Oklahoma recently passed controversial laws regarding abortion, and now, no surprise, these laws are being legally challenged in court by abortion rights supporters to stop them from taking effect. One of the laws would require women seeking an abortion to fill out a lengthy survey that asks them, among other things, their race, education, information about their relationships, and their reason for seeking an abortion (e.g., having relationships problems, can't afford the child, the baby would dramatically change their lives). This information will then be compiled into a statistical report and posted on the Health Department's website (they say the identities of the women will be kept private). Proponents say the information will be valuable in understanding why women seek abortions, and that this information could help them to reduce the number of abortions in Oklahoma. Another law requires doctors to provide detailed information about complications that arise as a result of getting an abortion. Opponents who are legally challenging these laws say they are meant to be intimidating, restrictive, and to scare people out of getting an abortion. One plaintiff complained about the reporting requirements, "Those are totally intimidating, totally personal questions, and it's nobody's business."
A district court judge has already overturned the other law, which would require women that are seeking an abortion to get an ultrasound and the doctor talks them through what they're seeing. Proponents say it helps to inform women how developed the fetus is (in an attempt to scare them out of getting an abortion). However it was ruled that the method was too invasive. The procedure would require doctors to use a vaginal transducer in the earliest stages of pregnancy because the fetus is so small that an abdominal ultrasound (which most pregnant women undergo) wouldn't provide a clear enough image. The state loves that law so much that they have appealed the decision to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. "Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi require ultrasounds in all abortion cases, and Arizona and Florida require them after the first trimester; but no other state requires doctors to describe the image to women and mandate that a vaginal ultrasound by used in certain cases." (Full Story)
I think this survey is definitely an invasion of privacy. Women shouldn't have to disclose irrelevant personal information in order to receive a medical procedure. The state can't use these women as guinea pigs in an attempt to reduce abortions. I also don't understand why this information has to be put on a website. Why do the people of Oklahoma have to know that x% of abortions were performed on African-American women? That x% of abortions were performed on people with a high school education or less? And how detailed is the information going to be? They say they won't release personal information, but how specific and identifiable is this information going to be? Are they going to give raw numbers or percentages? Are they going to do break-downs by county or city? Are they going to say there were 15 abortions in X county. Six were African American. Seven were Caucasian. 2 were Asian. What if that county only has 10 Asian people? It might not give the names of the people, but this information can be used to target people or single people out.
Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, has set a financial record. He has now spent more of his own money than any other individual in U.S. history in the pursuit of public office. As of Friday, he spent $85 million on his latest re-election campaign. He's expected to spend between $110 million and $140 million by the election on November 3rd. (Full Story)
Meanwhile, the picture included in the article is Bloomberg "treating" Colin Powell to a $2 street vendor hot dog. You can drop $140 million for a mayoral campaign, but you can't even drop like $20 to take Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State, to at least an indoors restaurant?
"No Einstein in Your Crib? Get a Refund" - I immediately thought the article was something along the lines of your kid isn't as smart as you were hoping and you want to return that thing asap. Turns out it's really about Disney offering refunds for its "Baby Einstein" videos because, gasp, they made false claims that the videos could actually turn your child into a genius. (Full Story)
"The Loin in Winter: Hefner Reflects, and Grins" - The first thing that came to mind was Hugh Hefner looking at his genitals and grinning at what he sees. And I shiver at what I thought. (P.S. Nice word play, New York Times. What are you ten?). I also love all the old age references throughout the article: "A visitor had asked -- more like shouted, since [Hefner] has trouble hearing", "His three live-in girlfriends -- each young enough to be his great-granddaughter", "Playboy Enterprises, hobbled by a shifting media landscape, is in need of heart paddles", "Working from his home office or bed", "His girlfriends recently educated him about Twitter ('I'll be playing gin rummy tonight', was a recent tweet)." (Full Story)
No comments:
Post a Comment