SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Oklahoma Supreme Court Overturns Laws Restricting Reproductive Rights
Rulings represent 'a sweeping and unequivocal' win for women's health and pro-choice advocates
Dec 06, 2012
In a "sweeping and unequivocal" affirmation of women's reproductive rights, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled that women do not have to view an ultrasound image of the fetus while hearing a description of the fetus before obtaining an abortion.
The court also said this week that lower courts were right to halt another law that banned off-label use of some abortion-inducing drugs, the Associated Press reports.
"Both laws are among the core of a strategy pursued by the anti-choice movement of passing model legislation in numerous states seeking to eliminate access to abortion care at the state level, and ultimately chipping further away at the access to safe abortion care ostensibly protected by Roe v. Wade," writes Jodi Jacobson, editor in chief of RH Reality Check.
All nine justices on the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the decision involving the drugs was unconstitutional, and eight of the nine agreed in the ultrasound decision.
The AP continues:
The Oklahoma court said it has a duty to "follow the mandate of the United State Supreme Court on matters of federal constitutional law."
The state had appealed lower court decisions that invalidated the laws. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said he may appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
With overwhelming support, the Oklahoma Legislature in 2010 passed a law requiring a woman seeking an abortion to first perform an ultrasound and describe the fetus to the woman. The Center for Reproductive Rights in New York challenged the law, as well as the second law--passed in 2011-- banning off-label uses of abortion-inducing drugs including RU-486.
In March, a district court judge ruled the statute was an unconstitutional special law that could not be enforced because it addressed only patients, physicians and sonographers dealing with abortions without addressing other medical care, according to the AP.
In May, another district court judge said a law requiring doctors to follow strict guidelines for abortion-inducing drugs such as RU-486 violated "the fundamental rights of women to privacy and bodily integrity."
The rulings represent "a sweeping and unequivocal" rejection of the state Legislature's attempt to restrict reproductive rights, Michelle Movahed, a staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the AP.
The decisions ensured that "a woman's right to a full range of reproductive health care is fundamental and constitutionally protected," Nancy Northup, the center's president and CEO, wrote in a statement.
Northrop continued:
"Oklahoma has long been a testing ground for a national network of organizations hostile to women, doctors and the rights of both, and these two laws are prime examples of politicians imposing their ideologies on women's personal medical decisions. But despite their best effort to chip away at women's fundamental rights, the courts have consistently rejected these extreme assaults on reproductive freedom."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In a "sweeping and unequivocal" affirmation of women's reproductive rights, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled that women do not have to view an ultrasound image of the fetus while hearing a description of the fetus before obtaining an abortion.
The court also said this week that lower courts were right to halt another law that banned off-label use of some abortion-inducing drugs, the Associated Press reports.
"Both laws are among the core of a strategy pursued by the anti-choice movement of passing model legislation in numerous states seeking to eliminate access to abortion care at the state level, and ultimately chipping further away at the access to safe abortion care ostensibly protected by Roe v. Wade," writes Jodi Jacobson, editor in chief of RH Reality Check.
All nine justices on the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the decision involving the drugs was unconstitutional, and eight of the nine agreed in the ultrasound decision.
The AP continues:
The Oklahoma court said it has a duty to "follow the mandate of the United State Supreme Court on matters of federal constitutional law."
The state had appealed lower court decisions that invalidated the laws. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said he may appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
With overwhelming support, the Oklahoma Legislature in 2010 passed a law requiring a woman seeking an abortion to first perform an ultrasound and describe the fetus to the woman. The Center for Reproductive Rights in New York challenged the law, as well as the second law--passed in 2011-- banning off-label uses of abortion-inducing drugs including RU-486.
In March, a district court judge ruled the statute was an unconstitutional special law that could not be enforced because it addressed only patients, physicians and sonographers dealing with abortions without addressing other medical care, according to the AP.
In May, another district court judge said a law requiring doctors to follow strict guidelines for abortion-inducing drugs such as RU-486 violated "the fundamental rights of women to privacy and bodily integrity."
The rulings represent "a sweeping and unequivocal" rejection of the state Legislature's attempt to restrict reproductive rights, Michelle Movahed, a staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the AP.
The decisions ensured that "a woman's right to a full range of reproductive health care is fundamental and constitutionally protected," Nancy Northup, the center's president and CEO, wrote in a statement.
Northrop continued:
"Oklahoma has long been a testing ground for a national network of organizations hostile to women, doctors and the rights of both, and these two laws are prime examples of politicians imposing their ideologies on women's personal medical decisions. But despite their best effort to chip away at women's fundamental rights, the courts have consistently rejected these extreme assaults on reproductive freedom."
In a "sweeping and unequivocal" affirmation of women's reproductive rights, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled that women do not have to view an ultrasound image of the fetus while hearing a description of the fetus before obtaining an abortion.
The court also said this week that lower courts were right to halt another law that banned off-label use of some abortion-inducing drugs, the Associated Press reports.
"Both laws are among the core of a strategy pursued by the anti-choice movement of passing model legislation in numerous states seeking to eliminate access to abortion care at the state level, and ultimately chipping further away at the access to safe abortion care ostensibly protected by Roe v. Wade," writes Jodi Jacobson, editor in chief of RH Reality Check.
All nine justices on the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the decision involving the drugs was unconstitutional, and eight of the nine agreed in the ultrasound decision.
The AP continues:
The Oklahoma court said it has a duty to "follow the mandate of the United State Supreme Court on matters of federal constitutional law."
The state had appealed lower court decisions that invalidated the laws. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said he may appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
With overwhelming support, the Oklahoma Legislature in 2010 passed a law requiring a woman seeking an abortion to first perform an ultrasound and describe the fetus to the woman. The Center for Reproductive Rights in New York challenged the law, as well as the second law--passed in 2011-- banning off-label uses of abortion-inducing drugs including RU-486.
In March, a district court judge ruled the statute was an unconstitutional special law that could not be enforced because it addressed only patients, physicians and sonographers dealing with abortions without addressing other medical care, according to the AP.
In May, another district court judge said a law requiring doctors to follow strict guidelines for abortion-inducing drugs such as RU-486 violated "the fundamental rights of women to privacy and bodily integrity."
The rulings represent "a sweeping and unequivocal" rejection of the state Legislature's attempt to restrict reproductive rights, Michelle Movahed, a staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the AP.
The decisions ensured that "a woman's right to a full range of reproductive health care is fundamental and constitutionally protected," Nancy Northup, the center's president and CEO, wrote in a statement.
Northrop continued:
"Oklahoma has long been a testing ground for a national network of organizations hostile to women, doctors and the rights of both, and these two laws are prime examples of politicians imposing their ideologies on women's personal medical decisions. But despite their best effort to chip away at women's fundamental rights, the courts have consistently rejected these extreme assaults on reproductive freedom."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy