Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

elleng

(130,865 posts)
Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:46 PM Dec 2012

.Okla. Court Says Abortion Laws Unconstitutional.

Source: ap/nyt

Oklahoma laws requiring women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound image placed in front of them while they hear a description of the fetus and that ban off-able use of certain abortion-inducing drugs are unconstitutional, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The state's highest court determined that lower court judges were right to halt the laws. In separate decisions, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said the laws, which received wide bipartisan support in the Legislature, violated a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case.

The Oklahoma court said it has a duty to "follow the mandate of the United State Supreme Court on matters of federal constitutional law."



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/12/04/us/ap-us-oklahoma-abortion-laws-blocked.html?hp

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
.Okla. Court Says Abortion Laws Unconstitutional. (Original Post) elleng Dec 2012 OP
Yoo doggie, love this judicial decision Dont call me Shirley Dec 2012 #1
Great news. DreamGypsy Dec 2012 #2
This SOB sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #8
The 14th Amendment Mrs. Ted Nancy Dec 2012 #12
The US Supreme Court can simply decide not to hear the appeal and all is moot. So there! xtraxritical Dec 2012 #21
Oklahoma? Woww LiberalFighter Dec 2012 #3
It's the Oklahoma court. They consistently rule against the nutty laws our legislature passes. OKNancy Dec 2012 #9
Agreed! There is no law too nutty avebury Dec 2012 #19
good news.....! madrchsod Dec 2012 #4
The tea party is on the way out madokie Dec 2012 #5
Anything to piss off the "pro lifers" - definitely a step toward progress! Initech Dec 2012 #6
I think you mean 'anti-choicers' duhneece Dec 2012 #16
That's why I put "pro life" in quotation marks. Initech Dec 2012 #17
Sorry I missed the meaning of the quotation marks duhneece Dec 2012 #22
I guess Oklahoma SCVDem Dec 2012 #7
I don't see John2 Dec 2012 #10
He's a publicity hound Mrs. Ted Nancy Dec 2012 #13
Don't be so sure of that davidpdx Dec 2012 #20
Awesome! LiberalLoner Dec 2012 #11
CUE THE VONAGE THEME! rocktivity Dec 2012 #14
Wassa Matta, Kansas ??? WillyT Dec 2012 #15
A drop of honey in a vat of sludge. lindysalsagal Dec 2012 #18

DreamGypsy

(2,252 posts)
2. Great news.
Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:50 PM
Dec 2012

But, of course, they won't be deterred:

From the article:

State Attorney General Scott Pruitt, whose office appealed lower-court decisions that invalidated the laws, said he is considering appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We disagree with the court's decision, particularly with the fact that the question on whether Oklahoma's Constitution provides a right to an abortion was left unanswered," Pruitt said in a statement.
 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
8. This SOB
Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:14 PM
Dec 2012

is implying that state law trumps federal law, even the Constitution. Sort of like State's Rights on steroids. This kind of argument has been the cause of much national unpleasantness in the past and pretty much amounts to an appeal for secessionist treason as far as I'm concerned.

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)
9. It's the Oklahoma court. They consistently rule against the nutty laws our legislature passes.
Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:19 PM
Dec 2012

It was not unexpected.

avebury

(10,952 posts)
19. Agreed! There is no law too nutty
Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:22 PM
Dec 2012

enough for our state legislature to vote on. It is ridiculous to have a state government more interested in trying to enact unconstitutional crazy laws then to conduct serious business. They are truly a joke.

madokie

(51,076 posts)
5. The tea party is on the way out
Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:54 PM
Dec 2012

And I love it, oh how I love it. YEE HAW
I didn't spend 15 months of my life defending those who supported this law to begin with.

duhneece

(4,112 posts)
16. I think you mean 'anti-choicers'
Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:41 PM
Dec 2012

We want to reframe this issue to one that highlights their opposition to women being allowed to make choices for their own bodies. The R's were very successful 'naming & framing' this issue the way you did--it's time to raise our consciousness to reflect their anti-women point of view.

Initech

(100,063 posts)
17. That's why I put "pro life" in quotation marks.
Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:47 PM
Dec 2012

These people are not in any way shape or form pro life. They kill doctors and don't give a shit if the woman's life is in danger- what kind of pro life is that? They're anti woman if anything else. If you look closer these morons have more in common with the Taliban than you'd think.

duhneece

(4,112 posts)
22. Sorry I missed the meaning of the quotation marks
Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:53 AM
Dec 2012

You are so right-they ARE very anti-women; they don't trust women. I am still riding high because in a recent discussion about abortion, I got a man to admit he didn't trust women. I got him to repeat himself twice. I believe he will replay that conversation in his head (as I did), and realize how he sounds. I 'plant seeds' in conversations like that.

 

SCVDem

(5,103 posts)
7. I guess Oklahoma
Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:04 PM
Dec 2012

has no homeless or hungry. No orphans or disabled to care for.

Note the term, EXPECTING a baby!

That says it isn't a baby until it's born!

Now please leave womens health alone!

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
20. Don't be so sure of that
Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:36 PM
Dec 2012

While I hope they won't hear the case, you better believe there is a chance they will.

Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito are chopping at the bit to over turn precedents set by the Supreme Court. Remember awhile back the case on affirmative action was heard in which a previous ruling had supported it. O'Conner's writing for the majority basically stated that she believed in 25 years affirmative action should not be needed (this was in 2002 and I don't remember the name of the case). First, they narrow the law, then they out right overturn it. Keep watching, this is what they are up to.

lindysalsagal

(20,670 posts)
18. A drop of honey in a vat of sludge.
Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:02 PM
Dec 2012

There were always little pockets of justice even during the worst of the racist lynchings. Yet the lynchings continued.

Crazy just gets crazier when judges use the n-word: No!.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News».Okla. Court Says Abortio...