While waiting for my Chinese takeout order tonight, I leafed casually through the USA Today there on the counter. There in the front-page sidebar, I read a snippet about the Oklahoma House having voted to override the governor's vetoes of 2 anti-abortion acts. I read with interest the brief content of the article, having not yet heard the specifics of the legislation (so sue me; I'm looking for work!). But then I got to the last sentence in the (short) article, and my jaw dropped:
...an attempt to keep women from discriminating against fetuses with disabilities
Say it with me:
What.
The.
.
.
.
.
Frack?
(I haven't seen this diaried on dKos, but maybe I didn't use the right tags; if someone's discussed it, I'll happily delete)
OK, so I know that those most adamantly opposed to a woman's legal right to choose will stop at very little to deny others access to what their "morals" tell them is wrong. That's a given. Give certain individuals an order cast in religious terms and they'll resort to murder to make sure that order is obeyed, even by others who do not share their faith.
I've never understood that degree of religious conviction. Perhaps that's why I'm a lifelong atheist. But I digress.
The point of this diary is examining the new (to me, anyway) angle the anti-choicers have chosen. It doesn't help that the USA Today article (doesn't seem to be available online as it appears on the front page in print) simply made the statement without attribution; it was the reporter's statement. The reporter essentially stated that a woman seeking an abortion for a fetus found to be nonviable (or suffering from other debilitating defects) is guilty of discrimination.
So, what....are they going to try to get unborn fetuses with disabilities made into a protected class for the Americans with Disabilities Act? I know that may sound like snark, but it's not; I'm worried here. Will the next step in the attack on choice be to make aborting a fetus found to have Down Syndrome a violation of that fetus' right to not be discriminated against? Will it be "more wrong" to abort a Fetus With Disabilities (FWD) than a "fully functional" fetus, since the pregnant woman may choose to abort an FWD when, given the same circumstances, she may choose to not abort a fetus found to be healthy?
To say nothing of the content of the bill itself. The bill will hold doctors unaccountable if they choose to lie (directly or by omission) to the pregnant woman regarding the health of the fetus. If this act becomes law, in Oklahoma it will be legal for a doctor to withhold the most important medical information from a patient if the doctor in question simply does not want to share that information. Some doctors (not all, by any means), will take this new-found power to new godlike heights; they will know that the chances of a woman choosing an abortion will increase if the fetus is found to be nonviable or suffering from debilitating disease. Thus, the doctor, if he/she holds personal beliefs against abortion, may choose to NOT tell the pregnant mother all of the information necessary for the woman to make a fully informed decision ON HER OWN. These freaks are not only confirming that a woman cannot choose an abortion without seeing the fetus on screen (thanks goodness that the article goes on the state that the woman may choose to avert her eyes--hate to see something "Clockwork Orange going on in OK!), but they are also saying that it is OK to deny her the fullness of known information if that information may negatively impact the fulfillment of the doctors' own personal belief system.
Just...wow. And the legislature is poised to override the governors veto? Even after having had a chance to breathe and consider exactly WTF they are pushing on the citizens they're sworn to serve?
Somebody out there talk me down, please.