Oklahoma Personhood Measure Struck Down By Supreme Court

Protesters cheer at an anti-personhood rally at the state Capitol in Oklahoma City, Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2012.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court unanimously vetoed a ballot measure that would have given embryos full personhood rights on Monday, ruling it "clearly unconstitutional" because it would block a woman's legal right to have an abortion.

The personhood measure would give embryos the same legal rights as people from the moment of fertilization, which opponents say would ban abortion and complicate the legality of in vitro fertilization and many forms of birth control. Enacting such a law would violate the U.S. Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which allows states to pass some abortion restrictions but prevents them from overturning the constitutional right to end a pregnancy.

"The mandate of Casey is as binding on this Court today as it was twenty years ago," the Oklahoma Supreme Court wrote in its decision. "Initiative Petition No. 395 conflicts with Casey and is void on its face and it is hereby ordered stricken."

A personhood bill also failed in the Oklahoma legislature earlier this month, when Republican leadership in the state House of Representatives decided not to bring it to a vote, despite mounting pressure from anti-abortion groups.

“This amendment would have run roughshod over the fundamental, constitutionally protected reproductive rights of all Oklahoma women," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the case against the measure. "In affirming our request to strike it down, the court has struck a powerful blow against the repugnant tactics of those who seek to vote down the rights of others, and to enshrine their hostility to women’s lives, health, and rights in the laws of the land."

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[Martin Burkard]

03:49 PM on 01/10/2013

Hello Oklahoma Supreme Court, ever heard of Nullification?! The US Supreme Court has no authority to grant a woman the right to kill a another human being. Unconstitutional federal laws can be nullified by the states.

[SpookyAnnya]

05:29 PM on 10/29/2012

A woman at her 39th week check up in ManhattanThurs was told by her Dr. that baby had no heartbeat. On Friday they induced her and she labored for 18 hrs to have this dead fetus. Both she and her husband continue to be devastated.

Now add to that a criminal investigation into the mother for possible murder and that's the Personhood bill.

[DakkonA]

12:33 PM on 05/02/2012

I plead with my fellow pro-choice people to develop a consistent logical underpinning for their positions. For every point along fetal development, is it okay or not okay to abort? Where does that transition happen? What is the basis for changing from "its okay" to "its okay in certain situations"?

Everyone agrees that abortion wouldn't be okay* close to the due date. Everyone who is pro-choice agrees that abortion would be okay for a zygote. When should this change, and what is the basis for the decision?

* Except extreme situations

[Conservatively Yours]

07:35 AM on 05/02/2012

Thank goodness we have Supreme Courts willing to strike down idiotic legislation like "personhood" status for embryos. To think that somehow it's okay to give a microscopic egg rights with one had, while taking away the rights of a living, breathing human being with the other. ????? Insanity...

The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set up our checks and balances system.

[oftenon]

11:57 PM on 05/01/2012

"void on its face" - and in every taxpayer's face paying for such fraudulent bad faith lawmakers

[Badger33]

01:56 AM on 05/02/2012

They pander to drool farmers on the taxpayer's dime.

[Vintage59]

10:10 PM on 05/01/2012

This is one of the most delicious kicks to the teeth of the women hating crowd that I've seen in a while. The unanimity of the vote shows what an incredibly small portion of the population is pushing this nonsense. They couldn't even win a vote if you had to oppose abortion in order to register.

[sunshineclaimsfl]

08:50 PM on 05/01/2012

““And the beat goes on......and the beat goes on.......everytime I read an article on abortion and read the commentaries I have to hum the old Sonny and Cher song...................To me the anwser is simple. So long as the fetus can not exist independent of the mother then it has no rights. So long as that mother has to carry this fetus for 9 months and all that goes with it she should have the right to not have to. Child bearing (forget the rearing) is difficult and alot of sacrifices need to be made. To be forced to do this for nine months for a child you absoulutely dont want to me is ludicrous.

Plus I find this whole notion very hypocritical on the part of the right. On one hand they are against affordable health care. They are against rising deficits. They are against any programs that help the little guy. Yet they go against all this to make a woman carry a child she does not want. How does she and who in the end pays for this prenancy? Us the tax payer. She will go to the ER for everything which will add to the deficit she and her unwanted child will need all those liberal "help me please" programs you guys seem to hate. Cant have it both ways...””

[tarby]

09:20 PM on 05/01/2012

Fanned. You are absolutely correct in everything you say.

[mollymary]

05:51 AM on 05/02/2012

great post sunshine. it blows my mind how they are against abortion but care nothing for the baby after it is delivered. The right wanting to cut all the social programs that would help a child survive in this jungle of life......they are the worst of the worst with their lies and refusing to help the economy by refusing to raise taxes on the 1% because Grover Norquist owns them. Vote every Republican out 2012!!!!

