Oklahoma Legislature passes bill criminalizing abortion

[GMDino]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/oklahoma-abortion-criminalization/index.html

Quote: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.

[BmorePat87]

That won't last long.

[Rotobeast]

Hmm.... more misdirection ?
Or.... just play to their base chest-thumping ?

[Belsnickel]

(05-19-2016, 09:53 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Hmm.... more misdirection ?
Or.... just play to their base chest-thumping ?

It's an election year, so the latter.

[Au165]

There should be penalties for blatantly unconstitutional legislation that does nothing but waste tax payers money. This is the legislative equivalent to a frivolous lawsuit.

[Belsnickel]

(05-20-2016, 09:46 AM)Au165 Wrote: There should be penalties for blatantly unconstitutional legislation that does nothing but waste tax payers money. This is the legislative equivalent to a frivolous lawsuit.

I disagree, and here is why. While I think this is a pointless move they do have the intention of taking this to the courts in an effort to approach the argument in Roe v. Wade another way, essentially getting the court to overturn the decision. Do I think it's wrong and pointless and a waste? Yes, but not everyone does. Also, a blanket way of approaching that would be far too ambiguous. How do we determine what is really a waste and what is not?

[Au165]

(05-20-2016, 09:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree, and here is why. While I think this is a pointless move they do have the intention of taking this to the courts in an effort to approach the argument in Roe v. Wade another way, essentially getting the court to overturn the decision. Do I think it's wrong and pointless and a waste? Yes, but not everyone does. Also, a blanket way of approaching that would be far too ambiguous. How do we determine what is really a waste and what is not?

There are already laws for frivolous lawsuits where judges determine what a waste of time is. This law goes directly in the face of a legal precedent that is already set at the highest level. It is pretty easy to see that if abortions are legal, making providing an abortion illegal is not going to stand. This whole game legislatures are playing where they think they can "out semantics" the courts is embarrassing.

[Belsnickel]

(05-20-2016, 10:14 AM)Au165 Wrote: There are already laws for frivolous lawsuits where judges determine what a waste of time is. This law goes directly in the face of a legal precedent that is already set at the highest level. It is pretty easy to see that if abortions are legal, making providing an abortion illegal is not going to stand. This whole game legislatures are playing where they think they can "out semantics" the courts is embarrassing.

So the difference is that (in theory) the legislature is acting in the interest of their constituency, which is a lot different than a lawsuit brought because you hurt yourself with a product because of your own stupidity or something. I get what you're saying, and I agree it is embarrassing, but I don't feel like this would be a rabbit hole we would want to go down. We are in a republic and legislatures are our elected representatives. Like their decisions or not, taking away their ability to attempt things like this actually reduces the power of the representatives branch of our government and thus the people.

[*bfine32*]

Didn't we have this exact same thread a few months back? Because I remember asking the same question: If a state wants to outlaw abortions of convenience and challenge Roe v. Wade what other option do they have?

[GMDino]

(05-20-2016, 11:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Didn't we have this exact same thread a few months back? Because I remember asking the same question: If a state wants to outlaw abortions of convenience and challenge Roe v. Wade what other option do they have?

To allow abortions as they are and not assume women are partying on the way down to the clinic?

Luckily everything is OK is tied to the abortion epidemic.  Solve that one problem and suddenly life there will completely turn around for everyone.

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2016, 11:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: To allow abortions as they are and not assume women are partying on the way down to the clinic?

Luckily everything is OK is tied to the abortion epidemic.  Solve that one problem and suddenly life there will completely turn around for everyone.

So much for asking a legitimate question without someone pulling out their soapbox.

[*PhilHos*]

I hope the Governor signs this into law. The abomination that is abortion should be eliminated from our society.

[Au165]

(05-20-2016, 12:17 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I hope the Governor signs this into law. The abomination that is abortion should be eliminated from our society.

The only abomination will be the amount of money wasted as they eventually deem it to be unconstitutional.

[*PhilHos*]

(05-20-2016, 12:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: The only abomination will be the amount of money wasted as they eventually deem it to be unconstitutional.

Trying to save lives is NEVER an abomination no matter HOW much money is "wasted".

[Au165]

(05-20-2016, 12:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Trying to save lives is NEVER an abomination no matter HOW much money is "wasted".

Yea, that just goes into the whole "when is it a life" debate and I'm not really interested in doing that right now. No none wins and it just goes round and round.

[GMDino]

(05-20-2016, 12:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So much for asking a legitimate question without someone pulling out their soapbox.

What was legitimate about your question?

That you want to know how a state can ban abortions legally?

They can't.

Next.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-20-2016, 12:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Trying to save lives is NEVER an abomination no matter HOW much money is "wasted".

So we should appeal the second amendment as well, correct?  How about lowering the speed limit to 40 mph?  We could outlaw alcohol and tobacco too.  All of these would save lives so I assume you're for all of them.

[Au165]

(05-20-2016, 12:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So we should appeal the second amendment as well, correct?  How about lowering the speed limit to 40 mph?  We could outlaw alcohol and tobacco too.  All of these would save lives so I assume you're for all of them.

See this is why I didn't want to go down this path haha.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-20-2016, 12:43 PM)Au165 Wrote: See this is why I didn't want to go down this path haha.

Oh, and football too.  Banning football would undeniably save lives.

See, I like Phil, but his argument, and all others like them, are based in their religious beliefs.  I don't want legislation decided by anyone's religious beliefs, ever.

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2016, 12:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: What was legitimate about your question?

That you want to know how a state can ban abortions legally?

They can't.

Next.

Perhaps someone that can read and has an informed opinion will chime in. Thanks.