by Candy Hollowell
Oklahoma Law is Among First Signs of Effects of 2007 Supreme Court
Abortion Ruling
CONTACT INFO:DIONNE SCOTT
DSCOTT@REPRORIGHTS.ORG
(917) 637-3649
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:October 10, 2008
WHAT HAPPENED:
Late yesterday, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a challenge
against Oklahoma legislation which prohibits a woman from getting an
abortion unless she first has an ultrasound and listens to her doctor
describe in detail the ultrasound image. (Oklahoma Senate Bill 1878)
At the same time, the law prevents a woman from suing her doctor if
he or she intentionally withholds other information about the fetus,
such as a severe developmental defect.
The statute also requires doctors to use a specific regimen for
administering the medical abortion pill, despite that regimen being
less effective and more costly than the one strongly recommended by
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
The Center filed the lawsuit in the District Court of Oklahoma
County, State of Oklahoma on behalf of Nova Health Systems, dba
Reproductive Services in Tulsa. The case is called Nova Health
Systems v. Brad Henry.
WHAT CRR ARGUES:
The Center for Reproductive Rights argues that the Oklahoma law
profoundly intrudes upon a patient's privacy, endangers her health,
and assaults her dignity. Specifically, the statute prevents a
woman's doctor from using his or her own medical judgment for
treatment. It also dangerously discounts a woman's abilities to make
healthy decisions about her own life by either forcing her to hear
information when she's objected; or allowing a doctor to keep
information from her without her input.
"Anti-choice activists will stop at nothing to prevent a woman from
getting an abortion, but trying to manipulate a woman's decisions
about her own life and health goes beyond the pale," said Stephanie
Toti, staff attorney in the U.S. Legal Program of the Center for
Reproductive Rights and lead attorney on the case. "Governments
should stop playing doctor and leave medical determinations to
physicians and health decisions to individuals."
WHY THE CASE IS IMPORTANT:
In Oklahoma, if this law is enforced, Reproductive Services will be
forced to close down. The clinic provides more than 200 women
abortion services a month. If it shuts down, that means more than
2000 women a year throughout Oklahoma and surrounding states will
have no access to abortion.
Nationally, this case has implications because the law at issue is
among the first signs that anti-choice legislatures are beginning to
take cues from last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the
"Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." Should this law be upheld,
it could encourage copycat legislation around the country.
In Gonzales v. Carhart,a case argued by the Center, the majority
reasoned, "[w]hile we find no reliable data to measure the
phenomenon, it seems unexceptional to conclude some women come to
regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and
sustained. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow." The
argument opened the door to measures based on the assertion that a
woman lacks the judgment and independence necessary to make a
responsible decision about her own pregnancy; and that abortion
causes a woman to suffer mental and physical side effects—a claim
recently refuted by an American Psychological Association study.
No other state in the country requires a woman to hear the
description of an ultrasound image; and Ohio is the only other state
that has prohibited use of the ACOG-recommended regimen for medical
abortion. Ohio's law is currently being challenged in federal court.
Stephanie Toti is available for interviews. For interview requests,
please contact Dionne Scott at (917) 637-3649 or
dscott@reprorights.org.
Leave a Reply