4.27.10 - "Oklahoma Passes Constraints On Abortions" (nytimes.com) UPDATE: FL House Legislature rams through similar bill; UPDATE II: Oklahoma restrictions blocked

[mack20]

This is seriously f*cked up.

The Oklahoma Legislature voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to override vetoes of two highly restrictive abortion measures, one making it a law that women undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before having an abortion.

Though other states have passed similar measures forcing women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, requiring a doctor or technician to set up the monitor where the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

The second measure passed into law Tuesday protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects. The intent of the bill is to prevent parents from later suing doctors who withhold information to try to influence them against having an abortion.

Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, vetoed both bills last week. The ultrasound law, he said, was flawed because it did not exempt rape and incest victims and was an unconstitutional intrusion into a woman’s privacy. He painted the other measure as immoral.

“It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient,” Mr. Henry said.

The Republican majorities in both houses, however, saw things differently. On Monday, the House voted overwhelmingly to override the vetoes, and the Senate followed suit at 10:42 a.m. Tuesday, making the two measures law.

The ultrasound law was part of a bill that was struck down by the state courts last August because it violated a clause in the Oklahoma Constitution that requires bills to deal with only one subject. Republican lawmakers vowed at the time to pass it again.

This year, Republican leaders passed five separate antiabortion bills to satisfy the courts’ concerns. Mr. Henry signed one into law: it required that clinics post signs stating a woman cannot be forced to have an abortion, that an abortion cannot be performed until a woman gives her voluntary consent, and that abortions based on a child’s gender are illegal.

Two other antiabortion bills are still working their way through the legislature. One would force women to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about their reasons for seeking an abortion and then post statistics online based on the answers. The other restricts insurance coverage for the procedure.

Though many states have passed similar laws aimed at curbing abortion, with Tuesday’s action, Oklahoma appears to have become the most hostile to women seeking to end a pregnancy, said Dionne Scott, a spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group for abortion rights based in New York.

“It’s the most extreme ultrasound requirement in the country,” she said.

SOURCE (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html)

[Kbentleyis]

Mack, we have commonground. I hated all of the attention abortion got during the health care debate--it set off alarms all over the country. You know who is losing the most from the health care debacle? WOMEN!!

Look how many groups have gotten together to remove abortion rights. There are people who refuse to pay for, or accept abortion. This is nothing new, but with all the attention, it raised bad feelings from prolifers and I can imagine they feel it's a crime paying for something against their beliefs.

[foxyladi]

outrageous:eek::eek:

[Spang]

Oklahoma's government is becoming larger. Much like the legalized racism bill in Arizona, something tells me that the tea party "movement" won't be protesting this, either.

[Kbentleyis]

Oklahoma's government is becoming larger. Much like the legalized racism bill in Arizona, something tells me that the tea party "movement" won't be protesting this, either.

Spang, we'll protest it when you become a member.

[Kbentleyis]

Oklahoma's government is becoming larger. Much like the legalized racism bill in Arizona, something tells me that the tea party "movement" won't be protesting this, either.

Here, Spang, has made an important discovery. Spang, the Tea Party is fighting a big fish in DC--big government, taxes, corruption, and fiscal responsibility.

You, others, and the lamestream media have called the Tea Partiers every ugly name they could think of, yet you demean them because they most likely won't be protesting abortion issues.

IT WAS YOU--AND THE REST OF THE LEFT that needed and wanted universal health care! It was the DEMOCRATS that made the big issue to cover abortion in the bill and put this on the front burner of every pro-lifer. Couldn't let sleeping dogs lie!!!

Since I, personlly have spent a great deal of time helping for the original Constitutional abortion rights passing for every woman, may I suggest this:
!. Get off your a$$, and on your feet.
2. Make your own misspelled signs and head for Oklahoma.
3. Make sure you are careful to avoid all the dead bodies lying on the streets and sidewalks from the lack of health insurance.
4. Sit or get off!

[foxyladi]

they will just go to another state

[Laura Cereta]

Though other states have passed similar measures forcing women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, requiring a doctor or technician to set up the monitor where the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

The second measure passed into law Tuesday protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects. The intent of the bill is to prevent parents from later suing doctors who withhold information to try to influence them against having an abortion.

Two other antiabortion bills are still working their way through the legislature. One would force women to fill out a lengthy questionnaire about their reasons for seeking an abortion and then post statistics online based on the answers. The other restricts insurance coverage for the procedure.


This is absolutely insane!!

When will Obama just sign the damn Freedom of Choice Act and put an end to all this?

Obama Statement on 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Decision (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/22/obama_statement_on_35th_annive.php)
22 Jan 2008, Organizing for America

And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.

Note to self: Add Arizona and Oklahoma to boycott list.

[Suzan]

Though other states have passed similar measures forcing women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, requiring a doctor or technician to set up the monitor where the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

I wonder why they don't just waterboard these women to get them to comply. If they drown, they could be put on life support, which would keep their organs functioning until the baby is born. I just saw a Private Practice episode that dealt with keeping a brain dead woman on life support against her husband's wishes until she delivered. She was a surrogate mother for another couple and they took legal measures to keep her on life support.

The second measure passed into law Tuesday protects doctors from malpractice suits if they decide not to inform the parents of a unborn baby that the fetus has birth defects. The intent of the bill is to prevent parents from later suing doctors who withhold information to try to influence them against having an abortion.

And this is simply grotesque.

[SoCal4Hillary]

they will just go to another stateThat isn't always an option, as some women/girls cannot afford to do that or cannot logistically accomplish that.

But the bigger issue is, what if--one by one--every state implements restrictions on abortion? Then WHERE are they going to go? :confused:

I believe that it becomes easier for each additional state to place constraints on abortions after others have done so. The more that do it, the easier it gets for others to follow--they can use campaign slogans like "look what they did in [whatever state] and now those PRECIOUS UNBORN ZYGOTES are being saaaaaaaaaaved!!" :rolleyes:

[Spang]

What's the point of a governor vetoing something if the legislature can vote to override it?

[Kbentleyis]

Sorry, but I get a little out of hand on abortion issues. We worked so hard to get it passed in the first place, and now it's being tromped on by the opposition. All the calls and petitions, trips to the capitol and state reps--ugh! I'm furious.

I'm old enough to remember when women were dying, or made sterile because of botched abortions by inexperienced idiots in backrooms.

I don't want late abortions legal, but that's my personal opinion and I'm not forcing it on anyone.

How many states will follow?

[Laura Cereta]

'Oklahoma, what have you done?' (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/28/carr.abortion.oklahoma/index.html)
29 Apr 2010, M. Carr, CNN


As a reproductive rights advocate and a proud mother of two, my blood ran cold as I read about Oklahoma's new abortion legislation (HB 2656). The state of Oklahoma just decided, and by an appallingly high margin I might add, that a doctor is protected from being sued if he or she chooses not to tell a woman that the baby she is carrying has a birth defect.

State legislators made this decision Tuesday, voting 36-12 in the Senate and 84-12 in the House to override Gov. Brad Henry's veto of this law. (The Legislature also overrode the governor's veto of a second egregious law, HB 2780, which forces women to view an ultrasound before having an abortion.)

Oklahoma, what have you done?

Under this new law, a doctor may withhold information, mislead or even blatantly lie to a pregnant woman and her partner about the health of their baby if the doctor so much as thinks that fetal test results would cause a woman to consider abortion.

As expected, the anti-abortion movement is claiming victory. But this bill isn't "anti-abortion." It is devastating because it is anti-motherhood and anti-medicine.

When I found out I was pregnant with each of my children, like every woman who has ever undergone fetal testing, I held my breath at each doctor's appointment. I didn't let it go until the doctor or the tech said, "Everything looks great." I seized up when they took out the blood work results and I didn't relax until I heard, "It all came back negative."

But a woman in Oklahoma no longer gets to exhale. Because now, when a doctor says, "Everything looks fine," she has to wonder; does it really? Oklahoma politicians have now said that she can no longer count on the sacred trust that always existed between her and her doctor. A doctor may now lie to her face and, in doing so, deny a woman what is quite possibly the most important piece of information she will ever receive in her life.

The very thought makes my breath catch even now. The information you get on those visits matters to every woman getting prenatal care, regardless of what she decides to do based upon the results. The legislators have decided that a woman, when she becomes pregnant, loses the right to full, honest information from her doctor.

