INDIANA: New Law - Must disclose past abortions or Go to Jail

[laserhaas]

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2018, 10:44 AM - Edit history (3)

Link to tweet

.

What the ...frigging....frug'uck!

______________LINK TO ARTICLE

Some are arguing, in the comments, that the Tweet is completely misleading/ or that the article is innocuous in compare.

But the title of the U.S. News article is this

Indiana Governor Signs Bill Mandating Abortion Information

Seems pretty straight forward - the "Mandating" remark.

Furthermore, arguments that the article is diametric to the Tweet, also is - disingenuous. If anything, the actual sense of the article is worse. Doctors are being "mandated" to report a patient's history, to the state.

In what sense of the word is "Mandating" your private info,
- violation of your privacy By Law - a good thing?

.......................Some Comments say the Tweet is bogus

But the claim the Tweet is not even close - is what's bogus

From another article by "The HILL" the contention of the Tweet is corroborated.

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/380360-indiana-gov-signs-law-requiring-doctors-report-abortion-complications%3famp

Failures to report complications would result in a Class B misdemeanor, which are punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000 in Indiana.

.......................

UPDATE

LINK to the actual Law amending (should take note of redacted)

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2018/bills/senate/340#document-0b0b1a82

[Angry Dragon]

1. Viagra needs to be $10,000 a pop

[backtoblue]

2. What the fuck?!!??

This is unconstitutional and a violation of privacy and so much more.
A crime to keep your private health information...private!!!??

The only health provider who might be relevant to give that info to would be your gynecologist, and even THAT shouldn't be mandatory to disclose!

Evil bastards.

Oh, there's no war on women. My ass!!!!

[Hortensis]

41. The law applies to doctors TREATING ABORTION COMPLICATIONS.

ONLY. Those specific doctors have to submit an annual report of any of 26 listed complications they've diagnosed. Penalties could be imposed on practitioners who didn't comply.

The Indiana ACLU, which has brought other cases, and this is part of a pattern of oppressive anti-abortion laws in Indiana, is considering whether it will challenge this in court.

So far the worst complaint about the law, though, seems to be that it would be overly burdensome on the physician; you know, keeping records and printing out or e-filing an annual report. And, of course, should the numbers of complications be strangely high, being investigated by whichever agency there monitors for violations of safe medical practices.

I've searched and found no law of the sort that tweeter, Cathleen, is claiming. I strongly recommend checking these things out before blowing a gasket over them. I do.

[Ilsa]

69. IMO, information should only be reported to the CDC, with no patient names.

Only statistics should be gathered.

But I'm figuring the antichoice crowd would hate this, as abortion has very infrequent complications.

[Hortensis]

81. NO state health department regulation?

That's where these reports go. And no one has said patient names are submitted or not. We know what kind of scuzzes these antiabortion tricksters can be, and this governor is known to be one.

But you should know (and why don'tyou since you've taken the trouble to form an opinion?) that this law was passed after a scandal in which a very bad physician was discovered to have hurt a lot of women. I think some even died. Not exactly infrequent complications.

States license physicians, and most people believe they have an absolute duty to monitor their physicians for signs of malpractice.

[Ilsa]

83. I would be fine with that.

I'm interested in maintaining both safety and privacy, and the two are intertwined.

[Hortensis]

86. Absolutely. Btw, I read that an IN antiabortion group was

hailing this as a great victory. It's not, just propaganda, but unquestionably they hope to use the data gathered against abortion in general, rather than bad physicians. They're going to be disappointed. As you say, complications are not at common when performed by conscientious practitioners, and those who aren't are rare.

[PoiBoy]

3. How is this even constitutional...? n/t

[exboyfil]

4. It is

In our Handmaid's Tale America.

[spanone]

6. first case will go directly to court....bet on it.

[Laffy Kat]

8. Yes, and there is no way in hell it will win.

My god.

[herding cats]

7. It's not.

It's sensational lunacy for his base.

[marybourg]

9. It's not, but I'm sure the taxpayers

of Indiana won't mind paying hundreds of thousands in lawyers' fees and costs to find that out.

[caraher]

20. Wouldn't be the first time they did

Governor Pence wasted a lot of resources pandering to his "base" back in the day - and they are indeed "base."

[Ms. Toad]

22. If it was not almost pure fiction,

it would clearly be unconstitutional.

