Oklahoma to make providing abortion a felony
Category: News & Politics
Via: john-russell • 2 years ago • 95 commentsBy: Carmen Forman (USA TODAY)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
As abortion rights groups rallied at the Oklahoma state Capitol on Tuesday, Republican House lawmakers gave final passage to legislation that would make performing an abortion a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison or fines of up to $100,000.
The GOP-backed bill that passed the Senate last year now goes to Gov. Kevin Stitt, who has vowed to sign all anti-abortion bills that come to his desk.
Planned Parenthood Great Plains Interim President and CEO Emily Wales said Senate Bill 612 is "clearly unconstitutional."
"We'll take it seriously and certainly consider our legal options," she said.
Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, the author of SB 612, touted the measure as the "strongest pro-life legislation in the country right now."
The bill would make it a felony to perform abortions except those deemed necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency.
Rep. Jim Olsen, R-Roland, the House author, said the bill requested by anti-abortion group Students for Life will make abortion "entirely illegal."
"The penalties are for the doctor, not for the woman," Olsen said.
Oklahoma Regional Coordinator for Students for Life Faith Elwonger praised Oklahoma for taking steps to lead the way for a "post-Roe America."
"Protection from conception is the new status quo," she said.
As Republican lawmakers approved SB 612, more than 100 abortion rights supporters gathered outside the Capitol to decry a slate of at least seven anti-abortion bills moving through the Oklahoma Legislature. Several of the bills would virtually ban the procedure entirely.
On the steps of the Capitol, people chanted "keep your bans off our bodies" and "we are fed up" as they waved signs supporting Planned Parenthood and encouraging access to safe and legal abortions.
Texas' Senate Bill 8 has shown how much harder it is to defeat unconstitutional anti-abortion legislation with a conservative U.S. Supreme Court, Wales said.
The civil enforcement piece of the law that some Republican legislators in Oklahoma are trying to copy also makes it hard to defeat such legislation in the courts, she said. The Texas law allows private citizens to sue people who help women seek an abortion after a "fetal heartbeat" is detected.
"I would really call it a race to the bottom," Wales said. "Texas, in a way, inspired other conservative, anti-choice politicians to go as far as possible and be as extreme as possible."
Related:Oklahoma could ban most abortions if US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade
Abortion bans could have a devastating effect in Oklahoma and across the region because the Sooner State has become a safe haven for many women seeking an abortion after Texas last year enacted a law that bans most abortions after six weeks into a pregnancy, she said.
Since SB 8 took effect in Texas, Planned Parenthood clinics in Oklahoma have seen an 800% increase in the number of Texans seeking abortions, Wales said.
Referencing Democrats' small minorities in the GOP-led Legislature, Tamya Cox-Toure, a co-chair of the Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice, said reproductive rights activists know they don't have the votes to stop anti-abortion bills.
But the "Bans Off Oklahoma" rally was intended to bring people together to fight for reproductive rights and let legislators know that abortion is essential health care, said Cox-Toure, who also is the executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma.
"Regardless of what happens today, regardless of what happens with Roe and regardless what happens with abortion access in Oklahoma, we are coming together right now to say everyone deserves health care," she said.
Senate Pro Tem Greg Treat, R-Oklahoma City, is among GOP legislators pushing anti-abortion legislation this year. Among the bills he has proposed is a measure that would prohibit most abortions 30 days after the start of a woman's last menstrual cycle, often before a woman knows she is pregnant.
Treat said he will continue to push for policies to protect the unborn.
"It's disheartening and sad to think so many people rallied at the state Capitol to celebrate the abomination that is abortion," Treat said in a statement. "It underscores the urgent need for lawmakers to pursue policies at every level to protect life at all stages. I am hopeful that abortion will be illegal in Oklahoma and at the federal level one day."
If Stitt signs SB 612, the legislation will take effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns in May.
