[mccookgazette.com] Overcast ~ 32°F  
High: 46°F ~ Low: 27°F
Friday, Oct. 31, 2014

Privacy Matters

Posted Friday, October 9, 2009, at 12:37 PM

On November 1, a new law passed in Oklahoma will require all women to publish to the state that they have had an abortion. Upon receiving that information the state will then publish that information for all to see on their website. What all information will women have to provide to the state?

1) Date of abortion

2) County in which abortion is performed

3) Age of mother

4) Marital status of mother

5) Race of mother

6) Years of education of mother

7) State or foreign country of residence of mother

8) Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08...

The only information that the woman won't have to supply is their name. But please, this is Oklahoma. If a person wants to they will be able to go onto this website and guess who it is, then they will be able to harass that woman (whether they guess right or not).

Let's be honest here, this is a complete violation of privacy, which most states in the Union prohibit. I understand that many of you see abortion as an abhorrent act and whatever comes to these women are well deserved. But let me put it to you another way. Let's say that Nebraska (yes I know that it will never happen) passes a new law that requires that every person who buys a gun must willingly give all of their information (save their name) to the state and then state will publish all that information on its website for anyone in the world to see. Would you not feel that your privacy was being completely violated.

Not only is this a clear violation of privacy, it's also a violation of the supreme law in the land, the Constitution. For those that value protecting all of the Constitution, and not just the sections that fit our personal politics best, this law is absolutely scary. Their are actually two amendments that this law violates, the 9th (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.) and the 14th (No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law.). The most common debate that will come out of this is that neither the 9th or 14th or any part of the Constitution actually states "Right to Privacy". They would be correct. But this case, which will more than likely make its way to the the Supreme Court will give the court the opportunity to either agree with other Supreme Court decisions holding up these two amendments or disagree.

Whatever your beliefs are or your morals, putting up information of people that have not violated the law as it now stands for something that other people consider immoral is nothing more than harassment and it should be seen that way.

--Other websites used in this blog (including the transcript of the law, which is HB 1595) are:

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/TextOf...

http://jezebel.com/5376502/new-oklahoma-...

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects...

This could be a busy day for me as I am finishing this particular blog I am writing another. Good day.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Mike, I have sat here, for over fifteen minutes, deductulating if I should even attempt to respond to your tirade, calm as it seems on the surface.

I was revulsed by any law that would set a person up to be humiliated, as the potential would be, as described, above. But,,,,,then,,,,,

You couldn't leave off with your opinion, coupled with your logic, for others to disagree, or agree with you. No, you had to go into 'Attack' mode, so you could decry Conservatives, with being too dumb, or prejudice to reach a 'rational' opinion, as you feel you have.

You say, above: "... and the 14th (No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, ..."

I especially noted the part of depriving any person of "life." and 'liberty.' You then attack people for being selective: "... and not just the sections that fit our personal politics best ..." as you suggest is the case with anyone who would enact such a law.

By the time I finished your article, I still mostly agree with your 'opinion' about the law you are attacking, creating a potentially bad situation, but most vehemently disagree with your words of condemnation, without basis.

The 'Abortion' law allows the extinguishment of a life, maturing in it's mother. The Bible calls deliberate killing/murder. The law is wrong, in my opinion, and lifestyle. May you soon see the truth.

Arley Steinhour

-- Posted by Navyblue on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 3:33 PM

Hey Blue,

A conservative state legislature -- and Gawd knows, the Oklahoma Legislature can be rated Uber-Conservative to the extreme -- and they insist upon interjecting bigger government into private lives.

As conservatives -- You are either

"Fer smaller givermint."

Or

"Fer bigger givernmint."

Fellers -- you'us jes naterly cain't have it both ways."

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 3:51 PM

Navy I have to disagree with you on saying that I gave my opinion on the 14th Amendment. I didn't, I gave the opinion of the Supreme Court.

My intent was not to attack anyone, it really wasn't even to attack the bill, as bad as it is. My intent was to to bring a law to light that is set up to allow harassment of women making the toughest decisions of their lives.

You still seem to be of the opinion that I support the act of abortions. I don't and never have as I have stated many times on this and my old blog. I do, however, believe in choice. If a woman chooses to have an abortion that is between her, her family, her doctor, and any religious figure she wishes to bring into it. It is not up to you or I to sit in judgment or declare that a woman cannot do a legal thing.

I wish there were no abortions. I really do. I challenge you to find me someone who likes abortions. You won't find any. The sad fact of the matter is whether it is legal or illegal abortions will take place everyday. My goal is to help those that have to make that horrible decision the best care they can get and not be publicly scrutinized by lawmakers or anyone else. The decision is hard enough for them.

Having said all that, like I said, my intent was not to attack any one person, obviously I have and I humbly apologize for that.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 3:52 PM

I have to agree with you one this one Mike. This does seem to be a clear violation of privacy.

It really doesn't make any sense other than it is an attempt to deter women from getting abortions. This this clearly a bad way to do that.

As for abortions. You are always going to be wrong. killing is killing. Murdering a living, breathing, baby just because it is in the womb is wrong in so many ways, and should be illegal. This society is two-faced. We will not accept death in anyway. If some doctor accidentally kills or doesn't save a patient from death, he is liable. We punish people for killing. Yet we allow women to kill their own babies.

