Quantcast
Connect with us

Oklahoma Supreme Court: ‘Fetal personhood’ initiative ‘clearly unconstitutional’

Published

on

The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled that a ballot measure to completely prohibit abortion was “clearly unconstitutional.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit against the ballot measure, which would have amended the Oklahoma Constitution to grant fertilized eggs and embryos the same constitutional rights as people.

ADVERTISEMENT

“By their own admission, the proponents of this initiative aim to strip women and families of their established right to decide whether and when to become pregnant and carry a pregnancy to term,” Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, said in March. “This initiative insults Oklahoma women’s intelligence and dignity by denying access to basic health services.”

Legislation similar to the “fetal personhood” ballot measure passed in the Oklahoma Senate in February by a 34-8 vote. However, Oklahoma House Speaker Kris Steele and the State House Republican Caucus decided not to bring the bill to the House floor for a vote.

The pro-life Christian group Personhood USA and its state affiliates have campaigned to place “fetal personhood” initiatives on the November ballot.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in March that a proposed “fetal personhood” amendment to the state’s constitution could be placed on the 2012 ballot. In contrast, a Nevada judge ruled in December that the ballot initiative was so vague that backers were not allowed to circulate it among voters.

A similar constitutional amendment was rejected by more than 55 percent of Mississippi voters last year.

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump’s ‘illegal payments’ under scrutiny as House conducts second probe running parallel to impeachment

Published

on

According to a report from Politico, some House Democrats are disappointed that Donald Trump's violations of the emoluments clause does not appear to have a future as part of the articles of impeachment against the president, so they are continuing on with their own ongoing investigation with the hope it may be added at a later time.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

What would the GOP do if Trump actually shot someone? A former government ethics chief explains

Published

on

President Donald Trump infamously said in 2016 that his supporters were so loyal that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose any support.

Walter Shaub, who served as chief of the Government Ethics Office under former President Barack Obama, hilariously imagined how elected Republicans would react if Trump actually did shoot someone on 5th Avenue.

"It was indecorous of the president to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue," Shaub said, imagining a scripted GOP response. "I would have preferred he not do that. In the strongest possible terms, I add that I find it to be generally inconsistent with the higher aims of responsible governance. And you can quote me on that."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Rick Santorum falls apart during CNN defense of Trump as fellow Republican Charlie Dent smirks

Published

on

As CNN contributor Rick Santorum struggled to defend Donald Trump's quid pro quo proposal to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday morning, his fellow Pennsylvania Republican, former Rep. Charlie Dent, laughed at his fumbling for answers.

Sitting down with "New Day" host John Berman, Santorum once again attempted to make the case that the president was withholding aid over Ukraine corruption and not because he was seeking dirt on political opponents -- and didn't fare well as Berman kept fact-checking him.

With the two former GOP lawmakers on split-screen, Santorum refused to concede that the president was asking for a personal favor during the phone-call that eventually led to a House impeachment inquiry into the president's actions.

Continue Reading