Equal and Opposite Reaction: Pro Aborts Fight Back


For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Sir Isaac Newton

Sometimes, the laws of physics sound political. Never is this more true than with Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion.

This third law states simply that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is talking about the push-pull of the forces that create motion in pairs of forces.

Think about it.

You use your legs to kick when you are a swimming. Every time you kick, you “push” against the water. But — and here’s the reaction — the water is also pushing back against you. That’s why you can go from one end of the swimming pool to the other. It’s also why you make waves while you’re doing it.

8 1 1 protest

In politics, this action-reaction thing gets a little more vocal. Here’s a for-instance. Pro abortion people managed to get the Supreme Court to legalize all abortions from conception to birth by judicial fiat. Pro life people reacted by pushing back with laws that regulate the abortion industry.

Now, the pro aborts are reacting to that reaction and bringing out laws of their own making the regulations illegal. These laws, which are being introduced at both the state and federal level, put an ironic lie to the old pro abortion claim that they want abortion to be safe, legal and rare.

Pro abortionists consistently oppose any and every law that seeks to regulate the abortion industry. They do this to the point that I have personally seen women who are pro choice — as opposed to pro abortion — begin to get a bit antsy about it.

I’ve even seen pro choice women come out in favor of pro life laws because they see both the sense and need of them. For some reason I don’t quite get, this is not as true of pro choice men. I would guess — don’t know, just guessing — that this difference has something to do with the different perspectives men and women have of abortion.

The all-time King Daddy of this new opposite reaction from the pro abortion people is S 1696. The pro abortion folks have mis-named S 1696 the Women’s Health Protection Act. What makes S 1696 so special is that it’s not a state law. With S 1696, the pro abortion people are, quite literally, making a federal case out of it. They know, to use another tired old canard, that the way to shut down abortion clinic regulation in all 50 states is to use an Act of Congress.

1365053294126 cached

Federal law differs from state law in several ways, but the most obvious is that federal law affects the entire country, while state law affects only the states in which it is enacted. It’s a lot easier to change Congress than it is to change the legislative bodies of all 50 states. Plus — and this is also huge — Federal law seeps into every crack of state governance. The primary method of transmission is federal money.

S 1696 is, as I said, the all-time-King-Daddy of opposite reactions to efforts to regulate the abortion industry on a state-by-state basis. If S 1696 becomes law, and the Court upholds it, it will supersede any and all local authority in the regulation of the abortion industry.

The language of S 1696 is among the most specific I have read in any proposed statute. It reads like a laundry list of thou shalt nots, aimed specifically and without any attempt to hide it, at state statutes that the authors of S 1696 disagree with. As such, it’s not a proposed law as such things are generally regarded. It is, instead, a specific and deliberate overturning of a large number of state regulations in order to protect the laissez faire practices of one industry. It is special interest legislation at its most crude and obvious.

This whole thing is so rife with irony that it is, despite its seriousness, comical.

What we have with this King-Daddy of pro abortion bills are regulation-prone Democrats, fighting to completely deregulate one industry, while deregulation-prone Republicans are fighting to regulate it. To top that off, the bill’s authors have chosen to name this woman-endangering bill the “Women’s Health Care Protection Act.” The irony in that is obvious. This proposed legislation would erase any and all protections for women who undergo abortions and allow corporate, multi-state abortion chains to do with and to women as they please. It’s the opposite of women’s health care protection.

To steal a line from the movie Apocalypse Now, “Sometimes it gets so thick, you need wings to stay above it.”

Right now, S1696, which was authored by Senator Blumenthal, is languishing in the United States Senate, where it’s been since it was first filed in 2013. There are not enough votes to pass it. Even if it got out of the Senate, it would be deep-sixed in the Republican-held House.

Waac

That doesn’t mean the bill is doomed. It just means that it’s an idea whose votes have not yet been elected to power. Power goes back and forth in this country. Look at Congress today and know that what you see now will change radically in the future. The Rs may take over for a while, or the Ds may get control of both houses. Whatever is not, or whatever happens next, it will change. Eventually, everybody gets a turn at play.

There is no way this kind of legislation or this fight is going to go away so long as we continue to tolerate the two-party two-step on this issue. We can delay passage of S 1696, but we can’t stop it. Not with the tactics we’ve been using.

I’ve talked about the Republicans and corporatism quite a bit lately, and I’m going to do more of it as time goes by. But for today, let’s look at the Democrats and their love affair with all things libertine. The Democratic Party was once staunchly pro life. In my usual contrarian way, I was pro choice back then. Now that the party is staunchly pro choice, I’m pro life.

Go figure.

But I remember quite clearly when the legislation supporting the pro life cause came from the Ds. The switch began in the 1980s and was fueled, ironically enough, by the Moral Majority and its supporters. For reasons of their own, they decided to demonize the Democratic Party and cast it into the role of pro abortion. They lied — a lot — about Democratic candidates. I’ve seen some of the outrageous lies that were put out against pro life Democrats at that time, claiming they were pro abortion, pro beastiality, Communists and whatever else it took to beat them in elections.

This ended in pro life people leaving the Democratic party and the pro life Democrats who hung on becoming friendless political waifs. They were attacked by the religious right for being pro abortion, even when they weren’t, and shunned by their own party.

The result is the mess we have now: Two polarized parties, elected puppet people that only care about going at one another and carrying water for their party’s special interests, and a badly damaged country.

Senate Bill 1696 and its total subservience to the abortion industry is a symptom of this. The fact that it will, in time — years in the future, but it will — become law is a direct result of this silo approach to the pro life issue.

You can not create a culture of life with half the people.

Resolute

The solution — and it’s an obvious solution — is to convert the Democratic Party on this issue.

If that sounds tough, it is.

But it’s far from impossible. In fact, based on the scanty attendance at most precinct meetings, it’s highly do-able. It’s been done before.

What’s lacking is the direction. Pro life people are being led to keep on doing what they’ve always been doing. Forty-one years in, maybe we should think about trying something new.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That dictum holds true in physics without us doing anything. But in human relations, especially in politics, we’ve got to supply a bit of the gas to make those equal and opposite reactions happen. We have to be that equal and opposite reaction. 

We’re pro life enough to pray Rosaries for Life in front of abortion clinics. We’re pro life enough to go to Washington and San Francisco and points in between to march.

That means we’re pro life enough to go to a precinct meeting. We just need to know how.

Which, my friends, is why I’m here.

Stay tuned. We’re going to talk more.

25649823 sf

Texas and Abortion: This is How Pro Choice Created Gosnell

Convicted abortion doctor kermit gosn 001

I’ve written before that Dr Gosnell is the monster that pro choice built.

Dr Gosnell is the recently convicted serial killer/abortionist who operated what some people have described as a “chamber of horrors” in Pennsylvania.

I knew I would catch some flak for saying that, and I did. But I had said it advisedly, based on my experience on both sides of the abortion wars. I knew what I was talking about.

We are seeing the dynamic I referred to acted out once again in Texas; pro choice people are going over the top to fight the regulation of abortion clinics in the name of “women’s health.”

Wendy davis filibuster 660

About a week ago, Senator Wendy Davis of the Texas State Senate engaged in a 13-hour filibuster that resulted in a legislative train wreck for a good piece of pro life legislation. Her actions, along with some filibustering from the Senate gallery, effectively killed a bill that would have required that:

1. Abortion clinics provide the same kind of patient safety as any other ambulatory outpatient surgical center,

2. Doctors who perform abortions in clinics must have hospital privileges at a hospital that is within 30 miles of the clinic,

3. Abortion clinics provide their patients with a phone number which would be answered 24 hours so that they can call for medical follow-up to their abortions,

4. Abortion clinics give women the name and phone number of the emergency facility nearest to her home where she can go for medical care in the case of an emergency after her abortion,

5. Doctors, and not staff, prescribe drugs for a chemical abortion according to FDA guidelines, and that the drugs for chemical abortions may not be dispensed until after the prescribing physician has examined the patient and determined that she is not carrying an ectopic pregnancy.

6. Doctors who perform abortions who prescribe drugs for a chemical abortion also provide follow-up care, including a follow-up examination by the physician to determine that the abortion is complete and a 24 hour phone number in case the woman needs questions answered.

7. Doctors who perform abortions must report adverse affects caused by drugs used in chemical abortions to the FDA according to FDA guidelines.

These are the “outrageous” regulations that pro choice people are demonstrating to stop. In my humble opinion, there is not one thing on this list of requirements that even the most pro choice person would not want for their daughter if she was undergoing an abortion.

Doctors who do abortions — which are a surgery — should have hospital privileges?

Duh.

Abortion clinics — which are outpatient surgical clinics — should comply with the same health and safety regulations that every other outpatient surgical clinic does?

Abortion docs should examine their patients before surgery and follow up with them afterwards? They should report side effects of the drugs they prescribe to the FDA? They should make sure that women they give abortion-causing drugs aren’t carrying an ectopic pregnancy, when giving those drugs to a woman who is carrying an ectopic pregnancy can cause her to bleed to death?

Er

These regulations are exactly what anyone who is interested in “safe, legal” abortions should want. Frankly, I think the pro choice people should thank the pro life legislators who are pushing this bill for cleaning up their dirty little industry.

However, the pro abortionists have pulled out all the stops to kill this bill, including misrepresenting it to their own followers. I doubt very much that the many “pro choice” people in this country who are buying the stuff the abortion industry is putting out about this legislation actually know what the bill contains.

If they did, most of them would favor the legislation. Frankly, anyone who favors “women’s health” should favor this legislation. But they’ve been conditioned for many decades by the constant drum beat of pro abortion extremists to believe any stupid thing those extremists say. There is little actual thinking that goes into the positions they take on abortion.

I would imagine that even most of the legislators who oppose this bill think they are doing it because if they don’t women will be “sent to the back alleys.”

The Texas legislature can not overturn the United States Supreme Court. Roe is not in danger. What is in danger is the lives of the young women who go to clinics that are protected from providing good medical care by abortion zealots who are so caught up in their cause that they don’t have a genuine thought in their heads.

Abortion rally texas

I read this morning that there are plans for celebrities to come to Texas and speak against the bill. The whole thing has turned into a cause celeb, both literally and figuratively. After all, it turns out that many of the clinics in Texas will have to close because they can’t comply with operating like regular outpatient surgical clinics do.

They want, they demand, that they be exempted from providing good medical care to women because if they do have to provide the same level of care that other outpatient surgical clinics provide, it will endanger women’s health.

Does anyone know who’s on first?

Lessee …

What are we making sure of?

That women’s doctors are free to not follow up with them, don’t have to provide the same health and safety for them that they would for any other surgery, don’t need to examine them before doing surgery on them or administering dangerous drugs to them, and … get ready for this now … don’t even have to have hospital privileges at a nearby hospital.

That’s “women’s health,” abortion style.

Remember Dr Gosnell and his chamber of horrors? This kind of folderol is exactly how pro choice built that monster.

They fight against any and all pro life legislation on the grounds that even safety standards “narrow” Roe. They tell poor deluded women that if laws like this one pass, they will be “forced into the back alleys” again.

So what happens to the women?

A lot of them end up suffering harm that would have been prevented by better medical care. I’m not even talking about what happens to the baby here. I am talking solely about women’s health.

I had to have a couple of surgeries last year. I came home the same day after both of them. Neither of them was as risky as poking around in a pregnant uterus.

I can tell you that I wanted a doctor with hospital privileges holding the knife when he went to work on me. I wanted him to examine me beforehand and make sure that he knew what he was doing and that I was a good candidate for the surgery. I wanted health and safety standards dutifully enforced in the place where he did this surgery. I would have been outraged if I had learned that I was on my own after the surgery with no support or follow up if something went wrong.

Nobody anywhere was out demonstrating for the doctor who cut into my foot to be free to practice dirty medicine, not have hospital privileges and dump me after the surgery. Not one person thought it was outrageous or a violation of my rights that my doctor was required to practice competent medicine on me.

But if I had been a woman who was seeking an abortion, they would have been jumping up and down, demonstrating, filibustering, importing celebrities to defend my “right” to incompetent medical practices.

That’s how pro choice built Dr Gosnell and his chamber of horrors. It’s how they endanger women’s lives all over this country.

Look at this carefully and tell me: What’s wrong with this picture?

Texas Senator Filibusters for 13 Hours to Defeat Pro Life Bill

Senator Wendy Davis, Texas

I’m a pro life legislator, but I tip my hat to State Senator Wendy Davis of Texas for her dedication and incredible courage.

Senator Davis succeeded in blocking passage in the Texas legislature of what sounds like an important pro life bill by the exhausting tactic of standing on the Senate floor, mike in hand, and making a speech that lasted for 13 hours. Evidently, the Texas State Senate allows unlimited time for debate, which is necessary for this procedure to block a bill.

Why 13 hours?

Because the Texas legislature was in a special session that was set to adjourn at the end of those 13 hours.

