PDA

View Full Version : Oklahoma Legislature passes bill criminalizing abortion



fricnjay
05-19-2016, 09:23 PM
http://i.imgur.com/xf6AspM.jpg

By Shawn Nottingham, Ariane de Vogue and Eugene Scott, CNN

Updated 4:06 PM ET, Thu May 19, 2016
National Governors Association chairwoman Gov. Mary Fallin speaks at the National Press Club in January 2014.

(CNN)The Oklahoma state legislature has passed a bill that would criminalize abortion procedures in the state. According to the language of the bill, anyone who is found to have performed an abortion -- except in instances to save the life of the mother -- will be found guilty of a felony and can receive up to three years in prison.
The bill now is on its way to Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican, for final approval.
The governor has not decided whether she will sign the bill, according to her spokesperson Michael McNutt, adding that she needs time to review the legislation.

Once Fallin has the bill she has five business days to decide if she will approve the legislation. If she doesn't sign or veto the bill, it automatically becomes law, according to McNutt.
The Center of Reproductive Rights, has already called on Fallin to veto the bill, which the group says is in "contravention of long standing federal and state constitutional principles as well as basic human rights."
"This bill is as direct an assault on Roe v. Wade -- and the Supreme Court's subsequent jurisprudence -- as anything we've seen before. If this law is upheld, then (the Roe decision) is meaningless," said Steve Vladeck, a CNN contributor and law professor at the American University Washington College of Law, referring to the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
For purposes of a pregnant woman's constitutional right to choose, the Supreme Court has divided pregnancy into two periods: prior to viability (the point at which a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb) and from viability to birth, Vladeck said.
"In the latter period, states are allowed to prohibit abortions except where necessary to protect the health of the pregnant woman. But in the former period, states may not place restrictions on abortions that place an 'undue burden' on a woman's right to choose," he said. "Thus, the central problem with the Oklahoma law is its effect on pre-viability abortions. It should stand to reason that a categorical ban on pre-viability abortions (even with an exception where necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman) is, indeed, an 'undue burden,' and is therefore unconstitutional."

The development in Oklahoma comes at a time when the Supreme Court is considering a completely different abortion law from Texas that is more reflective of a new kind of challenge popping up across the country to abortion access. Laws, like the one in Texas, seek to place restrictions on access to clinics.
The Texas law requires doctors to have local admitting privileges and mandates that clinics update their facilities to hospital like standards.
Texas passed the law arguing it was meant to protect women's health, abortion clinics in the states say it is a "sham" law with no medical justification, and its real goal is to block abortion.
The eight-member Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case sometime by the end of June.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took to Twitter Thursday to condemn the legislature's decision.
"We can't sit by while extreme politicians attack women's basic rights. Not only is this unconstitutional—it's wrong," she tweeted.


We can't sit by while extreme politicians attack women's basic rights. Not only is this unconstitutional—it's wrong.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump previously showed interest in the idea of Fallin as a vice presidential candidate.
RELATED: Trump: Oklahoma governor as VP is 'great' advice
South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, a Trump supporter, previously said Fallin would be a great choice.
"I think he's going to say, 'Who can help me get the job done?' and I think he needs some balance, and I like Mary Fallin for that reason," Bauer said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Trump tweeted afterward
".@AndreBauer Great job and advice on @CNN @jaketapper Thank you!"

If Fallin approves the bill, critics would interpret the move as being consistent with one of Trump's more incendiary comments on abortion in the past.
On March, MSNBC host Chris Matthews pressured the business mogul to give a yes or no answer to the question, "should abortion be punished."
"There has to be some form of punishment," Trump said during a televised town hall event.
"For the woman?" Matthews asked, to which Trump replied, "Yes."
Trump declined to specify how women should be punished if they underwent an illegal abortion before later issuing a statement backing away from his previous comments.
"If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman," Trump said at the time. "The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed -- like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions."
RELATED: Trump reverses statement on women and abortion after outcry
Some members of Oklahoma's Congressional delegation, which is all Republican, told CNN they are watching the bill closely.
Rep. Markwayne Mullin "is a fierce defender of life and supports any policy that would protect the most vulnerable -- babies who cannot defend themselves," said Communications Director Liz Payne.
And Rep. Steve Russell "is watching this issue with interest, and is awaiting the Governor's decision," Communications Director Daniel Susskind said.

RBP
05-19-2016, 11:44 PM
Why are they bothering with this? It's clearly going nowhere.

Godfather
05-20-2016, 12:38 AM
I hope you're right RBP.

Whether folks want to hear it or not, abortion laws don't reduce abortion rates (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/05/11/abortion_rates_are_constant_in_developing_countrie s_while_developed_ones.html) (and increase unsafe ones)...This should be a 'no shit' tidbit for most but clearly not everyone.

Teaching abstinence doesn't work either. Contraception does work, but lawmakers who are against abortion or pro-abstinence are often not liberal towards making contraception readily available and teaching it to young adults so it's kind of a sad cycle where people have blinders on.

RBP
05-20-2016, 01:52 AM
I hope you're right RBP.

Whether folks want to hear it or not, abortion laws don't reduce abortion rates (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/05/11/abortion_rates_are_constant_in_developing_countrie s_while_developed_ones.html) (and increase unsafe ones)...This should be a 'no shit' tidbit for most but clearly not everyone.

