If medical profiling is good enough for the ladies of Oklahoma, it’s good enough for the ladies of Arizona. But not for the men.

09 Feb 2010 12:47 am
Posted by: Donna

I called it! Last year when Oklahoma passed a creepy law that required abortion providers to release personal details about patients, which would be published and available to the public, I had an uneasy feeling that Arizona’s wingnuts in the lege would be following suit. I was right and there are two bills under consideration, one in the House and the other in the Senate that would mandate the following reporting by abortion providers:

1. THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE FACILITY WHERE THE ABORTION WAS PERFORMED.
2. THE TYPE OF FACILITY WHERE THE ABORTION WAS PERFORMED.
3. THE COUNTY WHERE THE ABORTION WAS PERFORMED.
4. THE WOMAN’S AGE.
5. THE WOMAN’S EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND BY HIGHEST GRADE COMPLETED AND, IF APPLICABLE, LEVEL OF COLLEGE COMPLETED.
6. THE COUNTY AND STATE IN WHICH THE WOMAN RESIDES.
7. THE WOMAN’S RACE AND ETHNICITY.
8. THE WOMAN’S MARITAL STATUS.
9. THE NUMBER OF PRIOR PREGNANCIES AND PRIOR ABORTIONS OF THE WOMAN.
10. THE NUMBER OF PREVIOUS SPONTANEOUS TERMINATIONS OF PREGNANCY OF THE WOMAN.
11. THE GESTATIONAL AGE OF THE UNBORN CHILD AT THE TIME OF THE ABORTION.
12. THE REASON FOR THE ABORTION, INCLUDING WHETHER THE ABORTION IS ELECTIVE OR DUE TO MATERNAL OR FETAL HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS.
13. THE TYPE OF PROCEDURE PERFORMED OR PRESCRIBED AND THE DATE OF THE ABORTION.
14. ANY PREEXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS OF THE WOMAN THAT WOULD COMPLICATE PREGNANCY AND ANY KNOWN MEDICAL COMPLICATION THAT RESULTED FROM THE ABORTION.
15. THE BASIS FOR ANY MEDICAL JUDGMENT THAT A MEDICAL EMERGENCY EXISTED THAT EXCUSED THE PHYSICIAN FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER.
16. THE PHYSICIAN’S STATEMENT IF REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 36‑2301.01.
17. IF APPLICABLE, THE WEIGHT OF THE ABORTED FETUS FOR ANY ABORTION PERFORMED PURSUANT TO SECTION 36‑2301.01.

Who would get to see this information? Oh, just everyone.

B. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL COLLECT ALL ABORTION REPORTS AND COMPLICATION REPORTS AND PREPARE A COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL STATISTICAL REPORT BASED ON THE DATA GATHERED IN THE REPORTS. THE STATISTICAL REPORT SHALL NOT LEAD TO THE DISCLOSURE OF THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON FILING A REPORT OR ABOUT WHOM A REPORT IS FILED. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL MAKE THE STATISTICAL REPORT AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE AND FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION AND COPYING.

The bills stipulate that individual patients cannot be identified by name, Social Security or driver’s license numbers, or anything else that would make it possible to ID the woman. Which means that women in Maricopa and Pima Counties might rest assured that people wouldn’t figure out who they are from these statistics but women in La Paz and Greenlee Counties might not feel as secure.

Why do you suppose anti-choice lawmakers in Oklahoma and Arizona would find it useful to compile and publicly expose data on abortions that have already happened? It’s a puzzler, if you assume that “pro-life” legislation is designed from a motivation to prevent abortions. What’s the point of this?

It’s not so puzzling when you realize that people accused and/or convicted of crimes get their names and photos published in the paper and on the TV news regularly. But abortion is legal, and medical records are private by federal law, so my theory is that this proposed state law is the closest anti-choicers can get to humiliating women committing this “crime”.

If you think I’m overreacting consider this: Why don’t they want abortion providers to gather information on the men who impregnate women who get abortions for later publication? If anti-choice legislators merely want to compile information on the incidence of abortion the better to understand and prevent abortion, then don’t you think it would be useful to know about the men? Wouldn’t information about the residence, educational attainment, and the (ahem) age and marital status of the men be of interest to them?

Well, wouldn’t it? Or is it just about punishing the women?

6 Comments

  1. Comment by Diane D'Angelo on February 9, 2010 5:42 am

    What are the bill numbers and sponsors’ names?

  2. Comment by Timmys Cat on February 9, 2010 8:59 am

    Well, wouldn’t it? Or is it just about punishing the women?

    I was about to disagree a little, more about controlling than punishment, but this is the big red button for me. “How dare a woman have control of her own body!”
    I agree. Think we’ll ever have laws where the “father” will take responsibility? Let’s publish some background info so other women will be wary of, and safer of these “men’. Don’t want a child? You pay for the abortion, after you fill out ALL the paperwork, otherwise you will be listed as a delinquent father subject to fine or jail. OBTW, you will also be taunted in public by people you don’t know when you go to the clinic.

    I believe I’ve said before, if men gave birth there would be no more children.

    (breath cat)

  3. Comment by Craig on February 9, 2010 1:34 pm

    The bills are HB2649 and SB1304, sponsored by the usual suspects – Barto, Barnes, Gowan, Lesko, Pearce, Linda Gray, Sylvia Allen, Antenori, Crandall, Harper, and more. The House bill will be the subject of a committee hearing on Wednesday. (House Health and Human Services, 9 a.m., House Hearing Room 4)

    Also on the same agenda tomorrow: HB2650, a bill to triple the length of the waiting period before a divorce is finalized.

    Arizona – moving forward confidently into the 19th Century.

  4. Comment by Terry on February 9, 2010 2:59 pm

    Amazing that gun rights nuts won’t let their pieces out of their cold dead hands but I just cannot be trusted with my own uterus or my decision to get a divorce. AHHHHH c’mon you really want to be a mommy and you don’t really want to be an old maid. Jeeze what kind of alternative universe is this becoming?

  5. Comment by Timmys Cat on February 9, 2010 4:37 pm

    Jeeze what kind of alternative universe is this becoming?

    While I agree entirely with you, my thought is that the” used to havings/ in controls” are sensing a feeling of panic.
    “WTF do you mean we are no longer the Daddy Party!?” “Act the way I want you to so I’m not uncomfortable!”

  6. Comment by todd on February 10, 2010 12:24 am

    The sponsors of this are disgusting human beings.

    I understand that the law is trying to compel abortion providers to provide this information, but could not the patient simply refuse to answer the questions? If not answered would this mean the abortion could not be performed? I don’t think so.

    Now here we get to perhaps the main goal besides shaming women. The abortion provider is affirming that the information is valid, if the provider refuses to do so or supplies information which is not complete, it they then face having their license suspended for 6 months on the very first violation. The third violation and they lose it entirely.

    I think this is more an attack on abortion providers and an attempt to close them down.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment

Democratic Diva is proudly powered by WordPress and WPDesigner.