The law is an outright ban: http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22%20ENGR/SB/SB612%20ENGR.PDF Important provisions include: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person shall not purposely perform or attempt to perform an abortion except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency." and "A person convicted of performing or attempting to perform an abortion shall be guilty of a felony punishable by a fine not to exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), or by confinement in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not to exceed ten (10) years, or by such fine and imprisonment." Rape? No abortion. Incest? No abortion. Ruin the health of a pregnant woman? No abortion. Only to save her life. She must have her rapist's baby. Then he can claim parental rights. She might have to face her rapist until one of them dies. This is going too far and should not be signed into law.
Yeah that's the point. The legal challenge will let the Supreme Court rewrite abortion precedent top to bottom.
I don't think the Supreme Court will bite. Not even THIS Supreme Court. It would make it obvious for all to see that adding more justices is unavoidable. But again, I don't think they'll bite. They will probably kick the can down the road for years and years to come.
And yet it will in all likelihood get signed. I suppose that should folks not like the bill in OK, they can always move somewhere like CA or NY that will kill actually viable born babies....
So by now it should be as clear to you as it is to me that for every single thing you "think"... the opposite is most likely true.
I "know" you suggested prison for noncompliance of excessive government interference. You wanted it to be a crime just like DUI, remember? If you support one, you support all. Heres a dose of your own medicine.
I guess I should have expected that be an option as an answer given that democrats are now unwilling to publicly say or define what a woman is these days... Are you in the men have babies camp too?
Yes it is an outright ban. Sounds good to me. How does it square with roe v wade? Can a state do this?
I have suggested no such thing. Yet again you are wrong. Don't you ever tire of being wrong? I certainly tire of seeing you get everything wrong. I'll probably take a rest and just skip your posts for a while. Unless I can think of something funny to say, of course.
Never mind that more women die year in and year out at the hands of abortionist than almost anything else...
I don't recall anyone saying anything about equal. The first right stated in our constitution and its preamble is the right to life ..
Yes. And our support of women’s sports and their own bathrooms will enhance our support from women nationwide.
I would add that there is likely the potential that the exodus folks from places like CA and NY et al might be stymied when those folks who would travel their progressivism with them from those states to their new states in hopes of ruining those states (a thought that just never occurs to them btw) might be necessary for them to evaluate their choice of destination state. Folks in CO are living under the weight of their transplants. Time will tell.
You said "excessive government interference". Saving the life of children is NEVER excessive. You also said something about "non-compliance". Putting the life of children at risk goes waaaay beyond "non-compliance" and into the realm of negligence. I would not oppose calling it "criminal negligence". So that's that... You can now stop the nonsense.
Risk? Can you put that into a percentage? (Hint: Closer to 0% than 1%) That is waaaay beyond excessive. You believe throwing people in prison over a risk close to zero is an acceptable use of government power. You should have no issue with throwing people in prison over abortion, which results in the loss of life 100% of the time. I never get tired of seeing people criticize their own reflection.