Senator Davis succeeded in blocking passage of the legislation.

As I said, I don’t agree with her position on this issue, but I applaud her courage and sacrifice for what she believes. As one legislator to another, I know full well that what she did was exhausting and stressful to the point of being sacrificial.

All this points out one thing: There are pro choice people who believe absolutely that what they are doing is the right thing. I know this for sure because I was once one of them. That means that we need to pray for them with all our hearts, because they aren’t evil. They are just wrong.

That also means that those of us who are pro life need to continue in our efforts to save the babies by helping the mothers. I read an article a few days ago about the ways that pregnant women are discriminated against on the job. If you are pro life, then you have to be against that.

There is no place in the pro life philosophy for indifference to rape or violence against women. Likewise, we have to take forceful stands against the exploitation of women in pornography, prostitution and medical abuses such as paying women to undergo egg harvesting and surrogate pregnancies.

The pro choice movement tries to maintain their position by creating the entirely fallacious fiction that an unborn child is not a human being. Many of them also support the exploitation and degradation of women in pornography, prostitution, and the abuses of commercialized medicine such as paid egg harvesting and surrogacy.

I tip my hat to Senator Wendy Davis, one legislator to another. I don’t agree with her position on this issue, but I respect courage wherever I see it. My prayer is that she will one day see that her devotion to women’s rights can better be served by supporting the humanity of all people — born and unborn.

As for Pro life people, we are called to be all-in for the humanity of both the baby and the woman. I believe with all my heart that this is what God has called us to do.

YouTube Preview Image

Part 1: What’s So Bad About Gosnell?

Remember this?

YouTube Preview Image

This video is from this legislative session in Florida. It reflects the current attitude of Planned Parenthood concerning babies who are born alive during late-term abortions.

That’s the same Planned Parenthood we seeing throwing Dr Kermit Gosnell under the bus and condemning the very practices they paid a lobbyist to protect just a few weeks ago. I’ve written that Dr Gosnell is the monster pro choice built. Actions like the one in this video are how they built him.

Dr Gosnell only did what this lobbyist was working to protect. He was the physician. His patient had already voted that the baby should die by coming to him for his services. The Planned Parenthood lobbyist’s contention that the “decision” of what to do with a baby born alive during abortion “should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician,” was pretty well covered; the lobbyist’s oddball insertion of “her family” into the decision-making process notwithstanding.

So, what’s so bad about Gosnell?

Kermit Gosnell: The Monster Pro Choice Built

Pro life bloggers and tweeters have raised public awareness of the trial of Dr Kermit Gosnell, the late-term abortionist who is on trial for murder. It appears that the media is beginning to respond to this pressure with increased coverage.

However, when I asked the question earlier this week, Public Catholic readers told me they had seen coverage back when Dr Gosnell was first arrested. I did some looking around and turned up this incredible video by Katie Couric.

I’ve spent years working to pass pro life legislation. Much of this legislation involved trying to get true informed consent, parental consent and sensible regulations of clinics. The so-called pro-choice movement has fought every single one of these bills. Each time, they claim that the bill will “drive women back to the back alleys.”

My question: How is the “back alley” any worse than Kermit Gosnell and his chamber of horrors? I knew women who had illegal abortions back before Roe. None of them went through anything as bad as what is described here.

I am not advocating for abortion, either legal or illegal. What I am saying is that the obsessive pro-abortion attitude of our society has led to the empowerment of monsters who prey on women and subject them to “medical” care that is actually worse than the situations they use to justify their position.

There are many reasons why the media has ignored this story. One of them has to be the fact that they have been complicit in creating this situation with their blind defense of abortion, all abortion, under any circumstances, for any reason. They claim that they are doing this for women, but Dr Kermit Gosnell’s chamber of horrors puts that claim in question. 

Before abortion was legalized, proponents promised us a world where crime rates, drug addiction, child abuse would all drop due to the fact that every child would be “wanted.”

Wrong.

They also promised us a world where women no longer would endanger their lives because of dehumanizing back-alley abortions.

The message of Dr Gosnell’s unreported trial is, wrong again.

I think there are many reasons why the pro choice media has tried so hard to ignore this story. I would guess that chief among them is the reality they won’t admit: Kermit Gosnell is the monster they helped build.

YouTube Preview Image

Abortion is Everything. Women — or At Least Baby Women — Are Nothing.

Girl dog ice cream

Oklahoma passed a law against sex-selected abortions, a few years back. 

