Henry's Veto on Abortion Bills Overridden--Now Law

[RecycleMichael]

I understand the legislature having elected members who campaign that they are going to stop abortions. It is the perfect campaign issue when you find an anti-abortion voter. The candidate could be a total creep, but if his opponent supports the laws of the land that allows women choice, he just says he will oppose abortion and he gets elected.

But then the legislator comes up with unconstitutional ideas, convinces his fellow politicians to vote for it, and we get a stupid law that forces us to spend millions of dollars in court. Everybody loses except for the lawyers. We have had so many of these laws that we might as well name them  "Lawyer Employment Bills."   

The House bill 2780 was a perfect example. It was going to require women to go through an unwanted and unneccessary medical procedure as an attempt to intimidate her. It was stupid, a bullying technique, and of course, unconstitutional.

For a party that says they want less government intrusion in our lives, they sure want to be involved in a women's womb. 

[Townsend]

I already have. No need to bring in a second brain cell in this thread. Our state legislature is no fan of abortion rights and seeks to restrict it (which I support). Your upset because of it.

Now, man up and admit you oppose restrictions on abortion rights. Otherwise, why "thank" Oklahoma for wasting its time and money.

You're still not there yet.

Of course I want women to have access to all medical procedures for their health.  Everyone should.

Oh hey look, RM hit that nail.

[patric]

For a party that says they want less government intrusion in our lives, they sure want to be involved in a women's womb. 

This never gets old  (NSFW)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0-drciLv7TI/T0_0jYoQXgI/AAAAAAAABTk/JebLBiXLmfk/s320/McIntrye,+Judy+Eason.jpg

[guido911]

You're still not there yet.

Of course I want women to have access to all medical procedures for their health.  Everyone should.

Oh hey look, RM hit that nail.

Wow. I didn't know we had so many constitutional law scholars in this forum. And silly me, I thought that an honest read of Casey and its progeny would not be inconsistent with these sorts of laws. I guess it takes New York lawyers to come down to Oklahoma to gives us a learnin'--which is what happened incidentally.

And RM. I will mark this thread for memory, as I do for several of your posts for potential flip issues, when it comes time for some dumbsh!t lefty law that gets appealed and reversed by an appellate court. We can talk about how much of a waste of money that was. Come to think of it, how much was spent arguing over Citizens United?

And T, do you think calling abortion a medical procedure as you said above makes it sound better? Again, man up and call it what it is. Say it with me:  "Of course I want women to have access to abortion for their health."

Finally, if you two or anyone else haven't gotten the memo, abortion is a heavily regulated process. Look in Title 63 and see the number of statutes that are in effect and, by the way, constitutional, and tell us again about the futility of making abortions tougher to get in this state.

[Townsend]

And T, do you think calling abortion a medical procedure as you said above makes it sound better? Again, man up and call it what it is. Say it with me:  "Of course I want women to have access to abortion for their health."

"Man up"?  It's common sense.  All women, everywhere, need to have access to safe abortion services.  If it is not available then it will be done in an unsafe manor and there will be horrible, unneeded deaths due to "back alley" abortions. 

There also needs to be universal access to birth control for everyone.

It's not reasonable to think because some faiths don't like it then birth control and safe abortion services shouldn't be available.

Remember, there is no sane person who is "pro-abortion".  I do want all people to have the ability to reach all services to keep them healthy both physically and mentally.

Google "unsafe abortions" or whatever subject line you'd like and have a read.

[Townsend]

Wow. I didn't know we had so many constitutional law scholars in this forum.

So since you're making a decision based on your faith, you're a religious scholar?

[cannon_fodder]

Guido:
The reason Oklahoma has a reputation for wasting tax payer money on laws is because we readily pass laws that largely have already been litigated.  Sometimes we will pass a law, have it thrown out, and then pass the same law again.  Usually this effort is driven by a desire to have a Christian State. Two obvious examples are our continuous efforts on abortion and placing religious monuments in public spaces.

The Oklahoma abortion law mandated a medical procedure that was had no medical basis and was solely intended to physiologically punish a woman who was choosing abortion in the hopes that she would choose the more Christian path and opt to have the child (in which case we can complain about poor people breeding and freeloaders taking government handouts).   If a woman wanted to have the child but it was deemed medically unsafe for her to do so – the law still dictated that she be tormented like all the other sinners.  On the face the law purports to be about making informed choices but even the attorneys for the State had to admit that a woman understands what an abortion is and that the law was intended to dissuade people from exercising their constitutionally protected right (you can disagree, but under Supreme Court jurisprudence it is a right). Mandating an unneeded medical procedure to interfere with a constitutional choice is a law waiting to be tossed.
Instead of concentrating on punishing women who are making a decision that is often a mistake (abortion) done to escape another mistake (unwanted pregnancy), why not help prevent the initial mistake or try to turn the initial mistake into a blessing for someone else? 