It is her right to know this information. It is how she and her family determine what to do next, not only to decide if they want to continue a pregnancy, but also to consider how they will prepare to care for a special needs child.

What specialist will they turn to? What support will they require? Who will hold their hand in the delivery room if a child is born who will only live an hour, or a day? Does she want to call her own mom in from across the country or does she want to grieve silently with her partner? What will they tell the children they already have?

Doesn't every family have the right to the information that may help them decide the course of their future or the future of their child? According to the Oklahoma State Legislature, they no longer do.
Continues @ link...

[Suzan]

As a reproductive rights advocate and a proud mother of two, my blood ran cold as I read about Oklahoma's new abortion legislation (HB 2656). The state of Oklahoma just decided, and by an appallingly high margin I might add, that a doctor is protected from being sued if he or she chooses not to tell a woman that the baby she is carrying has a birth defect.

This is unfathomable to me. How can a doctor be protected in this way? It's unconscionable--and should be unconstitutional.

Will the doctor be paying for all of the necessary care and medical costs for the life of the disabled child? That's the least s/he should do if this information is withheld from the mother.

[Laura Cereta]

Intense, emotional debate over abortion measure now headed to Crist (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/intense-emotional-debate-over-abortion-measure-now-headed-to-crist/1091746)
1 May 2010, J. Frank, St. Petersburg Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau


In remarkable political theater during the waning hours of the legislative session, House Republicans rammed through a measure Friday to require women seeking an abortion to pay for an ultrasound and hear a doctor give a description of the fetus.

The 76-44 vote came after an intense four-hour debate as tempers flared and lawmakers urged young staff and visitors with children to leave the chamber as critics described the psychological trauma to pregnant women and supporters asserted life began at inception.

Orlando Democrat Scott Randolph brought tears to the eyes of his colleagues as he described his pregnant wife's anguish when she lost a child.

Lakeland Republican Kelli Stargel choked up as she talked about missing high school graduation because she was eight months pregnant.

HB 1143 now goes to Gov. Charlie Crist, the newly minted nonpartisan candidate for the U.S. Senate who has vacillated on the abortion issue. In an interview, Crist said he was "pro-life but I don't like imposing my will on other people."

"It concerns me greatly forcing someone to do that, even if they can't afford to do it," he said.

A similar law took effect this week in Oklahoma, where the state Senate overrode the governor's veto, and spurred a lawsuit and complaints from patients.

Here in Florida, state Sen. Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, added the abortion language Wednesday to an innocuous health care bill dealing with medical billing and nursing homes.

The legislation now also includes a prohibition against the use of state or federal dollars for abortions and another provision that prevents Florida from enacting an insurance mandate and bolsters the attorney general's health care lawsuit against President Barack Obama.

Even before it passed, Democratic lawmakers began urging Crist to strike the bill down.

"I want to have that independent governor think about what the people want . . . and veto this bill," pleaded Rep. Richard Steinberg, D-Miami Beach.

But Rep. Chris Dorworth, a Lake Mary Republican who once supported Crist, countered: "If he vetoes this bill, he's saying the millions of babies who will be terminated from this are not people. I know he's a man of character and he won't do that."

Under current law, pregnant women must get an ultrasound before an abortion in the second or third trimester. But the legislation requires it for the first trimester as well, when a medical abortion typically involves taking a pill. The only exceptions are women at risk of significant medical harm or victims of rape or domestic abuse. All women could choose not to view the ultrasound if they sign a form but still must hear about the fetus.

According to state statistics, doctors performed more than 86,000 abortions in Florida in 2008.

Friday's debate touched every aspect of the issue with Republicans relying on two doctors and three women to explain the bill. On the Democratic side, more than a dozen lawmakers spoke against.

"Until you start growing ovaries or have them, you don't need to be involved in making a decision about what women do with their bodies," said Rep. Janet Long, D-Seminole. =D>

Republican Alan Hays unmasked the debate by invoking the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision for killing more than 50 million babies. "How can you find the Holocaust so revolting and be opposed to this bill," the Umatilla Republican said.