Fortunately, it is almost pure fiction.

See my summary below.

[0rganism]

24. it's designed to provoke a legal challenge

Constitutionality was never the goal, as a more "moderate" law might go unchallenged

[spanone]

5. the taliban christians

[slumcamper]

10. THIS shit is ALL rethugs have.

Whip up the rabid church people until they are frothing at the bit.

The bulk of GOP public policy is designed to do this. Time to break them.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

11. Let's hope the doctors and hospitals revolt against this insane provision.

Puts them in a Catch-22 situation - if they do this, they could be in court for privacy violations and if they refuse, the state will come after them.

..........

[smirkymonkey]

85. How do they expect to get around HIPAA Privacy rules?

They can' t force providers to disclose a patient's health records if no law has been broken.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Don't miss the point of this assholery-- it's happening all over the country...

and the idea is to get you to sue, the more lawsuits the merrier.

The idea is to get at least one to the Supremes, and use it as a wedge to overturn Roe.

Be aware-- be very aware.

[blake2012]

87. Yep. Theres nationwide effort to flow more abortion cases to USSC

So John Roberts can slowly roll back Roe v. Wade protections.

They’ve already succeeded in Texas by making it much more difficult for many women in the state to get to a place which can perform abortions.

Pure evil.

[GoCubsGo]

13. And, exactly how do they plan on enforcing this????

See you in court, assholes.

[Kirk Lover]

14. No quiz about how many guns I have at home though huh?

[Liberty Belle]

15. Women legislators, please respond by introducing bills to:

Make all men disclose any treatment they have ever had for erectile dysfunction, penile implants, impotence, vasectomy, fertility treatments, and sexually transmitted diseases to all your your medical providers. Also did they ever father a fetus that was aborted? Could impact their mental health. Fair is fair.

[BadGimp]

16. What a Horror Show. I left in 77 and have never looked back.

[caraher]

21. I left last year

It's pretty unbearable

[dalton99a]

17. It's time to boycott Indiana - AGAIN

[Ms. Toad]

23. Just make sure your boycott is based on the real law,

not the fictional characterization in the tweet.

[laserhaas]

55. Come again? Here's detailed FACTS from the Congressionsl

Online media report; which does not bode well for your incongruous argument.

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/380360-indiana-gov-signs-law-requiring-doctors-report-abortion-complications%3famp
.

The law stipulates that no identifying information of the woman should be included, but the report must detail the date of the procedure, the age and race of the patient, the county and state of the patient's residence, the type of abortion obtained by the patient, as well as the name of the facility where the procedure was received.

Failures to report complications would result in a Class B misdemeanor, which are punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000 in Indiana.

[Ms. Toad]

72. The outrage expressed in this thread,

Prior to making the post you responded to was in response to the ludicrous claim that a new law requires all doctors to quiz their patients and that women will be punished for failing to disclose prior abortions.

I have never suggested the law was good. But the law bears little to no resemblance to the content of the tweet. Fake news travels quickly, and is impossible to retrieve, once scattered to the electronic winds. Accurate and honest descriptions of the target of outrage matter.

You have at least now added a link to the actual law. If you're serious about wanting a conversation about how bad the law is, how about deleting the flamebait tweet and false caption from your op.

[Solly Mack]

18. SMH

Cursing loudly.

[Ms. Toad]

19. Has anyone actually read the article?

None of what is in the text of the tweet is in the article, and I can't find any reports that suggest anything close to the tweet.

This year's measure will require doctors, hospitals and clinics to report to the State Department of Health about a wide range of complications. That includes serious medical conditions — like kidney failure, cardiac arrest, hemorrhaging and blood clots — as well as depression, anxiety and sleep disorders.

Reporting complications from abortion is quite a bit different from every doctor being obligated to quiz every patient, and patients being fined $1,000 + imprisoned for 6 months for failure to disclose past abortions.

ETA: Here's a link to the law, in case anyone cares about accuracy before getting all outraged.**

Any physician, hospital, or abortion clinic that treats a complication from an abortion must report it, along with non-identifying information about the complication and medical history of the patient. No generic requirement to ask about abortions - but if you are treating a complication of an abortion, you have to report.