[Unbelieveable20]

07:09 PM on 05/01/2012

Everyone here seems to think that abortion is a valid treatment of an unwanted pregnancy.

Would it be OK to terminate a pregnancy one week before the due date because you changed your mind about how the baby will inconvenience you?

If not, at what point in the pregnancy does the fetus become a human being to you and what do you base that decision on?

People here say that a growing baby can't survive outside of the womb, so they aren't alive, making them ok to abort. Yet a baby that has already been born can't survive by itself either. Would it be ok to kill those babies because they can't survive outside the womb? What's the difference?

[DakkonA]

07:53 PM on 05/01/2012

It is.

It is not.

24-28 weeks of development, when the brain undergoes its most rapid period of development, the sensory nerves hook up, the brain assumes control of the body, and the brainwaves resemble a baby's.

"alive or not" is not the question. "person or not" is. And I agree, survival outside the womb/dependence isn't a good marker.

[tarby]

09:24 PM on 05/01/2012

F&F.

We are all wasting our breath however. The truth is out there, but people like "unbelievable" aren't listening because they only want to keep believing what they believe. For heaven's sake there are still "birthers" out there!

[Lady1genius]

08:03 PM on 05/01/2012

Pregnancies are only terminated one week before the due date because the baby is born early, regardless of whether or not it's convenient. You ask when does the fetus become a human being? That would be when it's born, but I think the question you're really asking is when does it become a person... because it has never been any other species and you know it. The law allows the state to intervene at the point of viability, and I think we're all ok with that.
Your remark about an unviable fetus is rather childish. I think you know full well that a child who has been born is perfectly well able to survive on it's own without the use of the woman's body, and that's the difference. Ability to survive outside the uterus has nothing to do with not needing care. A person of ANY age can need care when too ill or injured to do it for themselves, that doesn't equate to needing to use someone else's body for every need.

[tarby]

09:22 PM on 05/01/2012

Snap!
Fanned Lady

[vallontina]

04:00 PM on 05/01/2012

The header of the article originally said fetus, then when I clicked in they are referring to embryos. A whole different story. Listen - it's all subjective. Let's say a pregnant woman doesn't want to carry to term for whatever reason, she will argue that it's not a 'person' and get an abortion. A pregnant woman is in a car accident and her fetus dies, she will say that she lost her 'baby' and grieve. I guess it's all what you want to believe and are willing to live with.

[giftsthatpurr]

04:53 PM on 05/01/2012

Belief - yes; one either believes in abortion or one does not. Pro-choice advocates do not try to force abortion, either with laws or any other way. Forced birthers try to force women to carry pregnancies to term. Pro choice allows for belief; anti-choice/forced birthers do not. Since our government is not a religion, allowance for belief seems legitimte.

[DakkonA]

07:56 PM on 05/01/2012

Well it becomes a fetus around 10 weeks or so, so it applies to both embryos and early fetuses.

As far as your dichotomy is concerned, we can distinguish them by holding that the pre-person fetus, if lost, is a loss to the mother, not the loss of a separate person.

[helenwheels74]

03:12 PM on 05/01/2012

how about a 'personhood' bill stating that we all are equal and there's no such thing as a second-class citizen? there are plenty of people in this land who are being denied basic equal rights, and these lawmakers are focussing on clumps of cells instead of living, breathing citizens?

[ResidentPragmatist]

04:11 PM on 05/01/2012

That's what they do, Helen. These same people who are so fervently "pro-life" won't give two $hits about the kid once it is born. Gay? You're going to hell! Don't believe in our Christ? You're going to hell! All these people care about is imposing upon others their own religious beliefs. This debate does not concern actual life, because if it did they would care about the "poor innocent baby" once it is born. No, this issue is and always has been about controlling those of us who are already living.

[George McAulay]

04:26 PM on 05/01/2012

F & F Helen from Down Under.

That is the awful truth. These god bothering, born to rule mindsets lack basic human kindness.

[giftsthatpurr]

04:54 PM on 05/01/2012

x2

[norcalcool]

03:12 PM on 05/01/2012

I hear the screaming of "Activist Judges" coming from the peanut gallery..

[thepeanutgallery]

11:39 PM on 05/01/2012

Nope. No screams of "Activist Judges" here. I actually applaud this measure and hope it continues on to the other states that have caught the stupid.

[sunshineclaimsfl]

03:05 PM on 05/01/2012

“And the beat goes on......and the beat goes on.......everytime I read an article on abortion and read the commentaries I have to hum the old Sonny and Cher song...................To me the anwser is simple. So long as the fetus can not exist independent of the mother then it has no rights. So long as that mother has to carry this fetus for 9 months and all that goes with it she should have the right to not have to. Child bearing (forget the rearing) is difficult and alot of sacrifices need to be made. To be forced to do this for nine months for a child you absoulutely dont want to me is ludicrous.

