Oklahoma REALLY doesn't want Women to have Abortions

[Modbert]

Did I say it didn't violate any laws? If you had been following the thread, which you obviously haven't , you would have seen where I said that if any laws were being broken then perhaps the laws need to be changed.

Thanks for sharing your view of the Constitution. Don't like it? CHANGE IT! Bet you don't feel that way about some other topics too.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Of course I wouldn't want any laws to be broken. But they can amend their state constitution that would make it pefectly legal. And seeing that we're talking about the lives of unborn children it should be a no-brainer. I'm amazed that there are people out there that don't value the life of an unborn child.

Those two sentences, what a fucking hypocrite.

Oh, well I don't want laws to be broken BUT they won't be broken if we change them! Way to hold up the Constitution of this country there bucko! Another example of Conservatives in favor of the Constitution only when it favors them.

Those laws are written in the "Oklahoma state constitution" and yes they can be amended you stupid fuck!!

 

[mskafka]

This is just outrageous. In small towns, these women will be persecuted. Rumors breed like flies in small towns. I'm certain that ACLU is all over this. Or I hope.

 

[veritas]

Thanks for showing us your idiocy. But we already knew you were an idiot.

If I'm an idiot, then tell me how this DOESN'T violate HIPAA laws.

Did I say it didn't violate any laws? If you had been following the thread, which you obviously haven't , you would have seen where I said that if any laws were being broken then perhaps the laws need to be changed.

Yeah, let's rescind our right to privacy........suuure.

If the government wants stats they are available as gross data from the providers without all of the extraneous details.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Did I say it didn't violate any laws? If you had been following the thread, which you obviously haven't , you would have seen where I said that if any laws were being broken then perhaps the laws need to be changed.

Thanks for sharing your view of the Constitution. Don't like it? CHANGE IT! Bet you don't feel that way about some other topics too.

You are truly stupid. Do you know what the fuck an "amendment "is? Do you think the amendments are just there for decorations? Besides the constitution in question is the state constitution not the US Constitution you stupid fuck!!

 

[Modbert]

Those laws are written in the "Oklahoma state constitution" and yes they can be amended you stupid fuck!!

Amended to how you like it is what you mean to say. You have shown your view of the Constitution here. You don't give a fuck about the Constitution. You want it to suit YOUR views and YOUR desires. If we allow fucks like you to amend the Constitution whenever you damn well please, eventually everyone's going to be forced to be a God fearing Christian with no freedom of speech, bible being taught in school, science being rejected in the form of creationism, Death Penalties without trials, and a whole bunch of other shit that would make me want to move to Canada.

If I wanted to live the way YOU do, I'd go back in time to the 12th century.

 

[Modbert]

You are truly stupid. Do you know what the fuck an "amendment "is? Do you think the amendments are just there for decorations? Besides the constitution in question is the state constitution not the US Constitution you stupid fuck!!

I know exactly what a amendment is. Let me ask you this bucko, if I feel that guns should not be in the hands of people like you and get it amended so that you can't have one, will you accept that? Will you be happy about that? I highly doubt it.

The U.S. Constitution is involved here, as is the state constitution. This law has been shown to be illegal according to the state constitution anyway. So your point is moot.

 

[mskafka]

Thanks for showing us your idiocy. But we already knew you were an idiot.

If I'm an idiot, then tell me how this DOESN'T violate HIPAA laws.

Did I say it didn't violate any laws? If you had been following the thread, which you obviously haven't , you would have seen where I said that if any laws were being broken then perhaps the laws need to be changed.

Well then, if this is the case, then the next time that you see a physician for a rash (anywhere on your body), prostate exam, ANYTHING that you have done, or any medications that you are prescribed....are you opposed to EVERYONE knowing the who, what, when, where, and why? If you aren't opposed to this law, then you shouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Of course I wouldn't want any laws to be broken. But they can amend their state constitution that would make it pefectly legal. And seeing that we're talking about the lives of unborn children it should be a no-brainer. I'm amazed that there are people out there that don't value the life of an unborn child.

Those two sentences, what a fucking hypocrite.

Oh, well I don't want laws to be broken BUT they won't be broken if we change them! Way to hold up the Constitution of the state there bucko! Another example of Conservatives in favor of a Constitution only when it favors them.

You can't amend a state constitution to override the Federal Constitution. Moron.

What part of the US Consitution are you saying the an amendment in the state constitution is attempting to override?

 

[mskafka]

HIPAA laws were passed for many GOOD reasons: to save the patient from potential embarrassment, save reputations, blackmail, bribery, people capitalizing on your inconvenience. Many reasons. And they DO NOT, need to be "changed" or revised.

Most people do not want the "fact" that they slipped and fell on a cucumber , to be on CNN. Wouldn't everyone agree?

 

[Ravi]

it doesn't matter if (I was wrong and )more people are against abortion, it is still legal and the women who recieve an abortion have right to privacy.

What about the man's rights?

There aren't any that apply. After a child is born both parents are responsible for it. Before it is born you cannot constitutionally force a woman to bear a child. So in reality, men have no RIGHT to be a father anymore than women have a RIGHT to be a mother. But women do have a right to decide what their body is used for...if this disturbs you just chalk it up to biology.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Those laws are written in the "Oklahoma state constitution" and yes they can be amended you stupid fuck!!

