Meanwhile, the House voted 85-8 Wednesday to approve a bill (HB 3284) requiring doctors to provide the Oklahoma Department of Health with detailed information on women seeking abortions, including age , civil status and educational level, the relations of Oklahoma. The bill includes many of the same language of the law in 2009 (HB 1595) that an Oklahoma County judge has struck in February for violating the single subject rule.In an opinion published Tuesday, the state Supreme Court said: We are increasingly tired of urging the Legislature so clearly violated the terms of the Constitution of Oklahoma. It is a waste of time that the legislature and the Court, and a waste of taxpayers ‘money’.
The law passed in 2008 but never entered into force because of a lawsuit. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit on behalf of a clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, arguing that the law violated the state constitution is the single object rule violated the privacy rights of women, violated their dignity and their health at risk. The suit also said that the law was unconstitutionally vague and imprecise about what doctors should tell women (ratio of women’s health policy, 8/19/09). In August 2009, U.S
Ryan Kiesel (D), who voted against the measure, said he did not know if this estimate is accurate, noting that the law of 2009 was estimated at more than $ 250,000. He also said the department already collects the same information and the questions are intrusive and irrelevant. At the end of the day, not to prevent a miscarriage single, Kiesel said, adding: . It will sound good on a campaign flyer that’s all. Kiesel also expressed concern that the information remain confidential (McNutt, Oklahoma, 3 / 4).
State legislators have introduced separate bills that include the same provisions of the Act 2008 and the State House on Tuesday advanced a bill that would require ultrasounds before an abortion, the relationship of Oklahoma (Oklahoma, 3 / 4).
The Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the decision of a lower court that a 2008 law of the State (SB1878) and the provisions of some anti-abortion is unconstitutional because it covers more than one subject, the relations of Oklahoma (Bisbee , Oklahoma, 3 / 4). The law would require an ultrasound before an abortion and limit women’s access to mifepristone, which is used in medical abortion (AP/NewsOn6.com, 3 / 4). In addition, the law would require doctors to provide women with detailed information on the ultrasound image, including descriptions of all the organs in the developing world and ends, even if opposed. The law would also have prohibited illegal life lawsuits in certain circumstances.