Pro-abortion lawsuits challenge two Oklahoma laws

 

By Dave Andrusko

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin

Given that Oklahoma is one of the most pro-life states in the country, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that pro-abortionists continue to file lawsuits against laws overwhelmingly passed by both houses of the legislature.

The latest was filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of abortionist Larry Burns, whom (the CRR told the Associated Press) performs nearly half the state’s abortions. Their target is a familiar one: the requirement that clinics have an abortionist who has admitting privileges with a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic for when the inevitable complications occur. The law, SB 1848, is scheduled to go into effect November 1.

Pro-abortionists, often represented by CRR, have challenge similar pro-life laws in many states, including Texas, Wisconsin, Mississippi, and Alabama.

CRR also filed suit against HB 2684, signed in April, and also scheduled to go into effect November 1.

That law was passed subsequent to the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirming District Judge Donald Worthington’s decision striking down as unconstitutional a 2011 law.

The state Supreme Court ruled that the 2011 original law was so broad that it would ban all chemical abortion. The new law requires the FDA protocol to be used when dispensing RU-486.

As NRL News Today has explained in prior stories, the most important FDA requirements were that the abortifacient not be used past the seventh week (a limitation which PPFA and other abortion providers freely concede they ignore); that abortionists use three RU486 pills, rather than one; and that the accompanying prostaglandin (misoprostol) be administered by mouth, not vaginally.

Blasted as “vague,” in fact, the limitations (and purposes) are very clear. They are intended to protect women from the dangers of using these drugs in a manner not prescribed by the FDA (the second drug was supposed to be taken orally and in the abortionist’s office rather than at home).

In light of that, what a peculiar use of language found in so many lawsuits—that insuring that these powerful drugs are taken safely is “impos[ing] an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose early, safe abortion.”

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.