Oklahoma: Feel free to lie about the fetus.

[Kyreth]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/2...oma/index.html

Docs in OK no longer have to tell pregnant mothers about their child having birth defects. If they don't feel like it. They're now protected from lawsuits for doing so.

Apparently, this is considered "pro-life". WTF?

[aduidarnenye]

That is absolutely horrendous and backwards.

[Takedown3]

wow, thats pretty fucked, because wife and i have already discussed that if we know there is a birth defect early on abo FTW, depending on the severity if it was too late for the abo we would just put it up for adoption.

not gonna deal with that kind of shit

[Tsuko_Asura]

Nevermind the fact that plenty of foreseeable birth defects inevitably end in death within 12 hours of birth, lets just keep those selfish bitches from wanting to abort.

[Pirian]

Wouldn't this violate the doctors Hippocratic oath?

[Max™]

I'm sure someone who is fucked up enough to argue that they have the right to decide for a woman whether or not she can abort a pregnancy is not worried about a promise to a hippopotamus.

[Baelorn]

This is so fucked up. And 84-12? What the fuck.

[AidenCarby]

Wouldn't this violate the doctors Hippocratic oath?

Big time. Unless withholding relevant information is considered "ethical".

[Alleya]

Someone want to find the law for us to read so we have more than the obviously biased opinion of someone with a vested interest in the topic to go on?

[JigglyJam]

The law may protect the doctors from being sued but good luck getting anymore patients when they lie to mothers. Any logical doctor will tell the mother.

The illogical ones are likely backwards christian pro-lifers who called for the law.

EDIT:

Someone want to find the law for us to read so we have more than the obviously biased opinion of someone with a vested interest in the topic to go on?

That too.

[Alleya]

k so I found at least the House version of the law

Spoiler: show

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
House Bill No. 2656
HB 2656

HOUSE BILL NO. 2656 - By: SULLIVAN AND REYNOLDS of the House and CRAIN of the Senate.
An Act relating to public health and safety; stating legislative intent; defining terms; prohibiting recovery of damages in certain circumstances for wrongful birth and wrongful life actions; excepting specific circumstances; repealing Section 14, Chapter 36, O.S.L. 2008 (63 O.S. Supp. 2009, Section 1-741.11), which prohibits the recovery of damages in certain circumstances for wrongful birth and wrongful life actions; providing for codification; and declaring an emergency.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1-741.12 of Title 63, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. It is the intent of the Legislature that the birth of a child does not constitute a legally recognizable injury and that it is contrary to public policy to award damages because of the birth of a child or for the rearing of that child.
B. For the purposes of this section:
1. “Abortion” means the term as is defined in Section 1-730 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes;
2. “Wrongful life action” means a cause of action that is brought by or on behalf of a child, which seeks economic or noneconomic damages for the child because of a condition of the child that existed at the time of the child’s birth, and which is based on a claim that a person’s act or omission contributed to the mother’s not having obtained an abortion; and
3. “Wrongful birth action” means a cause of action that is brought by a parent or other person who is legally required to provide for the support of a child, which seeks economic or noneconomic damages because of a condition of the child that existed at the time of the child’s birth, and which is based on a claim that a person’s act or omission contributed to the mother’s not having obtained an abortion.
C. In a wrongful life action or a wrongful birth action, no damages may be recovered for any condition that existed at the time of a child’s birth if the claim is that the defendant’s act or omission contributed to the mother’s not having obtained an abortion.
D. This section shall not preclude causes of action based on claims that, but for a wrongful act or omission, maternal death or injury would not have occurred, or handicap, disease, or disability of an individual prior to birth would have been prevented, cured, or ameliorated in a manner that preserved the health and life of the affected individual.
SECTION 2. REPEALER Section 14, Chapter 36, O.S.L. 2008 (63 O.S. Supp. 2009, Section 1-741.11), is hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.
COMMITTEE REPORT BY: COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, dated 02-16-10 - DO PASS, As Coauthored.

Says absolutely nothing about "allowing doctors to lie to you". It simply says that you cannot seek damages if someone's act or omission contributes to you not having an abortion. If a doctor willfully lies to you, I daresay you can easily sue them on those grounds. You would have to prove that they knew about the defects, and that's true with or without this bill.

In other words, you can't blame someone else for you failing to get an abortion and seek damages for it. I don't know why you would need this law at all, but you're talking about the state that made it illegal to get an abortion for "convenience" when there was never any evidence that anyone had ever done that.

[Priran]

no damages may be recovered for any condition that existed at the time of a child’s birth if the claim is that the defendant’s act or omission contributed to the mother’s not having obtained an abortion

lying about the defect is an act, not informing them of the defect is an omission

so yeah

[Max™]

Not informing someone of critical knowledge of a potentially life threatening condition for you or your child is pretty fucking hard to argue as "do no harm", and easily arguable as a lie by omission.

[Takedown3]

so you have to ask "hey doc is my baby gonna have any birth defects" to be safe?

[Alleya]

Why is there this inherent assumption that doctors have just been waiting, champing at the bit, to finally be in the clear to bold facedly lie to their patients about important medical information? How many doctors, out of the thousands in oklahoma, are going to set by the wayside the entire purpose of their profession for some misguided moral gymnastics? Especially when this law is so easily circumvented in court as to be nothing but a symbolic gesture?

[Priran]

Because pharmacists did exactly that when they were allowed to refuse to dispense the morning after pill?

[Lucavi]

Because pharmacists did exactly that when they were allowed to refuse to dispense the morning after pill?

This. Pharmacists did exactly this, citing moral reasons. Its a slippery slope that ultimately hurts the parents for not being able to make responsible, adult decisions when posed with the necessary information.

[Alleya]

Wow, I wasn't aware that every pharmacist in the country did this and that women had absolutely no choice to go somewhere else to get it. That really is bad you guys!

[Lucavi]

There you go again. Every person doesn't do it, therefore the any person doing it isn't wrong for doing it. Brilliant logic.

[Priran]

The problem isn't that every doctor will do it, it's that some will and the women in their care will not seek out a second opinion if they think everything is fine.