Plus I find this whole notion very hypocritical on the part of the right. On one hand they are against affordable health care. They are against rising deficits. They are against any programs that help the little guy. Yet they go against all this to make a woman carry a child she does not want. How does she and who in the end pays for this prenancy? Us the tax payer. She will go to the ER for everything which will add to the deficit she and her unwanted child will need all those liberal "help me please" programs you guys seem to hate. Cant have it both ways...”

[ResidentPragmatist]

04:12 PM on 05/01/2012

Do you think these same right-wingers would care about those "innocent babies" once they are born if they are gay? Not a chance. Hypocrites! They want to control women, they just use this "pro-life" stance as a distraction for their real agenda.

[giftsthatpurr]

05:00 PM on 05/01/2012

Totally agree. F/f

[sunshineclaimsfl]

08:49 PM on 05/01/2012

Sure some may think this way but I think alot of truly religious people really believe in what they are doing. They truly believe that ending the fetus life is murder and truthfully I agree. Its is murder. Sure there may be good reasons for it but it is murder. Life is a miricle is it not? To live on this earth is a blessing..No? To end a life really should be wrong , should it not? Dont get me wrong I am pro choice but there are alot of legit arguments on the other side. It should not be a political issue.

[giftsthatpurr]

04:59 PM on 05/01/2012

fanned

[Nathan0316]

02:59 PM on 05/01/2012

Logically if "personhood" began at conception then surely they would be granted all the rights therein? Meaning they would be able to marry, vote, join the armed services etc etc, rights that are currently denied to large swathes of the public i.e. children (and felons, but hey, who wants them voting after they've paid their debt to society, right?)

I wonder how the politicians would react to that one? Pregnant mothers suddenly getting two votes instead of one? Maybe then the USA would start spending money on education, healthcare and social care instead of little things like a navy larger than the next 13 countries combined (11 of whom are allies by the way).

Huh, maybe it's not such a crazy idea after all...

[DakkonA]

08:00 PM on 05/01/2012

Well no, they'd say that they are equal to babies... while not recognizing that there's far more of a life stage difference between embryo and baby than there is between baby and adult.

[MarsAmbassador]

02:41 PM on 05/01/2012

Roe v. Wade isn't exclusivel­­y about abortion. It's about personal privacy and legal establishm­­ent of the fact that the government doesn't own our bodies. It's the ULTIMATE ruling regarding privacy, personal freedom, physical autonomy and liberty from tyranny of the government­­. It ruled that YOU own your body, not the government (or corporatio­­ns or individual­­s). THAT is where the legal basis for abortion comes from. It's amazing to me how many people don't understand this.

The plutocrats want to own everything­­, including us. They have employed the religious right to oppose Roe v. Wade on the abortion and religious grounds (while promising them power in return), and the corporate oligarchy and police state plutocrats attacks our privacy from the other side, but it's a smokescree­­n for their proxy war against owning us wholesale. Strike Roe v. Wade down and you destroy our personal liberty far greater than anything you could possibly imagine.

[sunshineclaimsfl]

03:12 PM on 05/01/2012

But the big question here is not that the govt wants to own or not own your body but whether the fetus is a seperate entity and should have rights of its own. Such as whether it wishes to live or not. We have laws here that provide a "decision maker" for those who can not decide for themselves they are called guradians representatives etc....Who advocates for fetus? In the animal kingdom it would be the mother cause while carrying the mother would never think to terminate the preganancy. Only humans seem to decide whether their own children shall live or not. But no matter how I feel since the fetus totally depends on the mother the choice ulitimately is hers............................

[bbarron2]

04:02 PM on 05/01/2012

It depends only on the woman for nutrition and its natural home,the womb.She cannot be called a Mother if there is no person there. It's interesting that if the woman really understands that this entity really depends on her why would she kill it.Because of the abortion mentality they have been spoon fed since at least the generation beginning in 1952.They have been told they have this right from infancy.And the right to be homosexual now in schools.This is another God given right.

[handyhippie65]

05:16 PM on 05/01/2012

uhh... there are many instances in nature where the female naturally aborts, or they commit matricide. mostly due to lack of food resources, or environmental stresses. the reality is human woman have been aborting unwanted children for as long as there has been humans. it is a problem now because certain religions think that a woman is the property of her husband, father, brothers, uncles, and what ever other male happens to be holding her at the given moment. the bible says it, but most christians overlook the parts that they don't like. but those in power, seek to retain that power, at any cost. they see themselves losing power in america, and are getting desperate to regain it.

[ResidentPragmatist]

04:16 PM on 05/01/2012

Excellent points, Mars.

[mysaltydog]

01:55 PM on 05/01/2012

Score one for rationality and sane thinking!