Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

"Olahome lawmakers pass bill banning a******ns after fertilization"

"Oklahoma lawmakers on Thursday passed a bill that would ban a******ns from the moment of “fertilization,” effectively prohibiting almost all a******ns in the state.
If signed into law by Gov. Kevin Stitt (R), it would be the strictest prohibition in the country and further change the national landscape for a******n, as millions of patients face the prospect of traveling hundreds of miles to undergo the procedure in the face of multiple states imposing severe limits. Oklahoma had been a refuge for some women from neighboring Texas, where a six-week ban went into effect last year.

Stitt has said he wanted Oklahoma to be “the most pro-life state in the country,” and Republicans there have sought to make the state the vanguard in banning a******n. Two weeks ago, Stitt signed into law a prohibition on a******ns in the state for pregnancies past six weeks, and now he will have an opportunity to impose more far-reaching restrictions.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision next month on the fate of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision guaranteeing a nationwide right to a******n. In anticipation of the court overturning Roe, Republicans in dozens of states have rushed to write laws that would severely restrict a******n access or ban the procedure.

The Oklahoma bill is similar in its enforcement mechanism to the one that was signed into law in Texas last year, allowing civilians to file lawsuits against those who perform or help facilitate an a******n.

Under the bill, those who could be sued include anyone who “performs or induces” an a******n; anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an a******n,” including paying for one; and anyone who even “intends to engage” in either of the two actions above.

The bill states a lawsuit cannot be brought against a woman who had or seeks to have an a******n.

The ban could take effect once the governor signs the measure because the bill is modeled after the restrictive Texas law that has evaded court intervention with a novel legal strategy that empowers private citizens to enforce the law. The Supreme Court and other courts have said they cannot block those bans even though they are at odds with Roe.
The bill defines “fertilization” as the moment a sperm meets the egg. It explicitly allows for the use of the Plan B pill, a widely used form of emergency contraception, but would prohibit medical a******ns using pills. The bill exempts from its definition of a******n any procedure to “save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child,” to “remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous a******n” or to remove an ectopic pregnancy, in which the fetus grows outside the uterus.

The bill makes exceptions for a******n if it is “necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency” or if the pregnancy is the result of rape, sexual assault or incest that has been reported to law enforcement.
The bill passed the Oklahoma House on a 73-to-16 v**e Thursday after impassioned debate.

“There is no higher principle than the protection of innocent life,” Oklahoma state Rep. Jim Olsen (R) said during floor debate. “Innocent, unborn life. There can be no higher cause that we as a body can address.”
Rep. Monroe Nichols (D) responded that “there is another innocent life that we should also be thinking about” — the life of the pregnant person who is facing the decision of whether to have an a******n.

“I think we can’t lose that because of our aversion to something that we believe to be evil,” Nichols said, adding that the legislation would essentially put people who have a******ns “on trial.”

Rep. Wendi Stearman (R), the bill’s sponsor, hailed passage of the measure, which heads to Stitt and would go into effect immediately if he signs it into law.

“It is my sincere hope that, in addition to the criminal bill passed this session, this civil liability bill will provide strong, additional protection of the life of unborn children in Oklahoma,” Stearman said in a news release.

The v**e came around the time Vice President Harris was holding a virtual meeting Thursday afternoon with a******n providers about reproductive rights. Harris condemned the Oklahoma ban, calling it “one of the most extreme a******n bans in the country — a ban that would outlaw a******n from the moment of fertilization.”
“Now, think about that for a second: from the moment of fertilization,” Harris said. “It’s outrageous, and it’s just the latest in a series of extreme laws around the country.”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called the Oklahoma ban “the most extreme effort” so far to undo the constitutional right to a******n. President Biden “is committed to standing up for these constitutional rights, and for protecting Americans’ fundamental freedoms," she said.

“This is part of a growing effort by ultra MAGA officials across the country to roll back the freedoms we should not take for granted in this country,” Jean-Pierre said of the Oklahoma ban. “They are starting with reproductive rights, but the American people need to know that other fundamental rights, including the right to contraception and marriage e******y, are at risk.”

On Thursday, Planned Parenthood vowed to take Oklahoma to court over the legislation, saying the ban “must be stopped.”

“The Oklahoma legislature just passed a total ban on a******n, enforced by private citizens,” the pro-a******n rights group tweeted. “This ban will take effect as soon as the governor signs the bill, making Oklahoma the first state to outlaw a******n entirely — even while Roe v. Wade still stands.”"

Amy B Wang, Felicia Sonmez and Caroline Kitchener

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

The law sounds very reasonable. Your own link article proves what a liar Rep. Monroe Nichols (D) is. I highlighted the quotes above in your text.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Who takes care of the children when they are unwanted by their biological parents?

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Irrelevant to this case and no reason to be k*****g the unborn.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

It is not irrelevant. Social changes need to be addressed, unless you are “comfortably numb”.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Again, irrelevant to the case of aborting a living child in the womb. You will try to justify the k*****g of child with issues that are irrelevant to a******n. Your way of thinking is that if the child is unwanted or the mother can't afford the child, then just execute the child. Satan should he exist agrees with you, he is evil just as those that support executing God's children in the womb.

mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area

And your opinion is that since you can’t get it up anymore, everyone should suffer. Since the man won’t prove his had written permission, he should be guilty of rape.

redlegfrog

Ever hear of adoption?

Here is another thought - Keep your legs crossed and your pants on.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Re. a******n, to quote the great Ronald Reagan, "I've noticed that everybody who is for a******n has already been born."

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Your "another thought" pretty much shows that you want to control a woman's behavior more than you want to preserve "human life". If your God finds a******n so heinous, why does he perform so many (spontanious a******n) himself?

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

The same can be said of everyone who is against a******n.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Yet mantra lie from you lying Lefties.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Are you claiming there are no "spontaneous a******ns? Are you saying there are spontaneous a******ns but there is no god? Are you saying there are spontaneous a******ns, and there is a god, but spontaneous a******ns aren't his department? Is your reason for posting that you have heard "unborn" proclaim that they are against a******n? Your post is far from self explanatory.

mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area

Another thought.. make men sign in advance for consent or try for rape. The men should have consequences also.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

I should have been more clear, I was referring to your first sentence but failed to include that. Yet, you didn't address the first sentence in your response to me because you knew it was BS.