• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here is a copy of the ruling, which essentially overturns the Oklahoma State Amendment declaring that a fertilized egg is a person.

And don't count of the Supreme Court to reverse this decision. SCOTUS is actually to the left of Oklahoma's Supreme Court, which is considered the most Conservative court in the land. Note: This was also a unanimous decision.

Reason prevails. Extremism loses.
 
Last edited:
Reason? The U.S. constitution says nothing about abortion. Any reasonable, literate person can see that. Therefore, these fools haven't a leg to stand on.
 
yeah.. i'm not seeing "reason" having much to do with this decision.....

stare decisis wins, not reason.
 
My grandmother, a fully committed Church of Christ Oklahomian whack job, is probably crying in her cheerios right now.
 
Great. So far, so good. I'll take it. :)
 
Thrilla said:
I didn't know you lived in Oklahoma.....
Click to expand...

She doesn't have to live in Oklahoma. There are a number of states which have been considering doing the same. I believe the citizens in those states have the same stake in this as the citizens of Oklahoma.
 
I DO live in Oklahoma and couldn't be happier. :mrgreen:

We have more than our fair share of right wing social engineers in this state. I'm just glad our Supreme Court judges are a bit better grounded.

Now I understand how some wish to LIMIT freedom in this country when they don't agree with the subject being discussed. That was one of the arguments AGAINST having a rather limited list of basic rights- later some folks would claim that they are the ONLY rights a citizen has.

The personhood law is a back door way to end abortions, it is built on a flawed premise that is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of these United States has already ruled a state can set some restrictions on abortion but they can't outlaw it entirely.

For some we are a nation of laws when they agree with them but firmly set to decry 'activist, unelected Judges' and power hungry politicians out to steal all our freedoms when they don't agree with a law or ruling.

In a related story an attempt to by pass the Court ruling with bill in the State House was killed when the Republican leadership refused to bring it to a vote.

Another warm fuzzy for me from a party I never thought would rebuff the religious right in our Bible Belt state.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Reason prevails. Extremism loses.
Click to expand...
JayDubya said:
Reason? The U.S. constitution says nothing about abortion. Any reasonable, literate person can see that. Therefore, these fools haven't a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
But it does have something to say about a persons privacy along with the interests of the state in protecting the rights of the individual. There is a conflict within that when it comes to pregnancy, hence the balance established with Roe v Wade and PP v Casey.
 
danarhea said:
Here is a copy of the ruling, which essentially overturns the Oklahoma State Amendment declaring that a fertilized egg is a person.

And don't count of the Supreme Court to reverse this decision. SCOTUS is actually to the left of Oklahoma's Supreme Court, which is considered the most Conservative court in the land. Note: This was also a unanimous decision.

Reason prevails. Extremism loses.
Click to expand...
What did the OK law say and what part of PP v Stacey did it conflict with?
 
Too bad. I was going to go to Oklahoma, become 9 months older, celebrate my birthday, and then leave Oklahoma and lose that year again.
 
JayDubya said:
Reason? The U.S. constitution says nothing about abortion. Any reasonable, literate person can see that.
Click to expand...
So the Supreme Court justices that decided Roe v. Wade were what - unreasonable? illiterate? both?
 
notquiteright said:
Jerry, what quotes are you fishing for?
Click to expand...

What did the OK law say (ie, exact text of the law) and what part of PP v Casey did it conflict with (as in exact section of the actual ruling)?
 
Jerry said:
What did the OK law say (ie, exact text of the law) and what part of PP v Casey did it conflict with (as in exact section of the actual ruling)?
Click to expand...
It hasn't been published yet.
 
Jerry said:
What did the OK law say and what part of PP v Stacey did it conflict with?
Click to expand...
Not "stacy"....CASEY, from the OKSC:


The United States Supreme Court has spoken on this issue. The measure is clearly unconstitutional pursuant to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). The states are duty bound to follow its interpretation of the law. Twenty years ago, this Court was presented with an initiative which facially conflicted with the Casey decision. This Court held: "The issue of the constitutionality of the initiative petition is governed by the United States Supreme Court's pronouncement in Casey."
Click to expand...

From Casey:

These three justices began their written opinion by noting the U.S. government's previous challenges to Roe v. Wade:
"Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade (1973), that definition of liberty is still questioned. Joining the respondents as amicus curiae, the United States, as it has done in five other cases in the last decade, again asks us to overrule Roe."
Click to expand...

ie, the "personhood" law would remove the right for a woman to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages.
 
Part it conflicts with is the Supreme Court ruling in PPvC is the fertilized egg has already been declared not a person. Amending our State Constitution to declare a two cell blob a person would be defacto prohibition of abortions as the doctor and woman could be charged with murder. Our State Supreme Court says that you can't amend a state Constitution to prohibit abortions, even if the law doesn't directly say so.

I hope you noted the Republican House leadership in my state has decided to not bring a bill forward to do the personhood thing. What was struck down was a ballot measure, so it is two separate tracks to the same goal. Backdoor eliminating abortions. Similar ballot measures in Mississippi and Colorado to amend their Constitution failed.
 
Actually, this is about to get interesting. When you cross reference the Declaration of Independence, we have precedence for life to begin at creation, not birth. With that twist, the SCOTUS may overturn all of their previous decisions based on that fact. I wouldn't count on it, but it is possible.
 
notquiteright said:
Part it conflicts with is the Supreme Court ruling in PPvC is the fertilized egg has already been declared not a person. Amending our State Constitution to declare a two cell blob a person would be defacto prohibition of abortions as the doctor and woman could be charged with murder. Our State Supreme Court says that you can't amend a state Constitution to prohibit abortions, even if the law doesn't directly say so.

I hope you noted the Republican House leadership in my state has decided to not bring a bill forward to do the personhood thing. What was struck down was a ballot measure, so it is two separate tracks to the same goal. Backdoor eliminating abortions. Similar ballot measures in Mississippi and Colorado to amend their Constitution failed.
Click to expand...
Wrong, SCOTUS has avoided personhood decisions, as has SCOK.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Actually, this is about to get interesting. When you cross reference the Declaration of Independence, we have precedence for life to begin at creation, not birth. With that twist, the SCOTUS may overturn all of their previous decisions based on that fact. I wouldn't count on it, but it is possible.
Click to expand...
No, they won't do that, they don't have to address the personhood issue. This would be pushing back "viability" to the point that all eggs and sperm are potential humans, where menstruation and masturbation would be akin to murder.
 
Actually no.

The Declaration says nothing about unborn children and you have to be extremely creative to see anything useful for limiting abortion.

I do know you know we didn't ratify the Declaration of Independence but the Constitution. It would be turning our judicial process upside down to use the DoI over the Constitution.

The DoI says very clearly ALL men are created equal, but not until the Constitution says so were the Irish....ahhh I mean blacks, infact freed.

The DoI says nothing about women being equal but now the Constitution does. Constitution trumps the DOI.

An optimist might say there is a possibility, a realist says no probability... :peace
 
Taylor said:
So the Supreme Court justices that decided Roe v. Wade were what - unreasonable? illiterate? both?
Click to expand...

Willfully ignoring the rule of law, or unable to read a plain English document. Whichever you think more likely, those are the only two possibilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom