Supporters of the Oklahoma bill claim that women will be kept anonymous because their names and county of residence will be omitted. Women who oppose the bill point out that women, particularly in rural areas, could be identified based on the data requested. And what does the new law ask?

NPR reports:

The survey in Oklahoma's new abortion law includes some of the following questions: Would having a baby dramatically change a woman's life, or interfere with her job or education? Is she unemployed, or unsure of a relationship with the father?

"This is not going in and getting a wart removed. This is a procedure that ends a human life," says Oklahoma state Rep. Dan Sullivan. He says the law is valid and necessary.

"And because it's a special procedure, we believe that it's appropriate to be able to find out why these are going on and if there is something that we can do to change that," Sullivan says.

CNN has more information on the questions posed:

The law requires doctors to fill out a 10-page questionnaire for every abortion performed, including asking the woman about her age, marital status, race and years of education.

One section of the "Individual Abortion Form" says the woman must state her reason for seeking an abortion and answer this checklist. "Having a baby:
• Would dramatically change the life of the mother;
• Would interfere with the education of the mother;
• Would interfere with the job/employment/career of the mother."

So what part of the reasons why women have abortions is a mystery? Proponents of anti-choice laws (many of whom are in the state legislature) seem to want to pretend that they care about women and want to invade their privacy in order to "help." But what are they planning to do? If a woman says it she is aborting due to financial concerns, are they going to funnel money into family support programs, and job training? Doubtful, particularly considering how the last law that Oklahoma tried to pass regarding abortion required doctors to describe the fetus during the ultrasound.

The survey - combined with the desire to make the information accessible to the public - reflects a larger push to stigmatize women making the choice to end their pregnancies. It is in this way many opponents of the right to choose hope to work around Roe vs. Wade. Instead of challenging the law outright, they attempt to chip away at the protections and make it more and more difficult for women to obtain the services. After all the talk of trying to "help" women, the bottom line is always the same:

Why draft the legislation?

"I'm pro-life," he says. "Oklahoma is a conservative state. We are a pro-life state, and I believe it's important public policy to stand on the side of sanctity of life."

After all, if anti-choicers are interested in reducing abortion, it's clear what needs to be done.

Linda Meek, executive administrator of Reproductive Services in Tulsa, Okla., says [the law is] discouraging and intrusive to patients.

"If they want to reduce the number of abortions, then they need to concentrate on educating women about preventing unwanted pregnancies, educating them about emergency contraception, birth control - and making birth control more accessible," Meek says.

Nelson rejects abortion compromise [Politico]
Abortion Reporting Requirements Across The Country [NPR]
Oklahoma Abortion Law 'Invasive,' Critics Say [NPR]
Online posting of women's abortion information challenged in Oklahoma [CNN]

Stephanie Toti, an attorney for the clinic that challenged the law, said it was more extreme than all similar statutes because it would have required women not only to undergo an ultrasound, but also to "hear medically irrelevant information" about it. The law also allowed clinicians to opt out abortions for moral or religious reasons, required women to sign a consent form before abortion, and prohibited wrongful-life lawsuits that allege a disabled child should not have been born.

Tony Lauinger of Oklahomans for Life said prior to the ruling that women needed a description of an ultrasound in order to make "an informed opinion" on whether to terminate a pregnancy. he also said that allowing a woman to go through with abortion without such a description might cause her "extreme psychological problems." It's a little inconsistent that a group so intent on pushing an unnecessary scan that some critics call "emotional blackmail" (Oklahoma's governor originally vetoed the ultrasound lot because he did not want to force victims of rape or incest to look at a picture of the fetus) seems to care so much about a woman's psyche, but in fact supporters of the law aren't saying what they really mean.

Oklahoma's Special Assistant Atty. Gen. Teresa Collett said, "Common medical practice is to require doctors to provide patients information that's necessary for them to make informed decisions." But ultrasound laws aren't really about giving the patient more information. Many doctors say there's no medical reason for the scans. As Focus on the Family's Jim Daly revealed yesterday, though, there is a political reason: his group believes that 65% of women who see an ultrasound don't go through with the abortion. An ultrasound in this case isn't information, it's propaganda, and requiring it is based on the notion that women are in denial about their abortions and should be forced to look at an image of the fetus as a tool to talk them out of it.

None of this is why Oklahoma judge Vicki Robertson overturned the law yesterday. She said the law, which never went into effect, violated the Oklahoma Constitution because it dealt with more than one subject. The Oklahoma clinic that issued the legal challenge had also argued that the law was vague about how exactly a doctor should describe an ultrasound. Collett disputed both points, saying that all the law's provisions dealt with "the taking of human life" and that it required doctors to "tell a woman about the dimensions of the fetus, as well as the presence of a heartbeat, arms, legs and internal organs." She plans to meet with state officials to discuss an appeal.

Oklahoma Abortion Law Overturned [AP, via LA Times]
Judge: No Required Ultrasound For Abortion [CBS]
Judge Rules Oklahoma Abortion Law Unconstitutional [NewsOK]
Judge Hears Arguments Over Abortion Law [Tulsa World]
Ultrasound: Latest Tool In Battle Over Abortion [Christian Science Monitor]

This kind of abuse of power, of course, is nothing new. (We saw something similar earlier this year when immigration official Isaac Baichu who asked a Colombian woman for oral sex in exchange for her green card.) And for now, Burgess is out on $50,000 bail, although, if he's convicted of all the charges he currently faces, he will get a sentence of 467 years in prison. Hey: Maybe he and douchenozzle Joe Francis can share a cell!

Prison Sex-Slave Operation Alleged [AP via CBS News]
Custer Co. Sheriff Resigns In Sex Scandal [The Oklahoman]

Earlier: Immigration Official Makes Colombian Woman Do Oral For Green Card
Dear Florida Governor Charlie Crist, If You Can't Charge Joe Francis With Hate Speech, Here's An Idea