Tags
Who is online
429 visitors
I hope Oklahoma goes through with this. It will make it easier for the Democrats to keep both houses of Congress in November. Taking away abortion rights could destroy the Republican Party.
The alleged conservatives seem to think they have it in the bag.
I sincerely hope they're wrong.
[deleted]
Do you really think moderate independents are going to go along with all these ban abortion plans? Good luck with that.
The dopey and dumb Dems are going to lose bigly...no matter what!
I am sure moderate independents have thoughts about this issue. Thinking that this issue in and of itself is important enough for them to decide who to vote for might be wishful thinking. While some democratic voters might consider abortion rights to be the most important issue I would not be so sure moderate independents feel the same way. While it may be a factor in their decision I would think it might not be the over riding factor. At this point crime, economy and parental rights may be more important to them than something that will have very little, if any impact on their lives.
No matter what? So even if more voters vote for the "dems", they will still lose? Is that what you are claiming? Are you admitting to republican efforts to overthrow our democratic republic and just install who they want as leaders?
It should be important to anyone who can see a decision beyond today and through to its logical conclusions. Accidental pregnancies happen with alarming frequency. It costs a literal fortune to raise a child now days, and thanks to ever widening income inequality the option of terminating a pregnancy will have far greater implications on those of lower income. Everything that conservatives complain about on an ideological level will only worsen with a ban on abortion. The poor will get poorer, the prisons will get more crowded thus prompting more early releases, reliance on public assistance will balloon, homelessness will increase, emergency rooms will be more swamped - it does not take a psychic to see where we will be headed. If abortion gets banned, American society will have no choice but to eventually bring it back.
It costs zero dollars to turn a baby over at designated locations, which every state has.
What about those that are right down the center?
What a wonderful option!
I can't tell what you are asking, or is that just another lame comment on my screen name?
It costs zero dollars to turn a baby over at designated locations, which every state has.
People get abortions for more reasons than cost. How is it ethical to promote the burdening of society with hundreds of thousands of unwanted children? How does that solve anything?
You brought up the cost of raising unwanted kids. No mother has to incur the cost of raising an unwanted kid t if she doesn't want to.
ethical to promote the burdening of society with hundreds of thousands of unwanted children?
Are you saying adopted kids are burdens to society?
But killing hundreds of thousands of "unwanted" children to save a few dollars in the short term (kids grow up and pay taxes and allow the welfare state to exist, you know) isn't really "ethical" either.
I believe people have a tendency to think about their lives today and maybe next year and not a hypothetical what might be in 10 or 20 or never in the future based on a decision today. I am not sure alot of people look at this vote as a predictor of what you are saying. I am fairly sure not many people have connected the dots as you have. For instance my brother in law tried to convince me that the supreme court throwing out the vaccine mandate would eventually lead to anarchy starting with everyone refusing any vaccination, even the ones we have all been taking for years. He also connected all the dots leading to that conclusion. Needless to say that never happened and I doubt it will. Even if what you hypothesis could be true on the current course alot can happen between now and then to change the course.
I can say when someone starts a sentence with "you should" I usually ignore the rest because all they really mean is you should think like me.
Are you saying adopted kids are burdens to society?
In 2019, a total of 625,346 abortions were reported. Do you seriously think there is demand for hundreds of thousands of baby adoptions per year?
But killing hundreds of thousands of "unwanted" children to save a few dollars in the short term (kids grow up and pay taxes and allow the welfare state to exist, you know) isn't really "ethical" either.
Who is killing children?! They should be arrested.
.
You were saying.
The other slightly less than 1.4 million couples that would be left waiting to adopt will just have to suffer for another 2 or 3 years for enough babies to not be aborted; and given up for adoption. I am sure no couples would be added to that waiting list during those years either.
At least the left's love affair with abortions helps out babies born in other countries that are unwanted. It is a booming business getting couples match up with babies from abroad. That is if they can afford it.