Every credible study indicates that abstinence only programs work as well as the "just say no" campaign, which is to say not well at all.  States with the weakest sex education system have the highest teen pregnancy rates --- a trend that follows the "Bible Belt."  http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=37&cat=2   The Oklahoma Republican Party has not been successful undoing a million years of evolution and it would be wise to stop trying.  The correlation between teen pregnancy and states that voted Romney is terrifying... evidencing that preventing teen pregnancy has really become a political  issue where conservative states simply refuse to realistically address. There is a problem; the hippy states have a way of solving the problem -  education.

I understand the Catholic faith has a real issue with sexuality and birth control. A  faith should always be free to teach its adherence to ignore knowledge they gain, but I do not think that is a good argument to keep that knowledge from people.  Arguing that education about birth control should be kept from people because of religious doctrine is arguing that a disproportional number of Oklahoman teens should get pregnant because we have more Christians.  It doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, if an unwanted pregnancy does occur – let's make it as easy as possible for the mother to offer the child up for adoption to families spending thousands of dollars trying to have a child.  I'm no expert on this process, but making the process easier for both sides would be a great thing.  I know it wouldn't stop all abortions, but if people that don't see an abortion as a religious issue can at least see it as wasting a pregnancy that could make someone else happy... it could do some good.

The argument against abortion always boils down to religion.  So let's stop and ask what would Jesus do?  He would sympathize with the sinner and try to provide a better way.  I'm guessing He wouldn't torment the sinner and ignore the actual cause of the sin.

You mentioned Citizens United as a wasted litigation effort comparable to Oklahoma's abortion law.  Please recall that Citizens United was a landmark case that had profound implications.  That case did not litigate an issue that was long dead and a foregone conclusion.  Many of Oklahoma's  laws that are mocked could be successfully challenged by a law student after Con Law II.  Out of State lawyers come in because they make a living challenging and collecting fees for overturning obtuse laws without fear of pissing off the population.

See you when the next monument case comes up and gets tossed so we can talk about how the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American law (except for 8 of them, which are purely religious laws.  But those other 2 are definately Christian...well, and every other civilization on the planet).

c_f

[guido911]

So since you're making a decision based on your faith, you're a religious scholar?

Well there's the strawman of all time. Think harder.

[guido911]

Guido:
The reason Oklahoma has a reputation for wasting tax payer money on laws is because we readily pass laws that largely have already been litigated.  Sometimes we will pass a law, have it thrown out, and then pass the same law again.  Usually this effort is driven by a desire to have a Christian State. Two obvious examples are our continuous efforts on abortion and placing religious monuments in public spaces.

That's just not accurate. Like I wrote earlier, look at Title 63 before you go off on this angle about litigation of abortion rights. There are "constitutional" restrictions all over that statute which would not be there but for legislative risk. Now, I'm sorry that you feel that ultrasound is not a medically necessary procedure for the mother, the baby might think otherwise. But apparently their views do not count, since the mother's "rights" trump. And I would also suggest you look nationwide and see how other states deal with this issue as well. Numerous states are testing the limits of Casey all the time. And that right there is what laypersons, and even lawyers not versed in this area of the law, do not understand. Here's a link about the most pro-life, pro-abortion states.

http://www.lifenews.com/2009/01/22/nat-4770/

And sorry T, if you support abortion rights, you are "pro-abortion". If you opposition abortion rights, you are "anti-abortion".  If you favor the death penalty, you are "pro death penalty", and if you oppose it, you are "anti-death penalty".  If you favor involuntary servitude, you are "pro slavery". If you oppose it, you are "anti-slavery". That's how that works.

As for the 10 commandments/monuments issue, this will be a problem in the foreseeable future since the evolution of the restrictions on religious matters has been just a few decades--particularly with schools--and that's evolving before our eyes. Same goes for Roe since that opinion is a mere 40 years old.

Like it or not folks, this IS Oklahoma. It's a God fearing state, and for reasons all its own it chooses to fight issues it believes worth fighting. We have states/cities that litigate the crap out of immigration, tort reform, size of soft drinks, school vouchers, etc.  Thinking Oklahoma is different is just blindness.

As for Citizens' United, the foundation of that opinion was set in the late 1800s. It was "landmark" only to the extent that it angered so many people who could not grasp the concept of "corporate personhood", or its firm entrenchment in law.

[cannon_fodder]

"That's not accurate at all..."

You failed to point out anything in the quoted statement that was not accurate.  We do readily pass laws that have already been litigated.  We do sometimes pass the same law again and have it overturned again.  It is driven by a desire to be a Christian state (which you later elude to). 

I realize there are restrictions on abortion in our laws.  That has no bearing on my point.  I have never argued that you cannot have restrictions on abortions in the United States of America.  We have restrictions on gun ownership too – but that doesn't prove that Oklahoma can ignore the second amendment.

