The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, HB 1721, was approved by the Oklahoma state Senate Wednesday afternoon by a vote of 37-4. All four of the NO votes were cast by Democrats.
In fact, not a single Democrat voted in favor of the critically important pro-life bill. Besides the four who voted NO, the Senate’s other three Democrats, who had been present in the Senate chamber during consideration of other bills through the afternoon, failed to vote on the Oklahoma legislature’s most important pro-life bill in years.
All 37 votes in favor of the pro-life bill — which prohibits killing unborn babies by tearing off their arms and legs, causing them to bleed to death — were cast by Republicans.
In my 38 legislative sessions at the state Capitol, Wednesday marked the only time a pro-life bill has ever passed without support from a single Democrat. April 8th, 2015, will be remembered with shame as the day the entire Senate Democrat Caucus rejected the sanctity of innocent human life.
The bill’s author, Senator Josh Brecheen of Coalgate, quoted former abortionist Anthony Levatino, MD, describing how he did dismemberment abortions on 24-week-old babies:
“Once you have grasped something inside (the uterus), squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard — really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.”
Senator Joseph Silk of Broken Bow, debating in favor of the bill, quoted abortionist LeRoy Carhart regarding whether the baby would be alive during a dismemberment abortion:
“I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.”
Republican senators Brian Crain of Tulsa and Clark Jolley of Edmond also debated eloquently in support of the pro-life bill.
In a significant development in Alabama’s reproductive rights landscape, the state Senate recently passed the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, sending it to the governor’s desk for approval. However, notable division was evident as Democrats uniformly voted against the legislation. This article delves into the implications of the Act’s passage, the rationale behind the Democrats’ opposition, and the broader discourse surrounding abortion politics in Alabama.
Key Provisions of the Act
The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, if signed into law, would prohibit dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortions, a common second-trimester procedure involving the dismemberment of the fetus in the womb. Exceptions would be made for cases of medical emergency, but otherwise, the Act imposes significant restrictions on abortion access in Alabama.
Democratic Opposition
Democrats in the Alabama Senate unanimously opposed the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, highlighting deep ideological divisions over reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. Critics argue that the legislation infringes upon women’s constitutional right to choose and imposes undue burdens on individuals seeking abortion care. Moreover, Democrats contend that such restrictive measures disproportionately impact marginalized communities and hinder access to safe and legal abortion services.
Rationale for Passage
Supporters of the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act assert that it is necessary to protect the sanctity of human life and uphold pro-life values. They argue that D&E abortions are inhumane and morally unacceptable, necessitating legislative intervention to safeguard the rights of the unborn. Additionally, proponents contend that the Act reflects the will of Alabama’s conservative electorate and aligns with the state’s pro-life stance.
Broader Discourse
The passage of the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act reignites debates surrounding abortion politics in Alabama and across the nation. As states continue to enact restrictive abortion laws, legal challenges and constitutional questions loom large. The Act’s fate may ultimately be decided in the courts, further polarizing public opinion and galvanizing advocacy efforts on both sides of the abortion debate.
Looking Ahead
As the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act awaits the governor’s signature, its implementation could have far-reaching implications for reproductive rights and healthcare access in Alabama. Regardless of the outcome, the Act’s passage underscores the enduring divisiveness of abortion politics and the ongoing struggle to balance competing interests of autonomy, morality, and public health. In the midst of evolving legal landscapes and shifting political dynamics, the fight for reproductive justice persists, shaping the future of abortion policy in Alabama and beyond.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