The remarks drew rebuke from House Speaker Larry Cretul and Hays later apologized in private.

A number of lawmakers expressed concern about mandating that pregnant women pay for an ultrasound, which typically costs $100 to $300, even if they are too poor.

Republicans initially maintained the measure was necessary because they received calls from women who were not allowed to see the ultrasound, but eventually conceded that the goal was to reduce the number of abortions.

The bulk of the rhetoric focused on the political arguments about privacy and the role of the state.

"Is it the state's right to decide which procedures a woman should have or is it a doctor's right?" asked Rep. Yolly Roberson, D-Miami.

"It's a traditional function of the state to take care of the health care of Floridians," responded Rep. Anitere Flores, R-Miami.

One of the six Republicans to vote against the abortion amendment was Rep. Ed Homan, a Tampa doctor. Three Democrats voted for the language.

"My objection to this amendment is the intrusion of government to the practice of medicine," Homan said. "The core issue in this bill is about ideology, it is not about better health care."
Continues @ link...

[Laura Cereta]

Abortion bill will cause pain, trauma (http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/abortion-bill-will-cause-pain-trauma/1091669)
1 May 2010, FL State Rep. Scott Randolph, St. Petersburg Times

His comments to the FL State House:


Members, I like to paraphrase Pedro and say that there is no crying in lawmaking. But I'll try to make it brief today. This amendment is so shortsighted as to be blind. You imagine that this only affects those wishing to terminate the pregnancy for no other reason than because it is their legally protected right to choose what to do with their body. But members, this affects every pregnant woman, including those that are losing their baby because of other reasons.

Last January my wife and I went to the doctor and we had our first ultrasound. At first we thought, 'This is fantastic.' It was just us and the (ultrasound) technician. At first everything looked fine. And all of a sudden, there were three doctors in the room. They tell us, 'The measurements say this fetus has a genetic abnormality.' We go to the next doctor; we get a second opinion, a third opinion. We're told, this fetus is going to die. We don't know if it's two weeks left. The heart will stop beating in eight more weeks, 10 more weeks. It could be there for six months. We are asked, do you terminate the pregnancy now, or do you refuse, and naturally miscarry at some point in time?

We've seen three ultrasounds already at this point. And you act like this ultrasound machine is in another room, that you walk out into and go, oh, there it is. Actually, that ultrasound machine is right next to that bed, where my wife is laying, looking at this fetus. And she's starting to cry. And she asks that that ultrasound machine be turned in the other direction because she can't see it anymore. But this bill right here is saying "no, we're going to demand one more time when you go in to finally terminate that fetus — because God and nature told you 'not this time,' that you be forced to see that screen, or you be told what's on that screen, and that you demand it be turned away, but you're still going to have to listen to the description of what's still there. Members, this is something we're about to do to women in this state.

But we're not alone. Statistics show that about 25 percent of pregnancies are terminated naturally by God and nature. With today's medical care, women don't have to wait for the mother to keep a dying fetus inside their womb until it finally terminates on its own, or it finally miscarries by nature. So my wife and my sister are not alone. There are thousands and thousands of women that will be in the same position.

There are thousands and thousands of women who will be in that same position after this bill passes.

We knew the facts — we knew the heart chamber was slowly filling with fluid; we knew the facts — we didn't need to be told that the fetus was slowly dying inside my wife's womb. So don't stand there and talk about facts.

Members, we constantly hear that this chamber is all about small government. The only thing this body has proven in the last six years is how this Legislature defines small government — six years ago this Legislature wanted government so small that it could fit down a tube into an individual woman's throat named Terri Schiavo; this decade we have shown time and again that you want government so small that it can fit under someone's bedroom door; and members, this year you are showing that you want government so small that it could fit between a woman's leg and into her uterus. It's not the small government that anyone wants.

I know that I have changed no one's vote today because this body is controlled more by ideology than empathy. But I tell my story today because I want you to go home tonight and when you are by yourself and you have closed your eyes to sleep that your mind is filled with the personal pain you have brought to my wife, my sister and the thousands and thousands of women who want nothing more than to have the baby that is growing inside of them, but that unfortunately, God, nature and fate have chosen that it will not happen at that time. When you close your eyes every night, I want you to see their faces and their pain and the trauma you have personally brought them.

[Laura Cereta]

Florida Senate launches assault on women's rights (http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/florida-senate-launches-assault-on-womens-rights/1091431)

Both measures would enable the government to intrude into women's private medical decisions in ways that should be anathema to a political party that claims to be for small government. The hypocrisy, and the way the amendments were introduced without a single committee hearing, is almost as distasteful as the measures themselves.

Read more @ link...

[cinnamongirl]

Florida Senate launches assault on women's rights (http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/florida-senate-launches-assault-on-womens-rights/1091431)



Read more @ link...

Boo, Florida. Laura, how could this have happened? You were supposed to be keeping an eye on these guys!

[LadyLazarus]

Oh interesting. Are posters here suddenly acting like they care about women's rights?

[Laura Cereta]

Boo, Florida. Laura, how could this have happened? You were supposed to be keeping an eye on these guys!

Well, I only monitor sexism from the liberal males I hate. This atrocity was pushed through by conservative men AND women, so you can understand why I just sat around doing nothing. That's just the way I roll. ;)

[samurai007]

I'm actually a little divided on this bill. On the issue of describing and showing the physical state of the baby, including ultrasound pictures, I don't mind that. They should have that information to make an informed decision, instead of thinking it's just a "formless mass" or "a tumor".

The other half of the bill does the exact opposite, though, so I'm totally opposed to it. The woman MUST know of any abnormalities in order to make an informed decision! Doctors should definitely not be shielded if they lie about that because they fear it'll result in a decision to abort it.

In all though, it's a bad bill that I hope is overturned, especially the 2nd part.

[Laura Cereta]

Crist should veto ultrasound bill (http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1092283.ece)
4 May 2010, J. Fuller, St. Peteresburg Times


The timing of Gov. Charlie Crist's declaration of independence could not have been better. Unshackled from Republican Party orthodoxy, Crist is free to judge bills passed by the Legislature on their merits. Perhaps his biggest test will be deciding the fate of a bill that infringes on constitutionally protected abortion rights. Crist should veto HB 1143, which would allow the government to dictate how a woman reaches a difficult personal decision.

This legislation declares the federal government shouldn't dictate health care for individuals, yet it pushes state government between a woman and her doctor. The internal inconsistency of the bill, which passed by a largely party-line vote, indicates this is more about advancing a conservative social agenda in an election year than about thoughtful, coherent policy.

The most offensive provision would require every woman seeking an abortion to first have an ultrasound, even if a doctor says one is not medically necessary or prudent. There is no exception to the ultrasound requirement for rape or incest victims, or if a woman's life is endangered.
In fact, the only meager relief given provable victims of domestic violence, rape, incest or human trafficking, or women in life-threatening health circumstances is that they would not have to suffer through an oral description of the fetus as the ultrasound is occurring. All other women would have no choice but to hear these details. They may refuse to view the ultrasound if they fill out a form.

If an ultrasound is so vital, lawmakers could have the state pay the cost of $100 or more for each one. But since the bill's true intent is to make abortion even more emotionally jarring and expensive, there was no provision for funding, just the mandate.

The second untenable provision of HB 1143 involves a new federal benefit under health care reform. Starting this year, small businesses can qualify for significant tax credits on employee health insurance. But the bill would bar employers who receive a tax credit from buying health insurance that covers almost all abortion services. Since most private health insurers now include elective abortion coverage, this legislation seeks to eliminate it from most policies. The result would either leave women on their own or small businesses without the tax credits they are entitled to receive.
Continues @ link...

[Laura Cereta]

New Oklahoma Abortion Restrictions Temporarily Blocked (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/new-oklahoma-abortion-res_n_561896.html)
3 May 2010, T. Talley, Associated Press via The Huffington Post


Oklahoma's attorney general agreed Monday to temporarily block enforcement of a controversial new state law that requires pregnant women to get an ultrasound and hear a detailed description of the fetus before they get an abortion.

The Center for Reproductive Rights was set to argue for a temporary restraining order Monday, but attorneys for both sides agreed to accept the order before the court hearing, Oklahoma County District Judge Noma Gurich said. She signed the order Monday afternoon.