When we did, the bill was opposed by … “pro choice” advocates claiming they speak for “women’s rights,” including, of course, representatives from Planned Parenthood. 

Imagine my lack of surprise when I learned that Planned Parenthood is, once again, opposing a bill that is against sex selected abortions. I would guess that you know this, but in case you don’t, misogyny has long included a willingness to kill baby girls. In the days before Christ, it was a commonplace in much of the world to “expose” baby girls. What that means, basically, is toss them out and let them die from exposure, hunger, thirst, wild animals, etc.

Christians, with their stubborn insistence on the worth of every human being, ended this by the simple facility of refusing to do it themselves, going out and rescuing these little girls and raising them, and, of course, by condemning the practice in a manner that today would be called “judging.” It took time, but the practice of dumping baby girls along with the household refuse stopped. This has been true everywhere Christianity is embraced.

It’s taken two long millennia, but the practice of baby girl killing is rearing its ugly head once again in the so-called Christian world. The manner and means of accomplishing this slaughter is two-fold: Identifying that an unborn baby is, in fact, a girl, and then performing an abortion to do way with her.

Asian girl

This practice is called sex-selected abortion, or gendercide, and it is so widespread in places like India and China that it has unbalanced the population ratio, leading to a shortage of young women to be brides. Misogyny is such a stubborn evil that, instead of making these cultures value baby girls more and stop killing them, this shortage of girls has led to kidnappings, forced marriages and families of brothers “sharing” one wife.

What does this have to do with the United States and Planned Parenthood? Just this. Birth ratios in certain ethnic groups are becoming out of whack here in much the same way they have in other parts of the world. This leads to the conclusion that sex-selected abortion is probably being used on baby girls in those populations. Planned Parenthood clinic workers have been videoed by Live Action helping women arrange to abort a baby because it is a girl.

At the same time, Planned Parenthood and “pro choice” activists always seem to show up to oppose legislation to that would make sex-selected abortion illegal.

A case in point is a current piece of legislation in Florida. That’s the same Florida which is considering a bill to require that babies who survive an abortion be given medical care and not just killed; the same Florida where the Planned Parenthood lobbyist famously spoke against this local Infant Born Alive act.

The short title to the legislation is here. For those of you who don’t want to traipse over to look at it on another web site, here is what it says:

 

SB 1072: Termination of Pregnancy Based on Sex or Race of the Unborn Child

GENERAL BILL by Evers

Termination of Pregnancy Based on Sex or Race of the Unborn Child; Citing this act as the “Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act”; prohibiting performing, inducing, or actively participating in a termination of pregnancy knowing that it is sought based on the sex or race of the child or the race of a parent of that child, using force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection termination of pregnancy, and soliciting or accepting moneys to finance a sex-selection or race-selection termination of pregnancy; providing criminal penalties, etc.

 

Planned Parenthood tried to play coy about its opposition to this bill. They always do. Here in Oklahoma, they said they opposed the bill because it was “unnecessary.” It Florida, they say the bill is “harmful.” They layered on a bit of what Planned Parenthood is always about in Florida by adding that instead of “wasting time” on “harmful” bills like legislation that would end sex-selected abortion, Florida lawmakers should focus on “expanding health care.”

I personally think that anytime Planned Parenthood talks about “reproductive health” they mean abortion. I also think that anytime they talk about funding for “health care” or expanding “health care,” they mean more money for Planned Parenthood. 

So, I see their alert on Florida’s bill to ban sex and race selected abortions as a one-two punch for Planned Parenthood. Tell legislators to kill this ‘harmful’ bill, they say, and at the same time, encourage them to give Planned Parenthood more money.

You can find this legislative alert by Planned Parenthood of Florida here. I also made a copy in case they take it down.

Preview of  Urge Senators Gaetz and Bean not to agenda harmful bills  Planned Parenthood

The bottom line here is that abortion is more important than women’s lives to these folks. The only way around that conclusion is if you perform whatever moral lobotomy on yourself it takes to believe that killing baby girls before they are born simply because they are baby girls is somehow or other a good thing. You then have to take it a step further and convince yourself that ending this egregious practice is “harmful.”

The question I wanted to ask when I read this legislative alert was “Harmful to whom?” Who does it harm to make it a crime to abort a baby girl just because she’s a baby girl? It seems to me that the “harm” is all on the other side of this equation. 