Facilities that perform abortions must report the abortions performed, along with detailed information about the procedure (including prior abortions). This is the only provision that at least implies an obligation to ask - and, frankly, any surgery I've ever had would have included an inquiry about prior surgery (including abortions), so it is information they would be gathering for medical purposes anyway.

Failure to report either is a Class B misdemeanor (subject to $1,000 fine or 6 months imprisonment)

The law does not impose fines on women for failure to disclose abortions..

** Not suggesting there isn't plenty to be outraged about, or that this law isn't a transparent attempt to make abortion harder and more costly. Just that the outraged ought to be directed at the actual law, not at the right wing's wet dream that hasn't been enacted yet.

[caraher]

25. Thanks for pointing this out!

I agree that the tweet is inaccurate, even as it is also transparently clear that all this "concern" about the safety of legal abortion is more about restricting access than women's health

[madaboutharry]

27. Thank you for your post.

The link to the article is right there. The tweet is a misrepresentation. The law is terrible, but it isn't as the tweet indicates. Come on people.

[Hortensis]

42. Yes, and good grief to so many mindless responses.

[USALiberal]

62. Thank you for this!! People here choose to do no research of their own! Nt

[Egnever]

94. Of course not

the funny thing is a lot of these posters think Fake news has no effect on them.

[Ms. Toad]

97. I'm appalled at the amount of nonsense posted here as fact. n/t

[Egnever]

98. That and how many never look further than a headline

[trueblue2007]

26. there is NO WAY you can tell a woman has had an abortion

10
25 40 years ago. this is unconstitutional
i would sue

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. WTF is RIGHT!!

[Sophia4]

29. A lot of people will be staying away from Indiana.

[ooky]

30. What is it with Indiana governors? Every one of them lately is an imbecile.

What "quiz" questions are they going to ask? What will be done with the information?

[Ms. Toad]

37. The law does not require physicians to quiz their patients.

It requires physicians, hospitals, and abortion clinics treating complications from abortions to report abortion complications.

It also requires abortion clinics to report non-identifying demographic information about abortions and patients. Since all surgeries require information about prior surgeries (at least any I've ever had), the report (which does include info about prior abortions) does not require the doctor to gather any information that is not already being gathered.

[Hortensis]

43. It's also an ANNUAL report, not each patient.

[Ms. Toad]

96. Good catch.

I was just doing a quick scan of the law to counter the obvious nonsense in the tweet.

[bitterross]

31. That won't last long. No way that's not unconstitutional

The ACLU is probably waiting for the call. That has to violate the 1st and the 4th.

[laserhaas]

46. ACLU already stated it is teviewing

And leaves open the option to sue

[DFW]

32. Four observations:

1: The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

2: From the article "Privacy Laws Of The United States:

The essence of the law derives from a right to privacy, defined broadly as "the right to be let alone." It usually excludes personal matters or activities which may reasonably be of public interest, like those of celebrities or participants in newsworthy events. Invasion of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity violating the right. These include the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unwarranted search or seizure, the First Amendment right to free assembly, and the Fourteenth Amendment due process right, recognized by the Supreme Court as protecting a general right to privacy within family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.

3: And even Wikipedia:

"This right to privacy has been the justification for decisions involving a wide range of civil liberties cases, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which invalidated a successful 1922 Oregon initiative requiring compulsory public education, Griswold v. Connecticut, where a right to privacy was first established explicitly, Roe v. Wade, which struck down a Texas abortion law and thus restricted state powers to enforce laws against abortion......."

4: And now the governor of Indiana thinks he's Tomás de Torquemada:

[Ms. Toad]

36. Observation 0:

The tweet mischaracterizes the law so badly it is bears little connection to reality.

Before cranking up outrage, check to make sure the tweet is accurate. Here, even following the link to the article ought to send up bright red "we've been snookered" flares.

[DFW]

39. I looked at the article

It indeed overstates the severity and even the details.

However I find the new law to be nevertheless intrusive, and a steeping stone to worse. My outrage stands for those who would impose restrictive laws upon women who are already sufficiently traumatized by the want/need for an abortion in the first place.

[Ms. Toad]

40. It's not even close to an accurate description of the law

But this law does not impose a restriction on women.

Anytime I've ever had surgery, I have been asked to disclose every surgery I've had - which would include abortions. The law only requires reporting this information along with non-identifying details of the patient.

The second portion of the law requires doctors treating complications of abortion to disclose non-identifying information about the patient and treatment.

The fines are imposed on the doctors (for failing to report, not for failing to quiz the patient). The law does not even address any patient obligation to disclose.

I entirely agree that the motives of the individuals enacting this particular law include restricting women's access to abortion.

But this entire thread is comprised of responses to the text of the tweet - and no one, other than me, appears to have even clicked through before responding to discover that the text is is not even supported by the article, let alone by the actual law. Unless we want to be indistinguishable from the right wing idiots, we need to get our act together and stop falling for hair-on-fire tweets that bear no relation to reality.

[laserhaas]

59. So bogus... Your doctor can ask questions.. Yes! ..BUT

the doc is not required - by law - of your other operations, to report your answers to the state (which is seeking to use that information to deprive you of your rights)

[Ms. Toad]

63. I take it you're unaware of other similar reporting requirements?

Vaccine complications, and STDs, for example.

I am not supporting the law, BTW. My beef is with fake news being reported here and with everyone being outraged without even bothering to click through to see that not only does the article not say what the tweet claims, but the law itself bears little resemblance to it either.

As to the point you are responding to, the tweet claims that all doctors are required to quiz their patients about prior abortions and that (by implication) women will be fined or jailed for failure to disclose. The reality is that the new law requires only doctors who are already gathering that information (those performing an abortion) to report it (without identifying identity information).

I am not claiming that is acceptable - but if we run around with our hair on fire about the new law that requires doctors to quiz is, and fine us when we fail to disclose, we're no better than Trump reacting to Faux news.

[laserhaas]

64. D I S I G E N U O U S

It is not jail time for lack of reporting general items.

The (purported) goal of this BILL is patient safety; but everyone is well aware of Indiana's - never ending - quest to stop All abortions.

[Ms. Toad]

68. You're clearly not reading carefully

I have repeatedly acknowledged the evil motives behind the bill.

The tweet claims that all doctors will be required to quiz their patients about prior abortions.

Is this in the article linked to? No.
Is this in the law? No.

The tweet implies women will be fined or imprisoned for failing to disclose abortions, in response to the quizzing. (Read the op caption, if you have any doubt about who the tweet suggests is going to jail -unless the doctor has had past, abortions, it's not the doctor.)

Is this in the article linked to? No.
Is this in the law? No.

From the posts prior to mine, it appears that no one in this thread, until I pointed it out, bothered to even click through to the article, and go, "Huh???, The article doesn't say that- the same behavior we rightly criticize trump & the right wing of-turning a blind eye to the facts, when fake news sounds more politically advantageous.

Yes, there is plenty to criticize in the bill. But we ought to be criticizing what is actually in the bill, not outraging over fake news. Facts are important.

[laserhaas]

74. Look above

It is Law.."340" and I posted the link to the actual BILL

[Ms. Toad]

89. I posted and accurately summarized the law hours ago. In my first response. At 12:51 this morning

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210418655#post19

As I said, you're obviously not reading carefully.

Read the actual law.

The tweet claims that everytime a woman seeks medical or psychological treatment, the doctors is required to quiz her about prior abortions.

Is this in the article linked to? No.
Is this in the law? No.

Doctors who perform abortions (not all doctors) are required to report (not quiz), in connection with performing an abortion, any previous abortions the woman has had. This does not apply to ALL medical vists, all doctors, and specifically does not to ANY psychologists (who don't perform abortions). It does not require any "quizzing" that a responsible physician is not already doing (A standard part of screening for all surgery is the question about prior surgeries, in order to ensure that you have not had any previous dangerous responses to any of the medications or anesthesia involved. So any doctor who is not committing malpractice already gathers the information).

So no, a mandate to all doctors and psychologist to quiz their patients about past abortions at every medical visit is NOT part of the law.

The tweet implies women will be fined or imprisoned for failing to disclose abortions, in response to the quizzing. (Read the op caption, if you have any doubt about who the tweet suggests is going to jail -unless the doctor has had past, abortions, it's not the doctor.)

Is this in the article linked to? No.
Is this in the law? No.

The law does not impose any obligations on women. Period. It imposes fines (and potential imprisonment) on doctors for failure to make one of two kinds of reports

The mere existence of a fine or jail sentence on someone for something connected to abortion does not transform your initial false assertions that doctors and psychologists will be require to quiz patients about abortion and that women who fail to disclose prior abortions will be fined or imprisoned into true statements.

