Online publishing of women's abortion records challenged in Oklahoma

A judge in Oklahoma has temporarily blocked on a new law that would post details online about every woman who gets an abortion in the state.


  1. So, a law to impose a punishment for the purpose of deterring women from doing something that’s not illegal. My heart hurts.

  2. You just have to remember that many people in Oklahoma still believe that the sun circles the flat Earth. And that if you don’t believe in their imaginary friend they will burn you at the stake.

  3. HIPPA? WTF OK? How about someone follows the writer of this new law and broadcast their every fricken move from wake to sleep. aaarrggghhh!

  4. Should be able to do the same for every man who gets gonorrhea, syphilis or clamidia. At least that would make more sense…

    Of course we’d never get to learn the identity of the arrogant weasel who provided the sperm and made the procedure necessary, would we?

    1. @gollux

      Why on earth are we assuming that the man involved is an “arrogant weasel”? Do failures in contraception not occur within stable relationships? Do some women not seek out sexual partners for pleasure just as some men do? You have a very odd attitude towards men.

      1. Well, I live in conservativeville where fetus lover’s central operates. After a decade of driving past butchered babies posters (bad economy must have made them have to get jobs, not so many anymore, yay Wall Street Wealth redistribution) to and from work, I’ve gotten pretty jaded to blood and gore.

        After a few high level scandals in the fundamentalist/evangelical community, I also have a kind of twisted view towards a subset thereof. Living “family values” is more important than prattling on them and standing around with bloody posters. If you ain’t gettin’ enough at home, dude, you need to get a divorce and change your religion to fit your reality. Since they support these types of laws, the men can undergo the same loss of privacy as they’d force on women who under financial duress or by choice have to take this route.

  5. Yes, we are a sad little state.

    Of course, the people for the law say that it is just collecting data. But no one really believes that.

    1. the people for the law say that it is just collecting data

      the data is conclusive, the architects of that law are douchebags.

  6. HIPPA doesn’t count if you’re a woman in a fundamentalist stronghold like Oklahoma.

    Federal laws…who needs ’em?

  7. Thank goodness this judge had the sense to block this stupid law. And yet he has no doubt sparked among his constituents grumblings about the lack of accountability in judges. THIS IS WHY YOU CAN’T JUST VOTE THEM OUT.

  8. As a Christian I can’t say I’m ashamed of the assumed Christians that have pushed this through (I can’t account for others actions and I won’t try), but I certainly will condemn this as a breach of privacy. The sad thing is that all of them have fallen short themselves and probably believe they are actually righteous.

    If we Christians are right and there is a Heaven, there will be many surprised people from Oklahoma that are told by Jesus that he doesn’t know them.

    Just awful.

  9. I am glad that at least one judge in Oklahoma understands what’s going on here. As an atheist that’s lived here in Oklahoma (“The only state that’s REDDER THAN MARS!”) his whole life I have to say our politician have no qualms about “flying their frek flag high”! Inhofe, Coburn, State Rep. Kearns… yep, it’s a REAL freak-show, just one thin dime to see the freaks!

  10. Just to underline that the judge’s reasoning has nothing to do with the protection of privacy: he’s just considering the argument that that law should be split in four to be constitutional.

    When everything works as it should, there aren’t ‘good’ or ‘bad’ judges, just judges doing their job. That the results may or may not please us is another matter, one that we have to take up with the legislature(s).

  11. If even one woman whose privacy is violated by this vile law turns out to be a day younger than 18 years old, then the legislators who voted for the law need to go straight to jail.

  12. Something tells me this would get repealed the second a high profile politician (or politician’s wife) is revealed to have had an abortion.

    It’s not just teenagers who have abortions, you know.

    1. But of course THEY would travel to the nearest state that didn’t have this barbaric law, as has been the case with the ruling classes all throughout history.

  13. I can think of no reasonfor this law to exist than to give anti- abortionists and opportunity to harass girls who got abortions. And if the person who wrote the law thinks that’s not what the main use will be they have an IQ of 12.

    1. “I can think of no reasonfor this law to exist than to give anti- abortionists and opportunity to harass girls who got abortions.”

      That certainly is a component. I think the overall goal, though, is complete control of women’s scary sexuality.

      You’ve gotta hand it to the Oklahomans for daring to make this fundamentalist Christian agenda more obvious for non-fundies. Thanks, OK.

  14. It should be trivial for someone to post every piece of personal data available about the person who proposed this. More than likely he’s a public official, and his address and phone number and location of his office all matters of public record.

    Wonder if he has a Facebook profile?

  15. The funny thing is that the anti-abortionists who picket the abortion clinics also get abortions, but they rationalize it and tell themselves that their abortion was alright, but those other women who get abortions all deserve to go to hell.

    If the data from this law wasn’t going to be used to harrass people, it would be very useful in getting more precise numbers on how many anti-abortionist activists get abortions themselves.

  16. Hmm. Last I checked it was rather illegal in most of the non-insane world to share any part of somebody’s medical records without their express permission. Any information gathered as a part of of a medical procedure – which very much includes abortion – would seem to qualify automatically.

  17. Let’s just say thing passes… and somebody who gets an abortion gets harassed or murdered… the people who passed this law should be prosecuted for inciting violence.

  18. Yet another reason why I never plan(ned) on going back to that god forsaken shit hole.

    This is one place that really needs a reality check. This sort of thing is just plain wrong.

  19. All it would take to get those names and addresses released is a single FOIA request or an enterprising Hacker for Jeebus. The fundies can lie about the real reason for this questionnaire all they want, but it doesn’t conceal their true agenda from people capable of thinking for themselves.

    Zandar has it spot on. Anti-abortion legislation has little to do with saving the precious little unborn snow flakes. It’s all about a certain group of Americans attempting to claw back the rights of another group of Americans.

  20. if it’s about collecting data, then why publish it? last i checked, you can collect data without spending $300K on a website (and seriously, you should do some comparison shopping. a website shouldn’t cost that much.)

Comments are closed.