Teaching abstinence doesn't work either. Contraception does work, but lawmakers who are against abortion or pro-abstinence are often not liberal towards making contraception readily available and teaching it to young adults so it's kind of a sad cycle where people have blinders on.

At the same time, however, the pro-choice side has been grossly irresponsible in not properly stating what Roe v. Wade is. As the article states, viability is the cut off. In the 1970's that was about 24 weeks. It hasn't greatly changed, but many prematurely born can survive prior to that.

What has happened is the left has conflated ANY restrictions as an attack on established constitutional rights. That is clearly untrue.

I really don't think there is much disagreement, despite the fringe screaming about it. The "no abortions ever" people are matched in their lunacy by the "no limitations on abortions ever" people. The president of planned parenthood testified that is a baby was born alive after a botched abortion, that decision to kill the child or not was between the parent and the doctor. :huh: I honestly believe that 90%+ of Americans are both anti-abortion and pro-choice. It is not a decision they would make for themselves, but don't feel they have the right to make that decision for someone else.

And this is all in the context of time limits. The very first question I ask a fervent pro choice person is "should there be any limits?" The answers is always a strong "no". So my next question is, "what about shortly after birth?" And the answer is "of course not". Next is "so you think it fine for a woman, in labor, in the delivery room, to have the child about to be born killed. But five minutes later when the child is actually out of the birth canal, that a murder? What's the difference between those two children?"

I get a lot of blank stares.

So I ask everyone here... what is your limit?

I have historically been a first trimester person, but think 20 weeks is a fair compromise.

lost in melb.
05-20-2016, 09:30 AM
At the same time, however, the pro-choice side has been grossly irresponsible in not properly stating what Roe v. Wade is. As the article states, viability is the cut off. In the 1970's that was about 24 weeks. It hasn't greatly changed, but many prematurely born can survive prior to that.

What has happened is the left has conflated ANY restrictions as an attack on established constitutional rights. That is clearly untrue.

I really don't think there is much disagreement, despite the fringe screaming about it. The "no abortions ever" people are matched in their lunacy by the "no limitations on abortions ever" people. The president of planned parenthood testified that is a baby was born alive after a botched abortion, that decision to kill the child or not was between the parent and the doctor. :huh: I honestly believe that 90%+ of Americans are both anti-abortion and pro-choice. It is not a decision they would make for themselves, but don't feel they have the right to make that decision for someone else.

And this is all in the context of time limits. The very first question I ask a fervent pro choice person is "should there be any limits?" The answers is always a strong "no". So my next question is, "what about shortly after birth?" And the answer is "of course not". Next is "so you think it fine for a woman, in labor, in the delivery room, to have the child about to be born killed. But five minutes later when the child is actually out of the birth canal, that a murder? What's the difference between those two children?"

I get a lot of blank stares.

So I ask everyone here... what is your limit?

I have historically been a first trimester person, but think 20 weeks is a fair compromise.


I agree with the first Trimester approach. I don't like the idea of it at all, though. It's one thing to talk about it and another go through with it...at a moral level I understand the right to lifer's argument completely (once they take their annoying God out of it)

Pony
05-20-2016, 10:16 AM
I have historically been a first trimester person, but think 20 weeks is a fair compromise.

Agreed

Jezter
05-20-2016, 03:00 PM
I think the Finnish law is just right:


According to law approval for an abortion requires the signature of at least one physician (and in some cases two), and in some cases additional permission from Valvira (the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health). The period of the pregnancy also affects the granting of permission. The key periods are 0-12 weeks, 13-20 weeks, and over 20 weeks. One doctor's signature is enough in the case of terminations 0-12 weeks when the applicant is under 17 years old or has passed her 40th birthday, or if the applicant has already given birth to 4 or more children regardless of age. Otherwise two doctors' signatures are required. Reasons for approval are the potential physical or mental distress if the pregnancy runs to term; or if the pregnancy arises from a serious crime (e.g. rape or incest) or if an illness of either parent would make it difficult to provide a normal upbringing for the child. Reference to Valvira for review and decision is needed in all cases between 13-20 weeks; or when there are grounds that the fetus is abnormal (in which case the 20 weeks is extended to 24 weeks); or in any case where the doctor has given a negative decision. Above 20 weeks, a threat to the physical life of the mother is the only valid reason for terminating a pregnancy.

FBD
05-20-2016, 03:37 PM
"abnormal" is tough, they told my sis in law 5 or so months into preggo there was something odd that might result in a potential birth defect when she had my first niece and some of the docs actually recommended abortion, sisnlaw said hellsfugginno, and my niece is now an absolutely exceptional 14 year old with straight As and tops out her sports teams. quite beautiful, to boot.

Jezter
05-20-2016, 06:03 PM
"abnormal" is tough, they told my sis in law 5 or so months into preggo there was something odd that might result in a potential birth defect when she had my first niece and some of the docs actually recommended abortion, sisnlaw said hellsfugginno, and my niece is now an absolutely exceptional 14 year old with straight As and tops out her sports teams. quite beautiful, to boot.

Exactly why in Finland you need a special permission beyond 12 weeks...plus over here, the law requires that the Father must have a chance to be heard on the issue, albeit his opinions can be vetoed by the mother still. It's just a fair thing. Over here, majority of the abortions (less than 10k per year and declining) happens before the 8th week too...so I think we Finns have it figured out pretty well.

Education is key!