Oklahoma, USA bill making abortion a serious crime, vetoed by Governor
When does human life begin? At conception? Perhaps the majority of lawmakers from Oklahoma, USA, think that human life begins at conception and so should be protected right from that stage in the womb, by law. They have sent up a bill to criminally punish doctors doing abortion (except in the case where the mother's life is in danger) to the state governor to sign into law! ‘A target on Roe v. Wade ’: Oklahoma bill making it a felony to perform abortions waits for governor’s decision,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/19/oklahoma-legislature-passes-bill-making-it-a-felony-to-perform-abortions/, dated May 20th 2016.
--------------------------------------------------
An update: Oklahoma governor vetoes bill that would make it a felony to perform abortions, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/20/oklahoma-governor-vetoes-bill-that-would-make-it-a-felony-to-perform-abortions/, dated May 20th 2016
A one sentence extract from it:
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin vetoed a controversial bill Friday that would have made it a felony for doctors to perform abortions, saying she felt the bill was too vague and unable to withstand a legal challenge.
--- end short extract ---
Here's the official Oklahoma state government press release on it, Gov. Fallin Vetoes Unconstitutional Anti-Abortion Bill, https://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=223&article_id=21841.
The short (2 pages) veto document is available here: https://www.ok.gov/governor/documents/5-20-16%20SB%201552%20Veto.pdf, dated May 20th 2016.
Almost all the key text from it (Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin's words as she is the only signatory to the document) is given below:
This is to advise you, pursuant to the authority vested in me by Section 11 of Article VI of the Oklahoma Constitution to approve or object to legislation presented to me, I have VETOED Senate Bill 1552.
Senate Bill 1552 declares the performance of an abortion, except as "necessary to preserve the life of the mother" as "unprofessional conduct" for a physician, and prohibits any physician participating in the performance of an abortion from obtaining or renewing a license to practice medicine in this State. Additionally, Senate Bill 1552 provides for a criminal penalty for any person, including licensed physicians, who perform an abortion for any reason other than when "necessary to preserve the life of the mother."
Although Senate Bill 1552 excludes a mother's threat of self-harm from the exception preserving the life of the mother, Senate Bill 1552 does not define "necessary to preserve the life of the mother." The absence of any definition, analysis or medical standard renders this exception vague, indefinite and vulnerable to subjective interpretation and application. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has clearly stated, "Legislation which creates and provides for the punishment of criminal offenses should be so clear and explicit that all persons of ordinary intelligence who are subject to these penalties may understand their provisions. No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." State v. Madden, 1977 OK CR 155, !9, 562 P.2d 1177, 1178. Further, the United States Supreme Court has stated, "The constitutional requirement of definiteness is violated by a criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute. The underlying principle is that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed." U.S. V. Harris, 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74 S.Ct. 808, 812, 98 L.Ed 989.
Current law provides a clear and definite concept of felony criminal liability for any person who performs or induces an abortion who is not a licensed physician. This provision is an important and necessary limitation and prohibition to those who may provide abortion services.
During my administration, the Legislature has approved and I have signed no less that 18 bills supporting pro-life and pro-family values and protecting the health and lives of mothers and their unborn children. While I consistently have and continue to support a re-examination of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, this legislation cannot accomplish that re-examination. In fact, the most direct path to a re-examination of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade is the appointment of a conservative, pro-life justice to the United States Supreme Court. The vague and ambiguous expansion of felony criminal liability that fails to define a critical element of the crime places this legislation squarely in the constitutional analysis of criminal liability. For these reasons, I have vetoed Senate Bill 1552.
--- end key text of veto document ---
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade:
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.
Later, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability. The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.
In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States, Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today about issues including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.
--- end wiki extract ---
Given below are my comments in a Facebook post having the above content of this blog post,
https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/1743956152487621.
In response to a comment-question asking for my opinion about when does it (human life) start, I (Ravi) responded:
I don't know.
---
In response a comment-question (rhetorical kind-of question perhaps), whether religious beliefs of the majority of Oklahoma lawmakers should trump all others, and be the law of the land, I (Ravi) wrote:
I personally am liberal in these matters. I think it is individual pregnant women who are the key persons who are involved in this matter, and any law about abortion must give scope for the decision of these individual women. I mean, if the state-community as a whole (or significant majority) wants pregnant women to take the foetus to completion as a child, they could provide counselling, required support for the women to go through pregnancy term and raising of the child. But, after all that counselling and promises of support, if some women still choose to abort they should be provided that option. That seems to me to be more human an approach than to force an unwilling woman to bear a child.
---
[I thank washingtonpost.com (1 sentence extract), ok.gov, Wikipedia and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extracts from their website on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/19/oklahoma-legislature-passes-bill-making-it-a-felony-to-perform-abortions/, dated May 20th 2016.
--------------------------------------------------
An update: Oklahoma governor vetoes bill that would make it a felony to perform abortions, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/20/oklahoma-governor-vetoes-bill-that-would-make-it-a-felony-to-perform-abortions/, dated May 20th 2016
A one sentence extract from it:
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin vetoed a controversial bill Friday that would have made it a felony for doctors to perform abortions, saying she felt the bill was too vague and unable to withstand a legal challenge.
--- end short extract ---
Here's the official Oklahoma state government press release on it, Gov. Fallin Vetoes Unconstitutional Anti-Abortion Bill, https://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/newsroom/newsroom_article.php?id=223&article_id=21841.
The short (2 pages) veto document is available here: https://www.ok.gov/governor/documents/5-20-16%20SB%201552%20Veto.pdf, dated May 20th 2016.
Almost all the key text from it (Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin's words as she is the only signatory to the document) is given below:
This is to advise you, pursuant to the authority vested in me by Section 11 of Article VI of the Oklahoma Constitution to approve or object to legislation presented to me, I have VETOED Senate Bill 1552.
Senate Bill 1552 declares the performance of an abortion, except as "necessary to preserve the life of the mother" as "unprofessional conduct" for a physician, and prohibits any physician participating in the performance of an abortion from obtaining or renewing a license to practice medicine in this State. Additionally, Senate Bill 1552 provides for a criminal penalty for any person, including licensed physicians, who perform an abortion for any reason other than when "necessary to preserve the life of the mother."
Although Senate Bill 1552 excludes a mother's threat of self-harm from the exception preserving the life of the mother, Senate Bill 1552 does not define "necessary to preserve the life of the mother." The absence of any definition, analysis or medical standard renders this exception vague, indefinite and vulnerable to subjective interpretation and application. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has clearly stated, "Legislation which creates and provides for the punishment of criminal offenses should be so clear and explicit that all persons of ordinary intelligence who are subject to these penalties may understand their provisions. No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." State v. Madden, 1977 OK CR 155, !9, 562 P.2d 1177, 1178. Further, the United States Supreme Court has stated, "The constitutional requirement of definiteness is violated by a criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute. The underlying principle is that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed." U.S. V. Harris, 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74 S.Ct. 808, 812, 98 L.Ed 989.
Current law provides a clear and definite concept of felony criminal liability for any person who performs or induces an abortion who is not a licensed physician. This provision is an important and necessary limitation and prohibition to those who may provide abortion services.
During my administration, the Legislature has approved and I have signed no less that 18 bills supporting pro-life and pro-family values and protecting the health and lives of mothers and their unborn children. While I consistently have and continue to support a re-examination of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, this legislation cannot accomplish that re-examination. In fact, the most direct path to a re-examination of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade is the appointment of a conservative, pro-life justice to the United States Supreme Court. The vague and ambiguous expansion of felony criminal liability that fails to define a critical element of the crime places this legislation squarely in the constitutional analysis of criminal liability. For these reasons, I have vetoed Senate Bill 1552.
--- end key text of veto document ---
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade:
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.
Later, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability. The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.
In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States, Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today about issues including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-choice and pro-life camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.
--- end wiki extract ---
Given below are my comments in a Facebook post having the above content of this blog post,
https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/1743956152487621.
In response to a comment-question asking for my opinion about when does it (human life) start, I (Ravi) responded:
I don't know.
---
In response a comment-question (rhetorical kind-of question perhaps), whether religious beliefs of the majority of Oklahoma lawmakers should trump all others, and be the law of the land, I (Ravi) wrote:
I personally am liberal in these matters. I think it is individual pregnant women who are the key persons who are involved in this matter, and any law about abortion must give scope for the decision of these individual women. I mean, if the state-community as a whole (or significant majority) wants pregnant women to take the foetus to completion as a child, they could provide counselling, required support for the women to go through pregnancy term and raising of the child. But, after all that counselling and promises of support, if some women still choose to abort they should be provided that option. That seems to me to be more human an approach than to force an unwilling woman to bear a child.
---
[I thank washingtonpost.com (1 sentence extract), ok.gov, Wikipedia and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extracts from their website on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
Comments
Post a Comment