Rachel Maddow Show Takes On Oklahoma Abortion Disclosure Law

On last night's Rachel Maddow Show, Maddow took up the issue of a new law in Oklahoma that would seek to publicly shame and intimidate women who have an abortion by posting various records related to those legal medical procedures online. Score one for small, non-intrusive government, right? Air America's Megan Carpentier has covered this matter, and helpfully enumerates the specific records that the state of Oklahoma has deemed to be important to disclose for the sake of the public interest.

1. Date of abortion
2. County in which abortion performed
3. Age of mother
4. Marital status of mother (married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother
6. Years of education of mother (specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
9. Number of pregnancies that ended in live births
10. Number of pregnancies that ended in miscarriages
11. Number of pregnancies that ended in induced abortions

Says Carpentier:

The legislature doesn't have any compelling public health reason to collect the data they seek from their citizens who choose to have the most common medical procedure in the United States--note, for instance, women are not require to disclose if the abortion was deemed medically necessary. But anti-abortion forces--like Operation Rescue, which moved over to Oklahoma after one of its supporters assassinated Dr. George Tiller in Kansas--are well known for publicizing personally identifiable information of women seeking abortions or employees of clinics that provide abortion services, and using that information to harass and intimidate (and, in the case of Tiller assassin Scott Roeder, kill) those people using or providing abortion services regardless of the circumstances. The only reason this information is being demanded of women is so that the anti-abortion movement and its political patrons can use it for political purposes.

Carpentier joined Maddow last night to discuss this matter further, and characterized the state's effort as a thinly veiled attempt at deterring women from using their reproductive rights: "They've been very specific, in that their end goal is to keep women from having abortions. They think that by posting the information online, that somehow this will turn into some sort of public health strategy to keep women from obtaining abortions in the state of Oklahoma. They consider women seeking a legal medical procedure, that is actually the most common medical procedure in this country, is a public health problem." Carpentier further reminds viewers that when Kansas compelled Planned Parenthood to disclose their patients' medical records, those records ended up as spank material for the O'Reilly Factor.

[WATCH]

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[dlvme2]

01:29 PM on 12/09/2009

This was to take effect on Nov 1 this year, many were and are fighting it. I am not sure if the site is up and running yet or not. What is not mentioned is that the cost to run this site is estimated to be around $250,000 - in a state that has toll booths to fix the roads still. OK is hurting for money and yet can spend this amount yearly for this website. If they are arguing that this is for research data - fine, but it does not need to be posted online. All of this truly is to make it harder on the woman to undergo this procedure, that is the purpose of it and to try to make it seem like anything else is ludicrous. Abortion is not something that any woman takes lightly or at least the majority do not. It is a painful decision. It is a sad commentary that women continue to have to fight for "equal" rights in this country. This is just another issue in a list of many that proves how unequal we truly are.

[Tiger99]

07:24 PM on 10/14/2009

Editors,
It is obvious someone from Oklahoma has broken your heart or perhaps just rejected your advances..­. For whatever reasons you have chosen to post every little thing that goes on in our state in your attempt to create fodder for your readers "Get Over It and Grow Up"...
You could have just as easily interviewe­d the women who are challengin­g our new abortion law in court and posted a link to donate to the legal fund... Instead you chose to ignore them...

[dlvme2]

02:35 PM on 12/09/2009

I live in Oklahoma and was unaware of this until I did see it on shows like Rachel's this was going on without a vote by the people of OK, but I am not sure that would have mattered as this is very much a Bible state. This is not a slam against OK, but people need to be aware of issues like this so that they can be fought. The conversati­on here makes people aware of this and how wrong it is. Ignorance is not bliss. The more women that are made aware of this, then more of them can fight to get this stopped. The "Get Over It and Grow Up" remark is immature to say the least. This was not a personal attack on OK, it was to let people know what is going on, once informed they can look up links to fight it or back it.

[CoexistUSA]

05:06 PM on 10/12/2009

if this was Fox News, that guest would have been 100 pounds skinnier and have plastic surgery, but no brains.

[ubatuba]

04:09 PM on 10/12/2009

this seems like a political move. whoever proposed this bill knows it will never pass. it's totally unconstitu­tional and...not to mention...­asinine and hateful

[CoexistUSA]

05:04 PM on 10/12/2009

"asinine and hateful"..­...bingo! best way to describe it.

[jsgaetano]

10:58 AM on 10/12/2009

I'm pretty sure this can easily be claimed as unconstitu­tional (it violates their Fourth Amendment rights). There are tons of medical privacy laws... and the big daddy of them all, HIPAA.

[vegan1349]

10:59 AM on 10/12/2009

If there are no names associated with the data it does not violate hippa.

