Oklahoma's despotic new abortion law

A couple of days ago Oklahoma passed two laws that force all women who want an abortion in the state to listen to an ultrasound of their fetus before the abortion is performed, and even more egregiously, allow doctors to lie to their patients about the state of the patient's pregnancy if they believed that the information would lead to the patient performing an abortion. How anyone can defend this, especially the second part, I have no idea. I'm not going to get into the abortion debate in this post, but the illegality and immorality of these laws is amazing. Starting with the second law, Oklahoma is, in essence, telling doctors that they should perform their jobs wrong. Am I the only one who recognizes how ridiculous that is? The effects this law would have are chilling. Patients could no longer trust their doctors at all to tell the truth about their pregnancy. Every Oklahoman woman will now, for the entire length of their pregnancy, have a little doubt in the back of their mind about the health of their baby. There will be no peace of mind for an Oklahoman mother. Furthermore, if it turns out that a couple is going to have a deformed baby, they will now not know about this until the baby is actually born. The emotional maelstrom that this will cause for thousands of Oklahoman families is wrong and unfair. And what if the baby is so deformed that it does not survive outside the woman's body? Is it okay to allow doctors to not inform families of this devastating possibility? This law could have broad-reaching economic effects as well. Many who live close enough to Oklahoma's border might decide to go to special pregnancy clinics outside of Oklahoma because they cannot have peace of mind with an Oklahoma doctor. That's tens of millions of dollars that could be leaving the state.

Moving on to the first law, it's hard to dispute this part without getting into the whole abortion debate, which I refuse to do. But I will say this; this sounds an awful lot like what the southern states did to get around the 15th amendment (giving blacks the right to vote) back in the early 1900s. In fact, it's the exact same strategy. Both groups were saying 'The act itself cannot now be taken away, so we'll make it as hard as possible to commit the act, while still allowing it to be legal.' It has changed from poll taxes to ultrasound hearings, but the spirit is the same. Furthermore, do the wonderful congressman of Oklahoma realize the scarring effect this could have on a family? Abortion is not an easy decision to make, and to require the parents to listen to the babies heartbeat right before performing the procedure is grotesque and macabre (I can't wait for the comments saying that this is why the procedure shouldn't be performed in the first place).

Luckily, there is no real way this law will pass muster in a court when it is sued for its illegality. The law requires a woman to have an operation performed on her body (the ultrasound) that she does not want. The government has no power to do that. It also requires the doctor to perform the procedure, which it also doesn't have the power to do. Furthermore, I'm unsure, but I bet there are federal laws requiring doctors to disclose all information to their patients. This law would go against that, and federal law always supersedes state laws. The number of ways this law is unconstitutional make it highly improbable that it will stay on the books for long.

So can any of you find any way to defend this law? I will not engage in any debates about abortion, but you're free to comment whatever you want.

Jason Campbell: the franchise QB who was never given a fair chance

     Unlike most people, I was sad to hear that Donovan McNabb had been traded to the Redskins. While I agree that McNabb is an upgrade over Campbell right now, he is clearly not the team's franchise quarterback (he has probably three good years left in the league). The Redskins had a franchise quarterback in Campbell. With the worst offensive line in football (he was sacked 3rd most in the league), some of the worst receivers, and a revolving door of different offensive systems, Campbell played pretty darn well. He had a 64.5% completion percentage, which was 10th best in the NFL and better than Tony Romo, Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, and Donovan McNabb, among others. His overall passer rating was 86.4, not great, but good enough for 15th best in the NFL (out of 32 QBs) and better than, among others, Carson Palmer, Vince Young, and Matt Ryan. While he didn't have amazing stats, Campbell did increase his statistics every year in every major category, showing room for further improvement. The point is that Campbell was a good quarterback who had a chance to get a lot better and turn into a real franchise cornerstone for the Redskins and the Redskins blew it.
      When examining any trade the main question has to be, 'how will this help the team compete for a Super Bowl'? Even with McNabb the Redskins will still suck next year. Those who say they can make the playoffs next year just because of McNabb are crazy. They will still have one of the worst offensive lines in football, regardless of who they draft. Their running backs are the best running backs in the league three years ago, but today all are over the hill.While their young wide receivers showed progress last year, overall their receiving corps still sucks. Their defense is pretty good, but their cornerbacks are all fairly bad. So McNabb won't be any use this year. While the Redskins could legitimately become serious contenders three years from now, there are significant doubts to that as well. After that it's unsure how good McNabb will be. McNabb seems to be a stopover until the Redskins draft a "real" franchise QB, despite the fact that they already had one in the first place in Jason Campbell.

      So did I misrepresent some of the facts in my post? Am I overestimating Campbell's skill? Comments would be appreciated.