Tell you what, go have some kids of your own, then look at some pictures of cut-up and burned, dead baby bodies from abortion clinics and then tell me if you still believe it's okay to kill babies.

You and Guillermo keep telling me that it's okay to kill babies because the law says it's okay. That is your only defense.

Let me remind you that there was a time in this country when blacks were slaves and women had no rights according to the law.

Now, I'd like to think that we can still evolve and become more humane when we stop killing babies for our own selfish convenience.

Or maybe we should just turn back the clock of the law about 150 years since we are still barbarically killing babies.

Funny, it's not okay to kill baby seals or whales, maybe we should leave that decision to those who wish to do it.

I can't believe someone could be as waffley as you. So you don't like abortion and you know it's wrong, but it's okay if a woman wants to do it.

I go back to the slavery laws. So as long as you don't own a slave, you don't need to stand up for black rights, but if someone else chooses to do it, then its okay.

This choice thing is nothing more than a monumental cop-out.

-- Posted by Justin76 on Sat, Oct 10, 2009, at 11:14 AM

Sceptre can you tell me how many liberal groups actually want to publish gun ownership in papers. I'm a liberal and I have never heard of it. In fact, if there were a group that favored that I would not support them because that is a violation of privacy, not doubts about it.

Justin, you call me wishy washy but I am no where close to that. In a perfect world, your vision would hold true, but this is not a perfect world, far from it and whether it's legal or illegal women will get abortions, you can call it whatever you want. Choice is not a cop out. If you think so, then you believe all choice is a cop out, which means you also view free speech, religious freedoms as cop outs since all people choose to use their voice or what religion they believe in.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Oct 10, 2009, at 6:20 PM

One can only hope the Oklahoma law is repealed or overturned by the courts.

Choice is not a cop out. It is "Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's". I suspect God is much more concerned with religions fighting the legality of abortion rather than spreading the message which would reduce the need/desire for an abortion. Abortions were available before they were legal and would continue to be available if Roe v Wade were overturned.

And there is an honest, albeit emotional, difference of opinion about when human life begins. "Caesar's" opinion is most definitely different from many institutional religions' view.

That is why I believe the proper manner in which to arrive at a decision when abortion is considered as an option by a woman is to include her spiritual advisor, doctor, partner, and God.

It is an intensely personal and unique decision that has no place for governmental meddling.

It is sad that the conservative movement has strayed from it's former support of individual rights, personal privacy, keeping government out of our private lives, etc.

Gun control, I support the right to bear arms. However, I also support felons, the legally insane, people obviously under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and minors having that right removed/restricted. I also support making automatic weapons illegal to own as their intended purpose is to kill on a massive scale. We can only speculate what the founding fathers would have done with the issue of sophisticated automatic weapons available today.

But I remain grateful that our Founding Fathers drafted and adopted a document that would withstand the test of time (and they had the failed Articles of Confederation to serve as a guide of what not to do.) and evolve as our Nation grows and matures. After all, we are free to have this discussion publicly without governmental suppression.

-- Posted by ontheleftcoast on Sun, Oct 11, 2009, at 5:32 AM

Sceptre

Was well aware that automatic weapons have been illegal for years.

I disassociated myself from antigun control groups years ago because then (and now from my experience) many of the members of those groups want to eliminate all forms of gun control.

-- Posted by ontheleftcoast on Mon, Oct 12, 2009, at 12:16 PM

Sceptre said " currently all automatic weapons have been illegal since the 1920s. That's right, automatic weapons are "Machine Guns", and they're illegal."

I'm pretty sure that is not completely accurate information. There was an incident just a year ago that got me interested in automatic weapons law that you may not be aware of.

Here is the incident... http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=61...

Here is a web site that describes the law, as well as offers to get you set up with your own automatic weapon... http://www.impactguns.com/store/machineg...

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Mon, Oct 12, 2009, at 12:27 PM

Sceptre, none of the links you provided proved your case, at all. In fact just about all four of them centered around the Freedom of Information Act and newspapers were using it to show just how easy it is to publish the names of gunowners that have gun permits. In the first story you linked to a new law was PASSED banning the information from getting out and signed into law by a Democratic governor who endorsed and campaigned for Barack Obama.

Your argument is a little short on this one I'm afraid. None of the links pointed to a single liberal group.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Oct 17, 2009, at 9:03 PM

Perhaps you will like this link better Septre...

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/...

I didn't mean to imply that machine guns and other fully automatic weapons are easy to get... it's obvious they are not, and reported crimes using them based on the number of weapons known to exist is extremely small... http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcful...

I couldn't agree with you more Sceptre about drunk drivers. Your comment "Guns cause crime, just like matches cause arson, or spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat." could make an interesting discussion all it's own if considering guns "empower" the criminal.

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Sun, Oct 18, 2009, at 9:38 AM

I'd argue that criminals (most anyway) are citizens.

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 9:05 AM

Agreed Sceptre, and it's consistant with the only outlaws will have guns if guns are outlawed argument.

I think we can agree that firearms empower people... both good and bad?

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, at 12:20 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)