Oklahoma's Supreme Court strikes down the state's abortion restrictions law

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Reuters

Oklahoma's Supreme Court strikes down the state's abortion restrictions law

Reuters
Joseph Ax, Reuters
56minutes ago

Oklahoma's highest court on Tuesday struck down a law imposing restrictions on abortion providers, including a requirement that they take samples of fetal tissue from patients younger than 14 and preserve them for state investigators.

The law also set new criminal penalties for providers found to have violated abortion-related statutes as well as for anyone found to have helped a minor evade the requirement to obtain parental consent. In addition, the bill created a new, stricter inspection and licensing system for abortion clinics.

Legislators had said the fetal tissue section was aimed at capturing child rapists and that the law would protect women's health. But the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenged the law in court, said it unfairly targeted doctors and facilities that perform abortions.

In a unanimous opinion, the nine-member Oklahoma Supreme Court found the law violated the state constitution's requirement that each legislative bill must address only "one subject." The rule, the court said, is designed to prevent legislators from including provisions that would not normally pass in otherwise popular bills.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-oklahoma-supreme-court-strikes-down-abortion-law-2016-10

[machoneman]

1. On the surface.....

this seems like good news but upon closer inspection, maybe not.

Let's parse this sentence. "....the law violated the state constitution's requirement that each legislative bill must address only "one subject." The rule, the court said, is designed to prevent legislators from including provisions that would not normally pass in otherwise popular bills."

This would seemingly mean that filing each restriction under entirely separate bills (four if I count right) would be a piece of cake and give the Neanderthals a win.

???

[progree]

3. Probably. 4 of the 9 judges also said it violates a woman's right to an abortion

In a concurring opinion, four of the judges said they also would have struck down the law as an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to have an abortion.

and quite possibly the other 5 would have voted to uphold the restrictions if they were in separate one-piece bills.

[font color = blue]>>This would seemingly mean that filing each restriction under entirely separate bills (four if I count right) would be a piece of cake and give the Neanderthals a win. <<[/font]

[ProfessorGAC]

10. Not Sure About That

Remember in the snip, it says the prohibition is in there so you can't slip things into what would otherwise be a popular bill.

That one single issue, might not be a popular enough bill for the stealth anti-choicers to vote for it, and would allow the committed right to choose folks to vote against it, because they are voting against one specific restriction.

Following the state constitution might result in this never being law and the court would never even have to address it.

[progree]

11. Oh I agree -- I was posing a hypothetical where, IF such a single-issue bill somehow

passed and got signed into law -- whether or not the Oklahoma Supreme Court would uphold it or not. I don't see 5 abortion-rights votes on the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

That said, single issue restrictions on abortions bills have been passed by many state legislatures, and I see no reason why Oklahoma would be any different.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. Probably Right

I'm used to having the legislature dominated by D's while the few "foam at the mouth" R's never really get there way, but then i'm from the state that has had D Senators for many years now, and sent Obama to the WH.

[progree]

15. Me too (Minnesota) though we had 2 or 4 recent years when both chambers were "R"

Fortunately, I don't think we've had an R "trifecta" though where additionally the governor was "R" along with two "R" chambers

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Our Guv Is An "R" Right Now

He's toast. His approval ratings might as well be negative numbers. Campaign ads for state senate and assembly are actually touting the number of times (or percent of the time) that some incumbents have agreed with Rauner.

He is actually a weapon with which to attack incumbents.

[napi21]

2. Sounds like they're kicking the can down the road to me.

Maybe waiting to see the election results.

[awoke_in_2003]

4. "preserve them for state investigators"

What the actual fuck????

[lordsummerisle]

5. I was thinking the same thing n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

7. When I think they can't get sicker

I get proven wrong.

[Nitram]

9. Their rationale must have been that the sample would help identify a rapist.

Could also be used to prove incest. Both would be likely in a 14-year-old's pregnancy. (No, I'm not defending the bill)

[LanternWaste]

13. The rationale falls apart when we realize that the sample could be applied

The rationale falls apart when we realize that the sample could be applied to women over the age of 14.

[Nitram]

14. Yes, all of us realize that, but their grasp of logic is weak.

And it really was just an excuse to saddle clinics with enormous financial and technical burdens that would put them out of business.

[truthisfreedom]

6. Thirteen year olds can talk. If they've been raped a sample can be turned over to police immediately

That's the time to investigate. It's not like the 13 year olds are dead and you need to save forensic evidence. A 13-year-old will know who the father is and how she happened to become pregnant and can certainly choose whether to make an accusation.

[CrispyQ]

8. THIS. MADNESS. MUST. STOP.

...including a requirement that they take samples of fetal tissue from patients younger than 14 and preserve them for state investigators.