Skip to comments.Oklahoma Supreme Court strikes down abortion restrictions as ‘unconstitutional’
Posted on 12/06/2012 3:52:25 AM PST by IbJensen
OKLAHOMA CITY, December 5, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) Oklahomas highest court has blocked two laws regulating abortions in the state. One of the laws required that abortionists show mothers an ultrasound image of their child and tell them about fetal development before they go through with the abortion. The other tightened safety restrictions on the use of abortion-inducing drugs.
In separate decisions, the court said the laws, which were passed with wide bipartisan support in the state legislature, violated the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
The challenged measure is facially unconstitutional pursuant to Casey, the justices wrote in each opinion. The mandate of Casey remains binding on this Court until and unless the United States Supreme Court holds to the contrary.
The Oklahoma court said it had no choice but to follow the mandate of the United States Supreme Court on matters of federal constitutional law.
Oklahoma State Attorney General Scott Pruitt, whose office appealed the lower-court decisions that originally nullified the laws, said he is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
We disagree with the courts decision, Pruitt said in a statement, particularly with the fact that the question on whether Oklahomas Constitution provides a right to an abortion was left unanswered.
The ultrasound law was first blocked in March by District Judge Bryan Dixon. Dixon claimed the new requirements were unconstitutional and unenforceable because they applied only to patients, physicians and ultrasound technicians undergoing, performing or assisting with abortions, not other medical situations.
Tony Lauinger, chairman of Oklahomans for Life, said he believes the state Supreme Court has misinterpreted the U.S. Supreme Courts Casey decision. The ultrasound law does not prohibit abortion, Lauinger said. It regulates abortion. In Lauingers view, the ultrasound provision offers only informed consent for women seeking abortions, which he insists the Casey ruling permits.
The other state law struck down by the court was the Abortion-Inducing Drug Safety Act, which would have enforced FDA guidelines banning vaginal intake of the abortion drug RU-486 and limiting its safe use to within the first 49 days of a pregnancy. The law mandated that abortion doctors give a woman a health exam before dispensing RU-486 to assess how far along she is into pregnancy, and to screen for health problems which could lead to life-threatening complications.
The law was deemed necessary because National Abortion Federation guidelines encourage abortionists to prescribe RU-486 within 63 days of the last menstrual period an extra two weeks beyond the FDAs safety guidelines. Abortionists also commonly use the drug in an off label manner by administering it vaginally, which can lead to serious, even deadly infections.
The stricter safety guidelines were rejected in May by District Judge Donald Worthington, who said they violate the fundamental rights of women to privacy and bodily integrity.
Pruitt criticized the courts decision to uphold Worthingtons ruling.
There is overwhelming evidence that the off-label use of abortion-inducing drugs leads to serious infections and death for many healthy, unsuspecting women, Pruitt said. This is not okay.
The decision to overturn the restrictions on abortion drugs was unanimous, with all nine justices joining in the decision. In the ultrasound law ruling, eight out of nine concurred. Justice Noma Gurich, who issued her own ruling blocking the law shortly before she was appointed to the Supreme Court, recused herself from the decision.
The stricter safety guidelines were rejected in May by District Judge Donald Worthington
Justice Noma Gurich, who issued her own ruling blocking the law shortly before she was appointed to the Supreme Court
Remember these evil ones who believe they represent JUSTICE!
How in the name of God can abortion be remotely considered constitutional?
What about the right to life? This evil act assumes the child is the property of the mother and she can do as she pleases with it. Disgusting that this is going on in the 21st century. This is a state supreme court that clearly is Godless, uncaring and deserving of being kicked off the court!
Oklahoma is NOT a left-wing Godless state and its citizens should not permit this evil.
The tyranny of the Black Robes.
A society that wantonly slaughters its most innocent is a doomed society.
We need to ban Abortions.(which to me is covered under ‘murder’ in all our laws...but obviously isn’t). start with late term then work backward to all abortions.
doing an end run around the law by forcing the women into viewing an ultrasound, does not sound constitutional to me either. Just my $0.02.
Although this Judge probably goes to Church services, his decision has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with political correctness as it is today.
Women have brought this on themselves. It is the real snake in the Garden of Eden. The Apple they cannot refuse to bite.
Straining out legal gnats and swallowing camels, of course.
Until there is a definitive answer to the baleful shadow of Roe v. Wade, there can’t be a whole lot specifically done to slow down abortions lest a “right” be “infringed.” The law done been hijacked.
Not that there aren’t other measures possible, and of course they are. For just one instance, there ought to be “public service” commercials all over the place showing what ultrasounds look like with today’s modern machines.
“A society that wantonly slaughters its most innocent is a doomed society”
If they deem this a right, what, on earth, is a wrong?
What I would like to know is how the court can say it is permissible/constitutional to abort/kill a baby in the womb and then, in the next case, turn around and charge someone with two counts of murder when someone kills a pregnant woman. You can’t have it both ways.
When is a scan prenatal counseling and care and when is it abortion restriction?
Based on the court’s tortured interpretation couldn’t we claim that every pregnant woman who visits a hospital and undergoes a scan is a potential abortion patient rather than an expectant mother? If so aren’t all OB/GYN clinics on notice?
This kind of blows the lid off the left’s guise of ‘education’ being the basis behind sex ed. After all, if they were all about education, and they really believed a ‘fetus’ was just a ‘clump of cells’, you could discuss development and show ultrasounds all day long. If we had a news media that was actually free and ethical, this would be trumpeted. Instead, they’ll celebrate the right to murder.
“Although this Judge probably goes to Church services, his decision has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with political correctness as it is today.”
Nonsense. It has *nothing* to do with political corectness and everything to do with the law. It’s called stare decisis. A binding precedent was set by the US Supreme Court and the OK Supreme Court is required by law to follow it.
We the People have the authority to change the law of the United States and any ruling by the Supremes. When we don’t, the court is merely reflecting the will of the People of the United States, as that will takes precedence over the will of the People of the State of Oklahoma.
It’s not because of sick people in black robes, but because of sick people in the voting booth.
Seems to me the left should be bludgeoned by forever more referring to “pre-natal scanning” with “planned parenthood”. After all, the scan is just giving more information to the pregnant mother so that she can plan her and plan for parenthood.
A brilliant deduction.
Translation: “There are too many restrictions on the slaughter of children. We need to remove those restrictions, especially because of all those ugly black ones that no one will adopt.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.