I said “logical” conclusions. My points are based on a logical extension of the current state of society. Income inequality is not reversing course, it’s only getting worse. Those who benefit from it have zero inclination to rethink the issue and will angrily demonstrate that there is no line where it even becomes a legitimate concern for them. This is not an environment that is conducive to adding hundreds of thousands of unwanted children to poor families, or expecting them all to be welcomed into wealthy families via adoption. All my points are logical extensions.
As to the question of independents on abortion rights, here is a poll by the Pew:
Please notice that both left and right-leaning independents are for abortion rights and most people in general are.
Other sources put that number closer to one million, and they’ve likely been in the game for years. 600k per year will deplete an accumulation of 1 million very quickly. And this is an overly simplified conversation to begin with. 600k new births will produce how many with disabilities? Are the adoptive parents obligated to take them? Obligated to care for them? How many immature mothers will simply not treat their pregnancies with a healthy disposition? You can force an abortion provider to close, but you can’t force a pregnant mother to take care of their pre or post natal child that they don’t want.
Well, if abortion becomes illegal ( a big if) we will see if your logic holds water. In the meantime I doubt many moderate independents follow your logic when trying to decide who to vote for.
I saw that but I don't believe it really speaks to how they would vote and if there feelings on this in particular issue would be a major factor in determining who they vote for. Just being for abortion rights does not necessarily translate into voting democrat. It only does if that is the overriding issue in making the decision. My point is I don't believe it is the overriding factor when independents are deciding who they will be voting for. It may be a factor but I contend not a very big factor. Not enough to change the balance of power in the US and possibly destroy the Republican party as some have suggested.
We named it the Dark Ages for a Good Reason
I thought that an Italian named Petrarch, called it the Dark Ages because the Germanic people toppled the Rich, Christian, Roman Empire. Petrarch thought that it caused the deterioration in the quality of Latin literature.
He favored the ancient Roman traditions to and believed that the teachings of the ancient Romans were the apex of human achievement.
Is that what you really believe?
You understand the Dark Ages were probably the least "Christian" of any era since Constantine?
Bigots with memes aren't a good source of history.
Since when are memes required to present historical accuracy? You guys are really straining . I think people who see the meme will get the point. You can agree with it or not as you see fit.
Thanks, but I don’t use dictionaries to read about history. If you or Tessy want to really understand the beginnings of that time, Chris Wickham’s Framing the Early Middle Ages:Europe and the Mediterranean is a good start. The book integrates documentary and archaeological evidence to create a comparative history of the late Roman and immediately post-Roman era from Denmark to Egypt.
Thats nice. Has nothing to do with the message of her meme though.
Oh, so you don’t think that there was any attempt at historical accuracy but only a political opinion parading as history.
Since when are memes required to present historical accuracy?
Apparently, there is no requirement for accuracy, historical or otherwise.
So misinformation is fine so long as it serves your agenda.
Take your silliness elsewhere please.
I assume you would agree that memes are propaganda, and not held to strict standards of "accuracy".
I think her meme presented its viewpoint in an appropriate way.
Let’s celebrate the Oklahoma law! Thank God for another red state making the premature termination of human life more difficult!
[deleted]
Think about this, too. Today they ban abortion. What will they ban tomorrow?
Where are they going to get this pre-natal care? If they close the PP clinics, lots of poor women won't get any care...unless you want to hear a sermon at some pregnancy crisis center
That's the thing about republican voters, that have shown over and over that they are willing to vote against their own self interests. They have been brainwashed to the point they vote based on the "R" or "D" after the candidates names, not based on what the candidates stand for.
They don’t call it the “party of no” for nothing.
Does anyone with at least half a brain really care what "they" have to say?
Needlessly argumentative comment noted.
It is called a question but you believe whatever you want to make you feel better or like a victim.
That’s a real question? Lol. The Republicans are called the party of no because they vote no on things they would otherwise vote yes on as long as it was their initiative and not the Democrats. That level of ludicrous partisanship is something everyone should care about.