NOTHING in the law imposes any fine, imprisonment, or other punishment, on any woman who fails to disclose prior abortions.

Again - since you seem intent on doubling dow - I am not suggesting that the law is a good thing, or was motivated by anything other than a desire to further stigmatize and suppress abortions. Just don't be outraged (and urge others to be outraged) about fake crap that is not part of the law.

[laserhaas]

47. You are disingenuous about Tweet mischaracterizing

The HILL reports that

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/380360-indiana-gov-signs-law-requiring-doctors-report-abortion-complications%3famp

Failures to report complications would result in a Class B misdemeanor, which are punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000 in Indiana

.

Can you name any other medical issue where Doctors are required - BY Law - to disclose your medical history, to the state (that includes Jail time for failure to report).

[Ms. Toad]

65. The fine is on doctors for failure to comply with reporting requirements

Not on women who fail to disclose abortions, as implied in the tweet (as several of my responses clearly indicate).

The law does not require all medical and psychological personnel to quiz all patients, as stated in the tweet.

The law requires disclosing non-identifying information, and I would be very surprised if the reporting laws for STDs, as an example, didn't have similar fines, but I'm not at a computer to research right now.

Do you really think it is appropriate for progressives to act like Trump watching Faux news, and jump to flaming outrage about fake news?

[Ms. Toad]

90. Now that I'm at my computer: Tuberculosis.

29 states impose fines for failing to report TB cases, including a more detailed - and personally identifying - history than is required under this law for abortion.

A report shall be submitted to the department within twenty-four (24) hours of a diagnosis of tuberculosis or upon suspicion that a person has tuberculosis. This report shall contain the following information concerning the patient diagnosed with tuberculosis or suspected of having tuberculosis: Patient’s name, address and county and whether the patient is homeless; Telephone number; Sex and date of birth; Race and ethnic origin; Country of origin and the month and year the patient arrived in the United States; Occupation; Site of the disease; Chest X-ray date and its results; Specimen source, smear, nucleic acid amplification, culture and drug susceptibility test results; Tuberculin skin test history; HIV status; Whether the patient is a resident of a correctional facility; Whether the patient is a resident of a long-term care facility; Alcohol or drug use history; Initial drug regimen; Drug toxicity and monitoring records, and a listing of other patient medications to evaluate the potential for drug-drug interactions; Signature of the person submitting the report.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00030715.htm

As noted in my first response, there are many mandatory reporting laws for STDs: https://www.cdc.gov/std/program/final-std-statutesall-states-5june-2014.pdf

I am NOT contending this kind of reporting is justified as to abortion, but you might want to do a smidgen of research before you assert that something is completely unheard of.

[CreekDog]

99. Remember when you said property taxes weren't state and local taxes? (in reference to new tax law)

that was bullshit and you refused to correct it.

your credibility is thus.

[Ms. Toad]

100. Obsess much?

Whether you believe I'm credible is not really relevant. You have the language in the tweet and the law. You can check for yourself. Please point out the provisions of the law that:

* require doctors and psychologists to quiz patients every time they seek treatment

* fine or imprison women for refusing to disclose past abortions.

Here's a link to the law, I'll be waiting.

As to your accusation, straight from the 1040, Form A:

5 State and local (check only one box):
a Income taxes, or
b General sales taxes } . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6 Real estate taxes (see instructions) . . . . . . . . . 6
7 Personal property taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8 Other taxes. List type and amount ▶

As you can see, there is no need for me to correct anything in order to salvage my credibility. State and local taxes include only income taxes OR general sales taxes. Real estate taxes are a separate line item, as are personal property taxes.

Both fall into the general category of "Taxes you Paid," but state and local taxes do not include property taxes. If they did, they would be labeled c, and d - not 5 & 6.

[Beartracks]

33. What's the purported legitimate reason for this?

Republicans always have a truthy-sounding talking point they can use to justify their dumbass policies and laws.

=======

[spooky3]

34. I guess Indpls can kiss any chance of landing the Amazon HQ2

good-bye.

[MFM008]

35. Lawsuits in

5..........4...........3.............

[Ms. Toad]

38. Click through to the article, people!!!

Once you get there, do ctrl-f for anything in the tweet. You won't find it.

