Oklahoma Legislature Has Just Passed A Bill Making Performing An Abortion A Felony…


#1

The Oklahoma Legislature has passed a bill that would make performing an abortion a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.
The Center for Reproductive Rights says the measure is the first of its kind in the nation. The bill also would restrict any physician who performs an abortion from obtaining or renewing a license to practice medicine in Oklahoma.
With no discussion or debate, the Senate voted 33-12 Thursday for the billby Republican Sen. Nathan Dahm.

A handful of Republicans joined with Democrats in voting against the bill, which now heads to Gov. Mary Fallin. A spokesman says Fallin will withhold comment until her staff has time to review it.

Dahm says he’s hopeful the measure could lead to overturning Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide. Abortion rights groups have said the bill is unconstitutional.

Oklahoma lawmakers OK bill criminalizing performing abortion


#2

It’s only “unconstitutional” IF the Constitution actually permits the killing of the unborn on a whim. It doesn’t.


#3

I deleted the duplicate thread.


#4

So fake conservative Mary Fallin vetoed the bill and hopefully we can override her veto. Mary hasn’t been conservative since she voted for TARP in DC. We need better GOP choices in Oklahoma.

Sent from my SM-T537R4 using Tapatalk


#5

… well the constitution doesn’t give rights to the unborn.

But the constitution does give the right to privacy in the 4th Amendment and during the Roe v Wade case, the supreme court declared abortion as a matter of privacy. I understand you don’t agree with the ruling, but as long as that ruling stands, everything against that premise is considered unconstitutional.

I know back in the days of 2014 their school system had very limited to no sex education programs. Maybe along side of telling people you should only have sex when you get marry… also teach them if you’re going to have sex, use protection and birth control when they have sex.

If this state simply make birth control a right… we wouldn’t have any unborn deaths due to mistakes, we wouldn’t have unready parents who were thrown into the situation if they simply had an abortion, and we wouldn’t have what some consider as broken families.

Or for the people who don’t want to get the government involved…Like how most conservatives should… in between your pro life rallies, pass out information on birth control and support education on how to not get pregnant during sex…instead of only trying to teach kids life starts at conception.


#6

There is no qualifier for Rights in our Constitution other than being a person, while those thirsty for the blood of innocent babies hate that truth it is no less true.


#7

yeah… if you’re unborn are you a person? I don’t see it in the papers…

But how about the pro life and pro choice people simply agree on trying to eliminate unwanted pregnancies… instead of just trying to ban abortion which yields to no results.


#8

I’m not sure liberals are persons, guess we can all decide that individually while we think what restroom we identify with these days.

Sent from my SM-T537R4 using Tapatalk


#9

Recently i read a warning about attacking the post and not the person… Anyway, the cheaper and easier thing to do about ‘abortion’ is heavily sponsor education about birth control and subsides some of it. Birth control is cheaper than an abortion.


#10

There is no definition of “person” that would exclude an unborn baby, killing them is a violation of their Right to life, liberty, property and Due Process; there is NO Constitutional argument that can be made otherwise and reading the drivel that is Roe v Wade is the evidence to that claim.


#11

There is a definition and argument… the one this country is currently using. You don’t agree with it, sure, but that definition does exist… much like how black people were property.

You want to stop abortion… good, best way is to support birth control and make abortion unnecessary… instead of bringing up narrow definition on purposely vague writing and claiming your exclusive definition is the right one…


#12

[quote=“JEWilliams, post:7, topic:48769”]
yeah… if you’re unborn are you a person? I don’t see it in the papers…

But how about the pro life and pro choice people simply agree on trying to eliminate unwanted pregnancies… instead of just trying to ban abortion which yields to no results.
[/quote]Attempting to ban abortions and working on eliminating unwanted pregnancies are not mutually exclusive things, and the fact you want to eliminate unwanted pregnancies has no bearing on the validity of and no relation to either a pro-life or pro-choice position.

[quote=“JEWilliams, post:9, topic:48769”]
Recently i read a warning about attacking the post and not the person…
[/quote]I’m guessing you really don’t understand what attacking an RO member looks like, but this wasn’t it.


#13

[quote=“JEWilliams, post:11, topic:48769”]
There is a definition and argument… the one this country is currently using. You don’t agree with it, sure, but that definition does exist… much like how black people were property.

You want to stop abortion… good, best way is to support birth control and make abortion unnecessary… instead of bringing up narrow definition on purposely vague writing and claiming your exclusive definition is the right one…
[/quote]a
Actually not. There may be an “argument” but there is no such definition, and the “argument” is that a woman and her abortionist should have the exclusive right to kill her unborn child regardless of what the child might want. In other words, her baby is her “property”–but ONLY until it has been born when it becomes the property of the State which can decide unilaterally how that baby is to be cared for, fed, cleaned and educated.


#14

Eliminating unwanted pregnancies has no bearing no relation to pro-life or pro-choice? How do you figure?

If you bother to listen to the pro choice side, they’re all about prevention… which is one of the biggest service with Planned Parenthood. If your prevention is successful, you never have to be faced with the choice of getting an abortion, which pro-life people should want…

Please explain how issue has nothing to do with pro-life and pro-choice position… I see it does because it yields real results compare to trying to get the government to ban something.

For the attack the post not the person…With most of you calling me a liberal, saying I’m not a person isn’t an attack, but doubting someone’s credibility is. Okay fair enough.


#15

Yeah… when the pro choice people say a fetus isn’t a person, you already know they are excluding the unborn. I don’t understand why you’re arguing it doesn’t exist. It does, you just don’t agree with it because you and your side ‘do’ include the unborn as a person. Individually you get to decide… legally it doesn’t necessary include the unborn as a person.

But you know what, all the more reason to focus on sex education and how to prevent a pregnancy during sex… instead of letting the government go crazy with insane laws in order to burden people who want an abortion.


#16

No, there is no Constitutional argument being made now or in 1972 for abortion on demand.

If there was, all of those who are thirsty for the blood of babies would have made it decades ago.


#17

No, but we were talking about what constitutes as a person

Though the person I was replying to said there is no such thing as a definition of a person that exclude the unborn… that is false

I do believe it’s a bit rude and misleading to go on and treating that here are people who are out for baby blood… If people like you work with people who want to prevent unwanted pregnancies with birth control, you could make abortion unnecessary. But if your goal is to just throw money to pro life groups and call the other side baby killer, technically you’re helping to kill babies with the simple fact pro choice states have less abortion while states like OK tend to have more even though they have more anti abortion laws.


#18

And I already said that there is no definition of a person that would exclude unborn babies, if there was such a definition then those thirsty for the blood of babies would have cited it decades ago.


#19

The definition they are using ‘now’ is the one that exclude the unborn… considering them fetuses. You don’t want to accept their definition of a person… but it’s there.

Though my first response was the simple fact the unborn isn’t necessarily apart of the constitution and that they don’t necessarily have rights. But I don’t see this as either here or there. You want to stop abortions… there is a way instead of using a broader definition of a person or prohibiting a medical procedure.


#20

If you had a definition for “person” that excluded unborn babies you would simply cite the definition, in fact you would have cited it decades ago as would the Supreme Court who established this holocaust.