"Needlessly argumentative comment noted."
[Deleted]
While I might agree both parties seem to want to know what the other party is thinking about an issue before they decide how they feel about it I am not willing to say Republicans would have been pro abortion if the democrats said they were against it first. Of course we will never know for sure.
Republicans get abortions too, for lots of reasons. It’s not just a Democrat issue.
Yes, they do - and then go right back outside and picket the abortion clinics.
Theirs are the only justified abortions.
Stop trolling me
Agree but the original comment was about independents and this issue being the over riding factor on how they would vote. But you bring up an interesting point. I am sure there are Republicans that vote republican even though they may agree with democrats on this issue, and visa versa. I think that shows the abortion issue is not an issue that determines how alot of people vote, some, but maybe not an overriding majority of voters.
Agree but the original comment was about independents and this issue being the over riding factor on how they would vote.
How about voting based on the repugnance of Republican hypocrisy?
If people voted against repugnant hypocrisy we would no longer have anyone to vote for in either party.
It's the republicans and the alleged conservatives who are guilty of the repugnant hypocrisy, and those who claim to be right down the center, not the Democrats.
projection, the mental process by which people attribute to others what is in their own minds. For example, individuals who are in a self-critical state, consciously or unconsciously, may think that other people are critical of them.
Yea, yea , yea
That is the best you can do? Don't bother to answer, it is a rhetorical question. You could have just said you were not capable of having a rational discussion and left it at that.
Have a nice day
So you agree.
Nope, it is what I said to my 6 year olds when they just kept repeating the same thing again and again and again and again.
Nice try though
Have a nice day,
I'm sorry, would you have preferred someone else's definition?
Were have you read about successful brain washing techniques?
Wherever ive discussed most anything with a Trump supporter.
Wherever ive discussed most anything with a Trump supporte
So you mean layman opinion, you’re not following the science.
i don;t follow
much
of N E thing, and when i do comment, whereas i interject my opinion geared towards possibly, with an open and unbiased mind that which is usually very hard , to, can't find,4 i am usually criticized for my methods and writing mannerisms, and can, except, i'm not acceptable, to too many, so i accept my writings to be wrong, for none of the right reasons, for often, left out, are they that cannot accept my process of thought, so, i might suggest, as food for thought that they can't seem to Reader Digest, to perhaps, as others have done and up brought, the fact they went out and bought, a Food for Thought Processor that they thought sought might solve the communication breakdown while not gaining weight, to put behind an ever growing wait for so many on the "right" to admit they weren't, and wound up left, behind, but you don't strike me as one with 3, that in their spare time choose to cause balls to bounce higher when wons who have lost do not a tempt to take the gutter, for as high as many and as low as any, i will go, and though self uneducated, i'll r gue arguably with any, but only for the sole purpose of those awesome shoes one never seams to get to pick or choose, four width balls in hand i roll down the alley with shoes that don't fit, accept a clown like me or not, because, i don;t lesson the like for those that do or don't, cause all i dont know, is an awful lot, but, all i got, and through this particular point of view, everyday taught somethingnew, as to Y peep holes can't vi\ew like i don't like too, is that in such a by choice decision, so few control, so many by floating out that which seem,s to sink into the littered, cluttered, and dirty mind. Thjus why brain washing is not the absurd, just the old way to attempt to cleanse, malleable minds, so easy to bend on straight away lies on banked turns that are incapable to admit how theyre right know matter not, the idea, that ive never got X from them, a sense that many know much and such derived from multi[le different and varrying sources not, so as to find as many ways as possible, to be critical of that which i wrote, and knot hard to see , that critical thinking skills are not for all and come without the Remote, possibly while i'll do my best and try to stall, as not here to please any, for just here to vent, that which too often gets lost in the shuffles , is far too often, the realm, reality, that seems years ago was given up on, as possibly, given up for Lent , as people , prey, upon people and the event, that the upcoming N'or Easter, might Passover , in the Left behind lane, for the 'right' lane is all backed up with people in see through glass convertibles, in line for the Auto Wash...but Drinker, they often don't dry.