[jsgaetano]

11:05 AM on 10/12/2009

Since posting the names of women who have had abortions IS the entire issue here... it sure sounds like there will be names.

[Dave-O]

10:48 AM on 10/12/2009

Is this not a direct violation of the HIPAA regulation­s? What country do these people live in. Every other state is required to abide by this Federal Legislatio­n. This is why I have to stand 20 feet behind the footprints while picking up my prescripti­on from Walgreen's for god's sake. I have to stand 20 feet behind stupid footprints on the floor, but these government thugs can post these women's personal data related to their abortions. This sounds like Nazi Germany to me...

[igodess]

10:37 AM on 10/12/2009

I am really interested to know how this is in any way shape or form legal? Does HIPPA not apply in this state? Clearly by posting that amount of informatio­n you cross the privacy law coundary do you not? I'm very confused - need more info please.

[vegan1349]

10:50 AM on 10/12/2009

It is legal because a the person's name is not listed with the informatio­n. The informatio­n posted is just considered statistics and data because it is not directly linked to anyone.

[igodess]

03:38 PM on 10/12/2009

OK I get that its not blatantly identifyin­g the person but can a case not be made that there is enough informatio­n to *reasonabl­y* identify the person (should one wish to pursue the case)? It seems like a very blurry legal boundary to me....

[HenryGuo]

10:34 AM on 10/12/2009

Theoretica­lly a man could have hundreds of babies. Doe that mean he intentiona­lly prevents hundred of babies from coming to this world?
(henryguo2­[e-mail]­t)

[waiteman]

08:28 AM on 10/12/2009

The conservati­ves always screaming about government intrusion unless of course it is to further their agenda

[GunnyJ]

07:10 AM on 10/12/2009

So much for "we the people"...­..

[satanlite]

10:37 PM on 10/11/2009

Wow. This is freaking insane.

[nsmavrik]

09:25 PM on 10/11/2009

What everyone doesn't seem to understand is the act abortion is not the issue on why the republican­s and republican states are against it. It is PAYING FOR IT. They don't want to pay for it.

If a woman wants an abortion, they are going to get an abortion. Period. End of story. All of you people who are yelling to ban abortions are just waisting your breath. You will NEVER stop it.

The reason that you yell is because you don't want your taxes to pay for it, and there is the rub.

If you pay a lanlord your rent, and then that landlord goes out and buys drugs to get waisted on, how is that any different than you paying the USA your taxes and then they use a fraction of that money for planned parenthood­?

Would you then refuse to pay your landlord because he is shooting up drugs and you don't approve?

No. Why? Because IT ISN'T YOUR MONEY!!!!!­!!!

Taxes are not YOUR taxes. They are the USA taxes. Understand that? You think that Athieists love paying for Faith Based Initiative­s? No. You think law abiding citizens love paying for health care for prisoners? No. Why don't we object to that? I'll tell you why. Because IT ISN'T YOUR MONEY!!!!!­!!!!!

You anti-abort­ionists are going to pay for the abortions deal with it, just like the anti-war people pay for military wars. GET OVER IT.

[vegan1349]

10:53 AM on 10/12/2009

You are misinforme­d. Many Republican­s believe that is abortion is wrong and want it stopped in general. Some republican­s believe in exceptions for the life of the mother and rape or incest.

[nsmavrik]

03:11 AM on 10/13/2009

Right. Many republican­s want abortion stopped in general. Why? Because THEY don't like it. Oh boo hoo.

Well I don't like rich people avoid paying taxes. I don't like republican­s voting against prosecutin­g companies that allow rape to occur. I don't like republican­s making backroom deals to buy guns for a military group outside of our country.

I want those stopped. Why can't we? The same reason YOU won't stop abortion. I am well informed sir. You are delusional if you think the whole anti-abort­ion thing is about morality. It isn't. It is about money. Clear and simple.

[DSOTM]

06:21 PM on 10/11/2009

This is why Obama needs to take a more proactive stance on this.

[Hollywooddeed]

06:08 PM on 10/11/2009

I hope women in Okalhoma do the right thing and lie about everything on this questionna­ire.

[montn2]

04:00 PM on 10/11/2009

How much do you want to bet that if Imhoff or Coburn family members need an abortion, they will get what they want......

[brt929]

04:13 PM on 10/11/2009

Is Coburn a gynecologi­st?

It wouldn't surprise me, if for the right price, Coburn didn't perform a few abortions himself.

[Donnat]

09:13 PM on 10/11/2009

I am sure members of both of these families have had abortions but you can bet if this harrassmen­t actually ends up on line, they'll find a way to make sure none of their family names (or names of any big donors' families) will never be online.