Tulsa World: Judge to hear abortion arguments

MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Tuesday, February 09, 2010 | WIRELESS

Home > News > Article

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Judge to hear abortion arguments
A lawsuit is chal- lenging a state law that women seeking abortions must be told of ultrasound images.

By BARBARA HOBEROCK World Capitol Bureau
Published: 8/8/2009 2:25 AM
Last Modified: 8/8/2009 4:28 AM

OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma County judge will hear oral arguments Tuesday in a legal challenge to a 2008 state law that requires a woman to undergo an ultrasound an hour before an abortion.

Both sides are asking the judge to decide the case without a jury trial.

In October, Nova Health Systems, the parent group of Reproductive Services in Tulsa, filed suit against the law. It is being represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York City.

Enforcement of the law was temporarily blocked in October. It was set to take effect Nov. 1. In March, the injunction was extended until the case is settled.

Both sides are optimistic about their chances of prevailing.

The law requires a physician to describe the images from an ultrasound to a woman seeking an abortion.

"It is both an affront to the woman's decision-making power and to her dignity," said Stephanie Toti, an attorney representing Reproductive Services.

"It is a violation of the doctor's free-speech right. It is also an inappropriate intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship."

But Teresa Collett, special assistant attorney general who is defending the law, said none of the clinic's claims has merit.

Collett said a jury trial is unlikely because the facts are not in dispute. Both sides are seeking what is called a summary judgment, which is an order based on undisputed facts that resolves a case based on the law.

Toti said the 2008 law and another law passed this year, requiring women obtaining abortions to report specific information about themselves and their circumstances, make it more difficult for women to obtain an abortion.

In addition, the two measures also make it more difficult for doctors who perform abortions, she said.

Barbara Hoberock (405) 528-2465
barbara.hoberock@tulsaworld.com By BARBARA HOBEROCK World Capitol Bureau

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Reader Comments

Show: Most Recent Comment First

Add your comment

6 comments have been made on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!

Reporting Comments

If you see a comment that violates our terms and conditions, please help us by clicking the "Report this Comment" link next to a comment. That will alert the web staff to review the comment. Thank you. -- Web Editor Jason Collington

	Report Comment oldrustytulsa, Tulsa (8/8/2009 9:46:37 AM) Under Obamas health care plan, abortions will be paid for by the tax payers., Now you got that right.
	Report Comment Eric, Tulsa (8/8/2009 11:18:55 AM) ... Not a question of who pays for it (although IMHO, it should be the responsibility of the person and not the government). No...the question is why should a woman be subjected to government intrustion in a very personal and difficult decision? The Republican party, at one time, used to believe in LESS government intrusion into ones private life. Now, we have government intrusion into health, medical and even sexual matters where the government has no business. And we can thank the "new" Republicans for this government control. ... .. .
	Report Comment vrcTulsa, Okmulgee (8/8/2009 12:32:14 PM) Eric makes good points! It should not be up to the government to make an ultrasound mandatory prior to an abortion. oldrustytulsa, I haven't read all the way through this new bill, however what I have read so far doesn't mention abortions being paid for. Can you tell me where this can be found.
	Report Comment Fred, Tulsa (8/8/2009 5:25:57 PM) Old Rusty, The fee for a safe abortion at a clinic whether it is a medical abortion using RU-486 which has to be done VERY early in a pregnancy in the U.S. or a surgical abortion which is done later is $800. An unloved and/or unwanted child is setting us up for a much larger bill. If you want to "Pony Up" for THIS, then let us know. Otherwise.....
	Report Comment stormytyca, Tulsa (8/8/2009 9:31:29 PM) To stay on topic... I feel that if a woman is going to have the choice available to her, and that she is going to make that choice, regardless of protesters and such... then she should be able to get a doctor's approval, or denial, without interference from the government saying she has to get an ultrasound, and report stuff about herself before she can get one. I am pro-life AND pro-choice... I feel that an abortion is wrong, and murder... but, if a woman finds herself in a position where she feels she has no other recourse... then where is it my business to tell her what she can and can't do with HER body, and HER soul... cause SHE is the one that's going to have to live with that choice.
	Report Comment CA TH, Finley (8/9/2009 12:38:07 AM) It is so bizarre to me that a state that has such a very high rate of teen pregnancy, child abuse and a lack of services would make this an issue. If their could be a little less breeding and a little more education the children that are born might not end up being eaten by dogs and forced to be raised by drug addicted women that never had a chance themselves.

Add Your Comment
In order to post a comment on this article, you must sign in to Tulsaworld.com. If you do not have a site account, you can create an account for free.