Democrats are the dictionary definition of [deleted.] The GOP sans it’s establishment are paragons of virtue in comparison
It looks as though Texas & Mississippi opened a can of worms with their overly restrictive abortion laws.
I'm waiting for Roe to be overturned and then "Big Data" can work to overturn HIPPA on the same grounds (there is no right to privacy). Considering how much a cash cow healthcare in the US is right now that data has to be worth a shit ton of money.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the difference between a "right" and legislation. HIPPA was created by Congress in 1996. It can be overturned by Congress at any time, no matter what happens to Roe or any other Supreme Court case. The "right to privacy" has nothing to do with HIPPA.
No... Rights are the foundation of law. If the right doesn't exist then the legislation can be found unconstitutional. If this long held unenumerated right to privacy is overturned it opens a whole hornet nest of consequences that I'm pretty sure conservatives won't like.
Not a fan of abortion, but I think there are other issues that are pressing. Forget D or R, both undertake this garbage, but why? Money. They are getting money. Someone posted an article on the common good. We are so far beyond anyone actually going to DC or their respective state legislatures to promote the common good...this is what we are getting:
One of the best movies ever. I am willing to bet that Hollywood would not even consider making a movie like that today.
But to your point we are not even getting that much out of our current group of representatives. At least the ones in the movie were entertaining, now they measure their success on how many sound bites they get on cable news.
"It's twooo, it's twooo." Who comes close to Mel Brooks? When you see a movie labeled as "Funny, Irreverent" these days...what a let down. Mel's work was truly irreverent and funny. Can you imagine a Brooks/Chappelle collaboration? No, because we can't even laugh at ourselves anymore.
I get tired of hearing how much "work" one of them has done, or how many bills they have sponsored. I don't give a damn how many bills you sponsored, especially if half of them involve the renaming of a road.
Why is getting an abortion anybody's business?
Its not. But some people feel compelled to make it their business. Go figure.
Anyone against abortion should never engage in behavior that might lead to one.
I agree, they should use their head.
Thanks for the tip.
Oklahoma Pinup Woman
Nah,….
The 1940s NYC Broadway Pioneer Woman?
Easy target Buzz, easy target.
I believe I read somewhere that children from incest may have reduced intelligence, and of course I would think that the genes from rapists are not exactly the ultimate to pass on, so obviously the Republican Oklahoma govenment intends to create as many new voters as possible for future elections.
You connect the dots like Jackson Pollock, Buzz.
I appreciate your compliment. Perhaps my comments will become as highly valued as Jackson Pollock's works became.
One can hope.
You connect the dots like Jackson Pollock, Buzz.
Coincidentally I also had scrambled eggs for breakfast this morning.
If you decide to post your comment a third time I have a reply ready for it as well.
I love scrambled eggs, well whisked, lightly cooked in butter, finished with fresh herbs and pepper.
Never thought of doing that, just used salt and combined them with lightly fried cherry tomatoes. Next time will try adding some herbs and/or spices as well.
I usually whisk with a little half and half as well.
I like mine with sausage crumbles or bacon bits (sometimes both), cheese, and a bit of Cajun spice. I also use milk for fluffiness.
To see a good example of what can happen with generations of incest or inbreeding if you will, research the Hapsburg linage of early England.
Look for evidence of microcephaly
"Microcephaly is a problem with the way the brain or nervous system grows. Children with microcephaly have heads and brains that are smaller than usual. Children with microcephaly often have intellectual disability, seizures, coordination and balance problems , and other syndromes." ( raisingchildren.net.au/guides/a-z-health-reference/microcephal )
Yes, it's the "intellectual disability" that I had in mind when I made my original statement about incest. Republican lawmakers will stop at nothing to ensure that enough Texans will be intellectually disabled in order to guarantee Republican governance longevity.