Amended to how you like it is what you mean to say. You have shown your view of the Constitution here. You don't give a fuck about the Constitution. You want it to suit YOUR views and YOUR desires. If we allow fucks like you to amend the Constitution whenever you damn well please, eventually everyone's going to be forced to be a God fearing Christian with no freedom of speech, bible being taught in school, science being rejected in the form of creationism, Death Penalties without trials, and a whole bunch of other shit that would make me want to move to Canada.

If I wanted to live the way YOU do, I'd go back in time to the 12th century.

You're a fucking idiot!

The US constitution has been amended 27 times, the last time was in 1992. Tell you what. I got to go feed my horses, why don't you pick up a book and educate yourself on the amendment process instead of showing the world how fucking stupid you are.

 

[mskafka]

George Carlin was, without a doubt, one of the most brilliant people of our age.

 

[veritas]

Poor horses.

 

[bodecea]

This is just outrageous. In small towns, these women will be persecuted. Rumors breed like flies in small towns. I'm certain that ACLU is all over this. Or I hope.

Do you think that they really care if mal women were harassed?


But, here's an interesting thought...what if these statistics started showing that women WEREN'T getting 2 or 3 or 4 abortions for convenience sake. Would they want to keep those records available if the evidence disproved their theories of the welfare abortion queen?

 

[mskafka]

This is just outrageous. In small towns, these women will be persecuted. Rumors breed like flies in small towns. I'm certain that ACLU is all over this. Or I hope.

Do you think that they really care if mal women were harassed?


But, here's an interesting thought...what if these statistics started showing that women WEREN'T getting 2 or 3 or 4 abortions for convenience sake. Would they want to keep those records available if the evidence disproved their theories of the welfare abortion queen?

Very interesting. And if this is allowed to happen, I hope that it proves just that.

 

[Modbert]

You're a fucking idiot!

The US constitution has been amended 27 times, the last time was in 1992. Tell you what. I got to go feed my horses, why don't you pick up a book and educate yourself on the amendment process instead of showing the world how fucking stupid you are.

I'm not saying amendments are a bad thing. I'm saying the amendment you want to add here is a bad thing. Probably along with several other ideas of yours.

 

[veritas]

This is just outrageous. In small towns, these women will be persecuted. Rumors breed like flies in small towns. I'm certain that ACLU is all over this. Or I hope.

Do you think that they really care if mal women were harassed?


But, here's an interesting thought...what if these statistics started showing that women WEREN'T getting 2 or 3 or 4 abortions for convenience sake. Would they want to keep those records available if the evidence disproved their theories of the welfare abortion queen?

I don't think they care at all past the rhetoric. The practicality is that it seems noble to shriek about all the unborn babies, but they don't want them or anything to do with the responsibility of them after they are born. They continue to foster the hostile corporate environment. It's all bound up in their shame about sex and marriage and religion. It's theoretical, it isn't real. It isn't about them, nor does it affect their manner of existence in any way.

 

[The T]

Think Progress » New Oklahoma law will publicy post details of women’s abortions online.

How simply pathetic this is. In this day and age in small communities, those eight questions could easily identify who had a Abortion. These scare tactics used to try and stop women from doing what they feel is right for both wrong and a abuse of laws.

So while Republicans and Democrats who are ultra-religious may enjoy seeing this, I assume Libertarians and those for small Government do not wish to see this. This is obviously Government involving themselves into a person's private matter and forcing them to answer questions they may not feel comfortable answering.

Where is the outrage from those on the right for Government intrusion in this situation? Or is it not Government intrusion because you agree with this?

Those of us on the right have NO PROBLEM with defending Rights of anyone and those are natural rights which include Life, Liberty, Persuit of happiness.

*WE* Draw the line where innocent LIFE is concerned. Especially when that LIFE is toatally unable to speak for itself.

Enough said.

 

[Immanuel]

In our country laws are based on civil rights. If you are violating someone's civil rights it is probably illegal.

And everyone of those Civil Rights is someone's idea of morality. Regardless of the law, it is based upon someone's idea of moral living. You may or may not agree with the morality of those who made the law and got it passed, but they wrote it because they believed it was the moral thing to do.

Immie

I don't think so. Laws were based on common law for centuries and our constitution is based on civil rights. You can claim they came from morals, you can claim they agree with your morals, but each and every valid and just law simply prevents one person from enfringing on someone else's civil rights.

And all of that Ravi is based on someone's perception of morality. Your civil rights are based upon the views of morality that some lawmaker somewhere back in history believed that you were entitled to.

Common law goes back to morality. All law is based upon morality.

Think about it... all law is based upon someone's idea of morality. Murder is illegal because someone decided that it was immoral to kill another human being. My driving at 10 miles per hour above the "legal" speed limit is illegal because some politician decided that the basic speed law should read that it is immoral to drive at an unsafe speed. Income tax laws are based on someone's perception that we as a people have a moral obligation to support our government and its projects.

Abortion laws are based upon someone's moral perception. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the morals of the pro-choice movement have won out in this case for the time being. And I do mean morals of the pro-choice movement because despite the fact that I disagree with the movement, I believe they see their side as the morally correct side of the issue.

I see them as wrong, but I believe that they are doing what they believe to be the right thing.

Immie