BREAKING: Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs Wade

NoMayo15

All Star
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
4,399
Reputation
265
Daps
6,140
Well then one can argue that no one else can kill another human being at a given development stage besides a pregnant woman. That's a special right as well.

There's no other comparable situation anyway, it's not as if there's another scenario where a human uses another human's body for sustenance.

Also, you forgot to include a fetus when you mentioned zygote/embryo

Yeah no one else can because ONLY a pregnant woman has a developing person using their resources. The question is whether or not the embryo's right to live supersedes the right of the pregnant person's agency. I.e. must the pregnant person remain attached to the embryo until its fully developed to sustain itself. The fact that it cannot live outside the body of the pregnant person isn't that person's fault.

Maybe not, but there's dozens of different plausible hypotheticals that are analogous to this situation. Take for example a drunk driver awakens to find he was the cause of a car crash, and the person in the other car was attached to him, and the only way they would survive is if they were attached to the drunk driver for 9 months. Most people wouldn't say the drunk driver is morally obligated to keep the other driver physically attached to their body to keep them alive for 9 months, even though the only reason the other driver is dependent on them is due to the first driver's irresponsible actions. And I think it's especially cruel to punish someone in this way knowing that its not risk free -- death rates for people who become pregnant are somewhat high, especially so for black women.

Whatever you want to call it, it doesn't deserve rights other people don't get just because it's a fetus. At some point you have to weigh viability and harm done to all parties involved ... the fetus, the pregnant people and society.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
55,691
Reputation
8,224
Daps
157,187

New Oklahoma bill could allow state to create database of women who had abortions​

Carmen Forman [COLOR=hsl(var(--xf-editorFocusColor))]Oklahoma Voice[/COLOR]
Published: 12:44 p.m. CT Feb. 15, 2024 Updated: 12:44 p.m. CT Feb. 15, 2024



A Democratic lawmaker expressed concerns Wednesday that a GOP-sponsored anti-abortion bill could create a state database of women who have undergone the procedure and ban emergency contraception.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers, including the Republican chair of the House Public Health Committee, expressed concerns that House Bill 3216 from Rep. Kevin West, R-Moore, could ban some forms of birth control, such as IUDs.

After West vowed to change the bill’s language, HB 3216 passed the committee on a party-line vote with Rep. Trish Ranson, D-Stillwater, as the lone dissenter.

Chairwoman Cynthia Roe, R-Lindsay, questioned whether part of the bill pertaining to contraception could ban intrauterine devices, a popular form of contraception.

“If we’re looking at preserving the life of the unborn, I think one of the ways to do that is access to birth control,” said Roe, a nurse practitioner.

West said he intends to change that part of the bill to target over-the-counter contraception that is not used under a physician’s supervision.

IUDs and most forms of birth control pills require a prescription. Emergency contraception, also known as the “morning after” pill or “Plan B,” does not.

Rep. Kevin West, R-Moore, authored a bill that could ban some forms of birth control in Oklahoma. West, however, said he intends to change that part of the bill to target over-the-counter contraception.

Rep. Kevin West, R-Moore, authored a bill that could ban some forms of birth control in Oklahoma. West, however, said he intends to change that part of the bill to target over-the-counter contraception.

Oklahoma bill would allow lawsuits for those who help women obtain abortions, would allow state to identify women who obtain abortions​

West said he crafted the bill with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian law firm, in response to the Oklahoma Supreme Court striking down recent anti-abortion laws.

Oklahoma bans abortion except to save the life of the mother. State law doesn’t include exceptions for rape or incest.

West’s bill would allow for civil lawsuits against those who help a woman obtain an abortion and creates new requirements for physicians to report each abortion they perform. Women who obtain an abortion would be assigned a “unique patient identifier” that would allow them to be identified by the Oklahoma State Department of Health.

More: After enacting strict abortion bans, Oklahoma GOP lawmakers seek more restrictions

Ranson said it is “highly concerning” that the legislation would seemingly create a database of women who undergo abortions. West said he is willing to tweak the bill so the health department is able to collect some information on procedures but not “track” specific individuals.

“I believe that there is confusion in the bill,” Ranson said. “I believe that there is an opportunity for tracking women. I believe that there is a major privacy issue that we should be concerned about.”

Another bill would make delivering or possessing abortion-inducing drugs a felony​

On a party-line vote, the House Criminal Judiciary Committee also passed legislation Wednesday that would allow prosecutors to charge individuals who possess or deliver abortion-inducing drugs with felony trafficking charges.

The person delivering abortion pills, which can be used to terminate a pregnancy within the first 10 weeks, could be charged if they know another person intends to use the medication to cause an unlawful abortion.

An individual could face 10 years in prison or $100,000 in fines if found guilty.

Rep. Denise Crosswhite Hader, R-Piedmont, said House Bill 3013 is intended to protect the health of women who might regret their decision to seek an abortion. She has expressed concerns that medical complications could arise if a woman takes abortion pills incorrectly should they be provided by someone who isn’t a medical professional.

“I stand again to try and protect the life of women who might take these pills and not know the repercussions of what it might do for them,” she said.

Crosswhite Hader has previously undergone an abortion, a procedure she talked about on the House floor two years ago. She said she regretted her decision.

Rep. Jason Lowe, D-Oklahoma City, said he worries the legislation is overly broad and could lead to abortion rights supporters being charged with a crime. He also noted some other states are facing lawsuits over similar legislation.

The legislation does not apply to pharmacists or drug manufacturers who lawfully possess or distribute prescriptions for other medical purposes.

Both anti-abortion bills are now eligible to be heard by the full House.

Carmen Forman covers state government, politics and health care from Oklahoma City. A Norman native, she previously worked in Arizona and Virginia before she began reporting on the Oklahoma Capitol.

Oklahoma Voice is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oklahoma Voice maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janelle Stecklein for questions:info@oklahomavoice.com. Follow Oklahoma Voice on Facebook and Twitter.[/SIZE]
 
Top