In addition to the alert, I’m going to put an oldie but a baddie down below. Here is a video of a Planned Parenthood worker advising a young woman as to how to go about obtaining an abortion just to “get rid of” a baby girl. 

YouTube Preview Image

It’s a Baby! It Always Was. But Now We Can See It.

How can anyone say that an unborn baby is not a human being?

I don’t know, even though I once did it myself. Based on my memory of myself at that time in my life, I would guess that people who say this are focused on what they see as the welfare of the pregnant young woman to the exclusion of the life of the child.

Even though they say that the baby is not a human being, what they really mean is that the human being who is standing right in front of them seems more important than the human being who is largely a hypothetical to them. It’s easy to be pro choice, or pro abortion, when you focus exclusively on the pregnant woman.

On the other hand, it’s easy to be anti-abortion (as opposed to pro life) if you focus entirely on the unborn child.

True pro life people can not ignore the welfare and lives of either one of them. That is our task.

The task of recognizing the humanity of the baby gets easier every day, thanks to technological advances which allow us to see this child for what he or she really is — a fellow human being. We can look into the womb and see the unborn child in ways that were unimaginable when the abortion movement began.

Back in those days, what we knew of human embryology was based largely on a study of the embryos of animals, or even insects. Human embryos simply weren’t available for wide scale study. The only way to peer into the womb was surgery.

Thanks to advances in ultra sounds and 3d scans, that is no longer true. New advances in this technology have just raised the bar even higher for those who want to deny the humanity of the unborn child.

I am going to link to an article from Mail Online which has some incredible photos and a video of an unborn baby taken using this new technology. Please go there and look at all these photos. You’ll be oohing and aahing over this baby just like I was.

Hello baby! Incredible 3D scans allow

parents to see foetus SMILING and

MOVING in stunning detail

  • The state-of-the-art software adds extra detail to 3D ultrasound scans
  • Software developed by Dr Bernard Benoit to help detect malformations
  • Expectant parents can see unborn baby smiling and kicking in the womb

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

PUBLISHED: 06:23 EST, 29 March 2013 | UPDATED: 12:39 EST, 29 March 2013

A blurry blob on a hospital screen is the first view most expectant parents get of their child.

But new state-of-the-art imaging software is now able to map a foetus in incredible detail.

The software takes a conventional 3D ultrasound scan and adds colour, skin texture, lighting and shadows.

Scroll down to watch video

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2300983/Incredible-3D-scans-allow-parents-foetus-SMILING-MOVING-stunning-detail.html#ixzz2PPzQTrvf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Reps Hamilton, Peterson File Amicus Brief in Abortion Drug Supreme Court Case

I thought you might enjoy seeing this. The only public statements I will make about this are the press release below and the brief itself. Feel free to discuss it yourselves, though.

 

Oklahoma House of Representatives

Media Division

October 9, 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Authored: State Rep. Rebecca Hamilton

Authored: State Rep. Pam Peterson

Contact: Jason Sutton

Capitol: (405) 557-7421

Reps. Hamilton, Peterson File Amicus Brief in Abortion Drug Supreme Court Case

OKLAHOMA CITY – Today, Oklahoma State Representatives Pam Peterson, Republican from Tulsa, and Rebecca Hamilton, Democrat from Oklahoma City, are filing a “friend-of-the-court” brief in the Oklahoma Supreme Court, in defense of House Bill 1970, which regulates the use of drugs that are prescribed to cause an abortion.

“H.B. 1970 is a reasonable legislative measure that is intended to ensure the health and safety of women seeking chemical abortions,” Rep. Hamilton explained.

The law was challenged by Oklahoma abortion providers and was struck down by a state district court judge on state constitutional grounds.

“The district court’s determination that the Oklahoma Constitution confers a right to abortion cannot be reconciled with the text, history or interpretation of the state constitution,” Rep. Peterson said. “From territorial days to the present, the State of Oklahoma has recognized and protected the rights of unborn children in criminal law, tort law, health care law and property law,” she added.

Although, because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), abortion is legal in Oklahoma, the practice of abortion is subject to reasonable regulation like that provided by H.B. 1970. No federal constitutional claims were raised in the state court challenge. The case is Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, et al., vs. Terry L. Cline, Oklahoma Commissioner of Health, et al., Docket No. 110765.

The legislators’ brief was drafted by Paul Benjamin Linton, Special Counsel for the Thomas More Society, a national public interest law firm.

-30-


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X