RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Millhiser writes: "If Oklahoma were to 'prosecute the abortion doctors,' as Brogdon suggests, the first question would be whether Oklahoma's state courts would be willing to go along with this tactic - and whether a jury would be willing to convict based on a law that would almost certainly be struck down by federal courts."

Oklahoma Republican Party Chairman Randy Brogdon. (photo: David Crenshaw/AP)
Oklahoma Republican Party Chairman Randy Brogdon. (photo: David Crenshaw/AP)


Republican Party Chairman Tells State to Ignore Roe v. Wade

By Ian Millhiser, Think Progress

26 July 15

 

he federal courts don’t have the authority to make us kill babies,” according to Oklahoma Republican Party Chairman Randy Brogdon. “Are the Supreme Court justices going to come down to Oklahoma and make us stop?”

Brogdon, a former state senator who once called for Oklahoma to form its own militia separate from that National Guard — and who previously cast doubt upon the Pledge of Allegiance because he objects to the line “one nation, indivisible” — offered his interpretation of the Supreme Court’s lawful authority on Friday. One day earlier, he signed a fundraising email making a similar pitch. “As Chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party, I call on the Governor and legislators to completely end the practice of abortion in Oklahoma,” Brogdon wrote in that email, adding that the state should “[s]hut Planned Parenthood down immediately for their illegal actions, and prosecute the abortion doctors who violate their oath to ‘do no harm.'”

The party chairman’s call to simply ignore court decisions protecting reproductive choice seeks to escalate many of his fellow Republicans’ attacks on legal abortion. Other states, however, have already gone so far in restricting abortion that it’s not clear that Brogdon’s proposal is as much of an escalation as it immediately appears to be.

Mississippi, for example, passed a law that, if upheld by the Supreme Court, will close the state’s last abortion clinic. A similar Texas law seeks to shut down many of the clinics in that state by imposing expensive obligations on clinics and difficult-to-obtain credentialing requirements on doctors who perform abortions. North Dakota enacted a law that could effectively ban abortion six weeks into pregnancy (a federal appeals court recently struck that law down, albeit reluctantly).

These laws, especially the Mississippi and Texas ones, place a premium on the cleverness of abortion’s opponents. These two states passed what amount to sham health laws — laws that appear, on the surface, to be intended to protect women’s health but which actually do little more than limit access to abortion. As one federal judge explained, “there is no rational relationship between improved patient outcomes” and the additional burden the Texas law places on abortion doctors.

Brogdon’s preferred tactic, by contrast, appears to be attacking abortion with a blunt object. He’s not looking for a clever workaround to what remains of Roe v. Wade, he just wants to outright ban abortion and prosecute doctors who perform it.

In the process, Brogdon also appears willing to openly defy court orders protecting reproductive freedom. It would be a major escalation in tactics if a state chose to openly defy the courts. It could also lead to a potentially dangerous struggle between the states and the federal government.

If Oklahoma were to “prosecute the abortion doctors,” as Brogdon suggests, the first question would be whether Oklahoma’s state courts would be willing to go along with this tactic — and whether a jury would be willing to convict based on a law that would almost certainly be struck down by federal courts. Assuming that the state courts did play along, the lawfulness of this conviction would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court — or, barring that, by a lower federal court upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The events that would follow, if Oklahoma refused to obey a federal court order commanding them to release the incarcerated physician, could resemble a miniature Civil War. The doctor would remain physically in the state’s custody, most likely in a state prison guarded by state employees. Yet, while Brogdon is correct that the Supreme Court justices themselves wouldn’t “come down to Oklahoma and make us stop,” the federal government is fully capable of mustering superior force against a state that openly defies a court order. Just ask former Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus.

Nevertheless, such a standoff may be acceptable to Brogdon, with his doubts that the United States is, indeed, “one nation, indivisible.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+10 # tedrey 2015-07-26 10:14
Does Brogdon realize that he is a private citizen, and that as Chairman of a state political party (a non-government organization) he has no standing whatsoever to make such pronouncements?
 
 
+2 # MidwestTom 2015-07-26 11:42
Remember that Oklahoma is the only state in the Union where Obama did carry even one county. I can tell you from personal experiences there that many people there would support leaving the Union, or at least becoming an autonomous region within the Union.
 
 
+1 # Rain17 2015-07-26 11:48
I also think Obama won no counties in WV.
 
 
+3 # ericlipps 2015-07-26 18:08
Quoting MidwestTom:
Remember that Oklahoma is the only state in the Union where Obama did carry even one county. I can tell you from personal experiences there that many people there would support leaving the Union, or at least becoming an autonomous region within the Union.

The Constitution does not support either option, and appeals to the expansive wording of the Tenth Amendment do not make either one legitimate.

The Framers had had enough trouble stitching together a nation; they certainly had no interest in making it easy to pop those stitches.

As for Oklahoma becoming an "autonomous region" within the U.S., what does that even mean?
 
 
+9 # Rain17 2015-07-26 11:53
Well, whenever issues like abortion or judicial opinions come up, this is what faces us if a Republicans wins in 2016. However imperfect some Democrats are, they are our last line of defense from extremists like this. Elections do have consequences and there is a difference between the two parties.
 

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.

RSNRSN