Intro: "The high court rules unanimously that a proposed state constitutional amendment that would define a fertilized human egg as a person violates U.S. Supreme Court precedent."
Oklahoma state Sen. Constance N. Johnson, D-Oklahoma City, speaks at a rally in opposition to the state Senate's passage of a bill that grants the rights of personhood to fertilized human eggs, at the state Capitol in Oklahoma City. (photo: Sue Ogrocki/AP)
Oklahoma Supreme Court Rejects Embryo 'Personhood' Measure
03 May 12
he Oklahoma Supreme Court on Monday halted an effort to grant "personhood" rights to human embryos, saying the measure is unconstitutional.
The state's highest court ruled unanimously that a proposed amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution defining a fertilized human egg as a person violates a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a Pennsylvania case and "is clearly unconstitutional." Supporters of the personhood amendment were trying to gather enough signatures to put it before Oklahoma voters on the November ballot.
Opponents contend that the measure would ban abortions without exception and interfere with a woman's right to use certain forms of contraception and medical procedures, such as in vitro fertilization.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights filed a protest with the state Supreme Court on behalf of several Oklahoma doctors and residents. They asked the court to stop the group Personhood Oklahoma from gathering signatures.
The nine-member court determined that the initiative petition "is void on its face" and struck it down.
"The only course available to this court is to follow what the United States Supreme Court, the final arbiter of the United States Constitution, has decreed," the court said.
The ruling is the latest setback for abortion opponents who have been pursuing personhood measures in several states. In December, a judge in Nevada ruled that a personhood initiative petition was vague and could not be circulated for signatures to qualify for the 2012 ballot. Similar proposals were defeated last year in Mississippi and Colorado.
The backers of the signature drive say their goal is to set up a legal challenge to the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 that gave women a legal right to abortion.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 16 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 17 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 18 June 2013
|
 18 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 17 June 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Probable intent? Most likely to get furious women out to vote in November for, sorry to say, Pres. Obama, a pol. I now call Oh Bomb Ah. More war (i.e. drones et.al.) now, and far more loss of rights, with Oh Bomb Ah's signing of vs. vetoing this year's infamous NDAA. How pleased the 1% within the mitc (military-indus trial-terrorism complex)must be with this pres..
New third party of Greens, peace and justice activists, anti-racists, labor-workers' rights advocates, etc. is needed desperately, a party not infiltrated by Kochsucking minions, either bought off or scared off or both.
Lots and lot we gotta do to UNDO THE COUP
"The state's highest court ruled unanimously that a proposed amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution defining a fertilized human egg as a person violates a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a Pennsylvania case and "is clearly unconstitutiona l." "
RSS feed for comments to this post