[laserhaas]

48. Hmmmm......that's not entirely true. If you Google the issue

This is the result

Failures to report complications would result in a Class B misdemeanor, which are punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000 in Indiana.

[Ms. Toad]

70. First, google is not in the article.

So yes, what I said is entirely true.

Second, read the tweet, particularly in combination with the op caption and responses in the thread.

The implication (and how it is being read) is that women who fail to disclose prior abortions, in response to the quizzing that every doctor and psychologist is obligated to do, will go to jail.

The fine (and potential jail time) is on doctors, not women. The snippet you posted identified one basis, which has nothing to do with failing to disclose prior abortions - it has to do with failing to disclose complications of the current abortion.

I could just play dumb, and pretend I don't know where the grain of truth in fines/jail connected with disclosure of previous abortions came from, but I actually do care that any outrage has a factual basis. The law requires and punishes failure by an abortion provider to report information about abortions performed. The non-identifying information includes information about previous abortion.

It is not an obligation imposed on all medical providers to quiz their patients. It does not punish women for failure to report abortions. It does not even require abortion providers to ask any more than any responsible medical professional is already asking prior to performing surgery.

There is plenty to be outraged about in the bill, though, without making stuff up (or repeating fake news).

[laserhaas]

80. Are you arguing ..just for sake of arguing

Give it a rest

[Hortensis]

82. Why are you defending instead of apologizing

for posting something that amounts to a lie? And adding an addendum correcting it? Most of us feel we have a duty to vet stuff for accuracy before bringing it here.

[Hortensis]

44. Laserhaas should also consider amending the OP before

some eager sucker has a stroke over this.

[laserhaas]

49. Puhhlleeaassee .....You should consider getting your facts straight

Before engaging in condemnation.

[McCamy Taylor]

45. Who goes to jai? Woman or doctor?

No one can be required to disclose anything to a health care provider. Health care providers can be required to ask certain questions--like Tb risk. But the standard history already includes pregnancies, deliveries, miscarriage and abortions.

[laserhaas]

53. It is worse than that. The Law reigns to protect privacy

Every year Indiana tries to pass a law restricting abortions.

This law claims to protect privacy; but it gets as close to possible, of minute details ; but for the same of patient

The law stipulates that no identifying information of the woman should be included, but the report must detail the date of the procedure, the age and race of the patient, the county and state of the patient's residence, the type of abortion obtained by the patient, as well as the name of the facility where the procedure was received.

[MineralMan]

50. That tweet is almost completely inaccurate.

Probably this original post would be best self-deleted. Most people will not click the link and get the actual facts.

[laserhaas]

56. You mean..mist people like you

Fact..

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/380360-indiana-gov-signs-law-requiring-doctors-report-abortion-complications%3famp

Failures to report complications would result in a Class B misdemeanor, which are punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000 in Indiana

.

[MineralMan]

57. For pete's sake. I read both links and there's nothing

in them about doctors quizzing female patients about past abortions anytime they treat a woman. The tweet is simply and terribly incorrect about this bad bill. You have access to the actual stories, so quote them in your OP, not some inaccurate twitter post. That's my suggestion.

I do read links. In fact, I went to that tweet so I could click the link.

[laserhaas]

58. Obviously, you don't "get it"...I put this in GD instead of LBN

to have a "general discussion".

You are being absurd, in your (now baseless) arguments that the thread should be redacted...instead of the issue being "discussed".

Even worse when you confess you read both links

Shheesshh....

The state of India a Republicans have been extreme right wing and this BILL is so egregious.

WTF!

Did you neglect to read the whole thing from the HILL?

LOOK

Failures to report complications would result in a Class B misdemeanor, which are punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000 in Indiana.

Proponents of the bill say it's a way to ensure abortions are safe in the state, but opponents say it seeks to stigmatize abortions.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana said the bill was passed "under the false guise of patient safety" and it would consider legal action.

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R) signed a bill last week requiring abortion providers report similar information to the state

under the "false guise" of patient safety.

[Egnever]

95. Whats absurd is posting this bullshit in the first place.

[Ms. Toad]

71. Where in the tweet does it claim

The fine is for failure to report complications of an abortion?

Not there that I see, and both your headline and the tweet suggest it is the woman is at risk for failure to disclose past abortions.