And the ultrasound is not a medically necessary procedure to conduct an abortion.  In the sentence after passively asserting that it is a necessary procedure  you then (again passively) elude to the fact that the purpose of the procedure  is to protect the fetus.  Since we are having a discussion about the legality of abortion the correct answer is NO – the views of the fetus do not count and the rights of the citizen (mother) do.   I realize you don't like that based on religious grounds.  However, such  is not relevant in the discussion of the legality of the matter.  (Please forgive me for not going to "lifenews.com" for a well balanced view on the abortion debate.  I posted to Kaiser's health institute, which is renowned for health statistics and I looked at realclearpolitics for the election map., purposely trying to point to neutral sources instead of abortionsforall.org)

"Pro-abortion" by definition indicates a person is in favor of or encouraging abortions.  That is seldom the case.  Everyone I know who is "pro-choice" thinks abortions are something that should not be favored.  Just as most people who are Pro-Life  are not anti-women's rights.    The correct nomenclature would be "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights."   Thus attempting to be as descriptive as possible while not attempting to mislabel a position for political gain ("pro-abortion" and "anti-women's rights"). 

Per the 10 Commandments – the issue has been well settled by the Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts are generally in agreement.  There are certainly areas to be ironed out and it will continue to evolve.  But it is hard to argue that passing a law against Islamic Law and then posting a Christian Monument on the Capital isn't sending a message about what "God" our state fears.  Which is kinda' sorta' the point of the Anti-Establishment clause we are all so found of.  (I'm actually in favor of religious education as a study of sociology including the Christian stories – which would allow the posting of the 10 commandments in classrooms along with other ancient writings which I agree and disagree with, but understand the position of those that would be uncomfortable having their children exposed to the beliefs of others in school...)

Per Citizen's United – the concept of corporations being people too has been around since at least the 1600s.  It existed before the founding of the United States.  But the concept continued to grow and expand.  Citizens United was a landmark case in the scope and breadth of the decision in placing corporations at or above the rights of a citizen on many levels.  An entity with rights that has more wealth  than anyone else, that by its charter cares nothing for anything but its own profit, and that will never die.  Until Citizens United the idea had been flirted with, but never codified.  It was a huge case with giant implications (see, e.g., more money spent on this campaign than ever before... by far).   Now that corporations have the freedom of speech, it will be interesting to see if Corporations have religious rights or the right to arm themselves on a corporate level.  Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma throwing out the abortion law  has no wide reaching effects even in this state.   (I'm not vehemently opposed to the decision in Citizens United as I have not read the entire holding closely enough to argue with it.  But I would like to see transparency laws in political contributions.  If the "Pot Smokers USA party" wants to fund Obama, fine... but the citizens should be aware of it).

Finally, yes, this IS Oklahoma.  A state that strives to be a fundamentalist Christian state with all the love that entails (except for gays, non-Christians, womens' rights groups, unions and anything seen as anti-busienss)  .  But this is also the United States... in which the Church is supposed to be separated from the State.

The abortion discussion is just a continuation of how far the religious in our nation can go in forcing their beliefs on others.  Clearly honestly framing the issue like that would be a failure for the anti-abortion rights crowd, but it is hard to argue that the main issue is something other than that obvious statement.

My religious beliefs or personal needs don't come into play.  I'm not emotionally attached to either side, so I can argue from a detached position.  As most other people are emotionally attached to a position it makes it difficult to have a rational discussion.  Which is why I suspect the vast majority of my initial post and much of this post will go ignored and the same drum will be pounded over and over.  I love the debating, but now I'm stuck here until 8pm.  :-) 

[Townsend]

And sorry T, if you support abortion rights, you are "pro-abortion".

No reason to apologize.  You're wrong.

[Townsend]

Well there's the strawman of all time. 

Of all time?  Well congratulations to me.

Think harder.

Work on the originality.

[RecycleMichael]

And sorry T, if you support abortion rights, you are "pro-abortion". If you opposition abortion rights, you are "anti-abortion".  If you favor the death penalty, you are "pro death penalty", and if you oppose it, you are "anti-death penalty".  If you favor involuntary servitude, you are "pro slavery". If you oppose it, you are "anti-slavery". That's how that works.

I did not realize that you were in charge of what things are called. That must be a difficult responsibility.

I am pro-choice. You are no choice.

That's how it works in my world. 

[guido911]

No reason to apologize.  You're wrong.

Close the thread down. T wins.

[guido911]

I did not realize that you were in charge of what things are called. That must be a difficult responsibility.

I am pro-choice. You are no choice.

That's how it works in my world. 

Not in charge of anything. If it makes you feel better calling it "pro-choice", which could mean just about any damn thing you favor choosing, have at it. It's easier to call it "pro abortion", in my world, because that is the damned subject we are talking about.

Be proud of what you support--no need to run away from it. And just remember, there is a reason why things are "sugar coated", it makes whatever you are taking go down a little better.