States Passing Pro-life Legislation

I just learned about a new law that the Oklahoma legislature passed a back in May. The new law bans the use of tax-payers’ dollars for abortions. This means that any hospital, clinic or similar institution is prohibited from administering an abortion. More specifically, SB139 “prohibits taxpayer dollars, state-run hospitals, or state employees from being used to perform abortions, except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.” Also the law “requires abortionists to file reports showing they are following state law, such as Oklahoma‚Äôs parental consent and informed consent laws.”

The original bill did not include the “rape or incest” clause. Many pro-life bills and platforms have included this clause despite the fact that abortions resulting from either of these causes are a very small percentage of the abortions performed in this country. But as Senator James Williamson, the bills author, points out, this issue is far too important for the bill to fail simply because it omitted this one clause. So he and other supporters of the bill wisely agreed to include it and thus it passed.

A similar bill had previously been introduced but was subsequently vetoed by Governor Brad Henry. This time however he neither vetoed it nor signed it. Because he did not act upon, it became law once the deadline for action on his part had passed.

I am pleased to see states passing such legislation so as to not only stop the use of taxpayers’ dollars for abortions (many of whom do not support the deadly procedure), but also to require adherence to state parental and informed consent laws. I am even more pleased to see states, namely my home state of Georgia going after Roe v. Wade in a slightly different way. Georgia legislators and citizens are working to pass the Paramount Right To Life Amendment. One of its greatest proponents, a housewife and mother, Jenny Hodges succinctly states the purpose of HR 536:

In the [1973] decision Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, ‘(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.’ So HR 536 basically establishes the personhood of the preborn.

Let those of us who support pro-life legislation follow Oklahoma’s example. Even though our society seems to favor such barbarous practices as aborting unborn children, there is still an overwhelming segment of the population who want to see it come to an end. Let us seek out ways that we can educate ourselves more about the pro-life efforts that are being made where we live so that we can be a part of making such legislation law.

Josh H.

Speak Your Mind

*