[laserhaas]

75. Not my Tweet

And the link to the actual as is in the updates

[Ms. Toad]

84. You chose to post it,

Without explanation that the tweet itself contains virtually no truth at all, is not supported by the article it links to, and to post an inflammatory false caption that declares women who do not disclose past abortions will go to jail.

And you watch post after post pile up, outraged that doctors will be asking every patient about past abortions - and that women will be jailed if they do not disclose previous abortions.

And you don't bother to say, "Oops. My bad. My information source was making stuff up. Here's the real truth."

We should not be mimicking Republicans by posting whatever fake news comes along just to generate outrage. And - when we discover our original posts are nonsense, we ought to correct them, rather than doubling down on the fake news.

[ck4829]

51. HIPAA, 14th Amendment, etc.

[ismnotwasm]

52. They want info on complications from abortions

And ignore the many and well documented complications from pregnancy. Assholes

[TBA]

54. My take-away

They are trying to gather data on the possible complications of abortions. I don't think if you go in for an eye exam they will ask about abortions.

Not that I agree... plenty of studies have been done on the safety of the procedure. But the headlines sensationalize the article.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

60. My guess: They are trying to "prove" that abortions are harmful

presumably to build up a case for eventually totally banning them. Of course, anti-choicers have pushed the same junk science for years (decades?) about "abortion regret" and other medical conditions supposedly caused by abortions. I predict that they will find little evidence to support their contention that abortion, performed correctly and under safe conditions, is harmful to women undergoing procedure. And, while I'm sure that some women may regret their decision, I don't believe that the vast majority do.

Slightly OT but this is the same legislature that saved us from the "scourge" of eyeball tatooing and gave us the ability to buy alcohol on Sundays but need an expensive "special session" to finish up all the other work that they neglected.

[laserhaas]

61. Exactly... this new law states a fetus is a person from day 1

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/update-new-indiana-law-requires-all-doctors-to-quiz-women/article_6250f5f9-b0a2-5e85-a5a8-f691ff6295bc.amp.html

Fetal personhood?

Holcomb additionally approved Senate Enrolled Act 203, which anti-abortion advocates say brings Indiana closer to embracing fetal personhood.

Under the new law, which also takes effect July 1, a fetus at any stage of development is recognized as an individual separate from its mother if her pregnancy is terminated due to a violent crime or drunken driving.

Current Indiana statutes require a fetus to attain viability, or roughly 24 weeks gestation, before it is considered a separate person for prosecution of feticide, or a second count of murder, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter if both a pregnant woman and her fetus are killed.

The new law pushes that timeline back to the moment of conception and provides for either an additional charge for the death of the fetus if the perpetrator knew the woman was pregnant, or a 6- to 20-year penalty enhancement if the perpetrator did not.

[riversedge]

66. What about reporting gunshot Complications to the STATE!!

[laserhaas]

76. Very good point

The goal of this BILL ..is to gather purported facts to fight abortion

[metalbot]

92. Well, to be fair, that's legally required in most states

A hospital IS going to report gunshot wounds to the police, even if you come in and say "Hey, you know, I was just minding my own business in the garage, and then 'blammo' my shotgun went off into my shoulder. Just stitch me up - it's all good."

[bluestarone]

67. Just NO END TO THERE BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[laserhaas]

77. Unfortunately

[Blindingly apparent]

73. This is an attempt to connect every hysterectomy, case of ovarian mcancer, case of cervical cancer

And STD to abortion. The goal being to outlaw all abortions as unsafe. The state Will have to step in simply because abortions are too dangerous. They must protect women’s lives

[laserhaas]

78. Hopefully, the ACLU and others will step in

This BILL is absurd.

[Eliot Rosewater]

79. This is what NOSE HOLDING and WHINING about a candidate does!

[MrsCoffee]

88. What the everloving fuck.

[laserhaas]

91. Our nation is in retrograde rollback of everything good

It sucks - big time

[roamer65]

93. Time for you all to either join the ACLU or up your contribution.

I increased mine last week.

[Hoyt]

101. Reply N/A.

[Demit]

102. The tweet in your post is incorrect in what it asserts.

Nowhere in either article does it say that "every time a woman seeks medical or psychological treatment she MUST be quizzed about past abortions."

I don't know if Cathleen is making an innocent misinterpretation or a deliberate one. But I have now read both articles linked to, and the relevant section of the law, and her contention is NOT corroborated.