"We're sorry to see implementation of the law delayed," said Tony Lauinger, state chairman of Oklahomans for Life and vice president of the National Right to Life Committee. "This has been a long process and apparently it will be a little longer."

A pregnant woman should have all of the information available before she makes the irrevocable decision to terminate her pregnancy, Lauinger said, adding: "We're confident that this law is constitutional."

Attorney General Drew Edmondson agreed to the order to give his office more time to retain Teresa Collett, a University of St. Thomas Law School professor who represented the state when a similar law passed in 2008 was challenged by the Center for Reproductive Rights. She also is the Republican nominee in Minnesota's 4th Congressional District election this fall.

A judge ruled last year that the 2008 law was unconstitutional because it violated requirements that legislative measures deal only with one subject – but did not rule on the validity of the ultrasound provisions.

The new abortion law went into effect last week after lawmakers overrode Gov. Brad Henry's veto.
Continues @ link...

[Suzan]

The Center for Reproductive Rights was set to argue for a temporary restraining order Monday, but attorneys for both sides agreed to accept the order before the court hearing, Oklahoma County District Judge Noma Gurich said. She signed the order Monday afternoon.

Thank goodness, but this almost seems like too rational a response, doesn't it.

[Laura Cereta]

http://www.tampabay.com/multimedia/archive/00121/2010_05_11ultrasoun_121221a.jpg

[cinnamongirl]

http://www.tampabay.com/multimedia/archive/00121/2010_05_11ultrasoun_121221a.jpg

Hilarious, and so true.

[Alces95]

I consider myself pro life and I don't like this bill either.

The law of the land is that this procedure (abortion) is legal. While I am sure it may be effective, taking small chunks of this law away is just not the "right" way imo.

I give money to a group in my community that provides ultrasounds and care for mothers to be...if they choose to seek that information. I am pro life and will gladly provide any woman the care and information they need (and I can give) so they make a good choice for them. In most cases, I hope they choose life. But it is there choice to not only have an abortion but to seek information and treatment they desire. This organization also helps women who have had an abortion and wish to have counseling (not pastoral, clinical) or need medical care to heal. Again, its their choice to come and the only advertisment is in the paper classifieds and word of mouth.

Making a law to force them to review something actively (Here lay down, don't move and you must see this) as opposed to offering a service (you can go here and get an ultra sound and or care for free if you wish) seems a bit more humane and truly pro-life. It's a woman's life too.

I hope this law gets vetoed as it should.

[Spang]

Oklahoma Legislature overrides third abortion veto

Lawmakers have bypassed the governor's veto of a bill that asks women to fill out a detailed questionnaire when seeking an abortion.

In a vote of 33-15, the Senate voted to override Gov. Brad Henry's veto of House Bill 3284. A similar veto override measure passed the House on Monday in a vote 84-13. The measure goes into effect Nov. 1.

Henry, a Democrat, vetoed the bill Saturday, saying it was an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and barrier to legal medical treatment.

A spokesman for Henry called the veto override "disappointing."

"Every veto override just triggers more lawsuits and legal bills for taxpayers. Similar abortion laws passed by the Legislature were challenged and thrown out by the courts last year, and the latest versions are probably headed for the same fate," spokesman Paul Sund said.

As the bill was heard in the Senate, nearly 50 people wearing pink filled one side of the Senate gallery in support of the governor's veto. At times, the audience waved their hands to silently cheer on a legislator. Some shook their heads as the final vote was posted.

Senators debated the bill for more than an hour. Opponents of the bill said the measure was intrusive, insulting to women and did nothing to limit the number of abortions in the state.

Supporters of the measure said it collects data in hopes of understanding why women in Oklahoma seek to end their pregnancies.

Sen. Jim Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City, was the lone Republican voting against the veto override. Reynolds said while he has supported restrictions on abortion in the past, this measure seeks to supply very personal information to the government, which he does not support.

The Source (http://newsok.com/article/3463726)

[Suzan]

Sen. Jim Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City, was the lone Republican voting against the veto override. Reynolds said while he has supported restrictions on abortion in the past, this measure seeks to supply very personal information to the government, which he does not support.

This is one brave Republican. Let's hope the Tea Party doesn't target him. They say they're not pushing social issues. I wonder.