, thanks to CRR, the law -- originally scheduled to go into effect Nov. 1 -- has been stayed pending a Dec. 4 hearing.

Also, according to CRR, back in August

a state district court struck down a 2008 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.

CRR is also challenging the current law on the grounds that it addresses more than one topic, in violation of the state constitution, which gives hope that the new law will also be overturned.