Oklahoma State Senate Republicans Dan Sullivan and Todd Lamb have pushed an abortion bill that collects information about abortions performed in the state, with an ultimate result of posting them online. The data collected includes:
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
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
Live Births
Miscarriages
Induced Abortions
The bill purports to keep name, address, and other identifying information private, but as some opponents have argued, it would still be easy to locate women from small communities.
"Fair and balanced" news??
It is chilling the extent to which Republicans will use fear as a political tool, be it to motivate their base or keep the vulnerable marginalized.
Posted by: Ammon | October 09, 2009 at 05:42 PM
I've been planning to blog about this since yesterday, because it raises so many of the themes in my recent paper on anonymization ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1450006 ). I haven't posted anything yet, however, because I think people may be misreading the law ( full text at http://www.sos.state.ok.us/documents/Legislation/52nd/2009/1R/HB/1595.pdf ).
The law is poorly drafted, but as I read it, I think Oklahoma is increasing the amount of information doctors must disclose to the state about each abortion, but it is not forcing the Health Department to post each completed questionnaire onto the web, as some have reported ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/oklahoma-abortion-law-det_n_313779.html ). Instead, the Health Department is obligated only to post annual summary statistics.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying I approve of the increased reporting. I'm only saying that the law is much less outrageous than it would have been had it required the forced publication of these questionnaires.
Posted by: Paul Ohm | October 09, 2009 at 06:51 PM
Perhaps removing the place of origin from the required information would help keep their identities concealed? But in general, some of this information could actually prove quite useful in further scientific studies of several different fields.
Posted by: Joe | October 09, 2009 at 07:19 PM
Paul--thanks for the link to the the statute. It's worse in some ways than I'd imagined (such as asking the reasons why a person is seeking an abortion). This is increasing (rather drastically, I'd assume) the information that the physicians must collect, as well as what they must report. Looking forward to your post on this.
Joe, I don't doubt that the information -- if accurate -- would be illuminating. But I don't think that scientific study justifies this intrusion on patient privacy.
Posted by: Alfred | October 10, 2009 at 11:09 AM
This law would be preempted by Federal HIPAA law. 29 USC 1181; 45 CFR 164.
Posted by: Joe | October 10, 2009 at 01:22 PM
Maybe a companion bill might consider posting the following:
1. Age of 'father'
2. Marital status of 'father'
3. Race of 'father'
4. Years of education of 'father'
5. Total number of previous pregnancies involving 'father'
6. Total number of previous children involving 'father'
Posted by: Kathy Bergin | October 11, 2009 at 01:44 PM
Joe@1:22 - The HIPAA Privacy Rule specifically exempts disclosures made to public health authorities for legitimate public health purposes.
Posted by: Nadia N. Sawicki | October 12, 2009 at 11:21 AM