Oklahoma

As reported in the Tulsa World, Oklahoma State Rep Mike Reynolds has introduced HB 1029, The Personhood Act:

A. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Personhood Act of 2013".

B. The Oklahoma Legislature finds that:

1. The life of each human being begins at conception;
2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being; and
3. The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.

C. The laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state.

D. As used in this section, “unborn child” or “unborn children” shall include all unborn children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.

E. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.

F. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as applying to spontaneous miscarriages.

Bravo, Rep Reynolds.

Dear Friend of Life:

I’ve been looking forward to the day when we pass a personhood law, and I’ve always known that the very next day the pro-aborts would fight us in court.  Just like you, it’s a fight I’ve always wanted. 

But now the Oklahoma Supreme Court has fast-forwarded our efforts by at least two years and given us the chance to challenge the so-called “right” to abortion at the U.S. Supreme Court!

Here’s a little background to help you better understand how this HUGE opportunity came to be:

Politicians have said for years that “Roe must be challenged,” but when Personhood USA gave Oklahoma’s legislature their chance, they lost their nerve. So we switched gears, and poured all of our efforts into the citizen’s initiative for Personhood.

Then news broke that the Oklahoma Supreme Court had joined Planned Parenthood to block our petition drive, and we were ordered to stop gathering signatures.  I couldn’t believe it.  When the judges ruled that we had no right to gather signatures for Personhood in Oklahoma—even before it reached the ballot and before it was voted on by the people--they basically said that American citizens don’t have the right to challenge the opinion of the court.

That’s like the court telling William Wilberforce he couldn’t even introduce a bill to end slavery!

It’s like the court telling Abraham Lincoln he couldn’t even issue the Emancipation Proclamation!

It’s like the court telling Martin Luther King he couldn’t even organize the march in Selma!

Soon after, our legal counsel called me into his office, and laid out the case that the court had overplayed its hand.  The ruling is so outrageous that the Oklahoma Supreme Court has unwittingly handed us a golden opportunity on a silver platter.

The Personhood movement was born in part from Justice Blackmun’s words in Roe v. Wade—written 40 years, and over 50 million lives ago:  “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the case [for legal abortion] collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.”

We are working right now to file the challenge that will put personhood before the U.S. Supreme court and the entire world!  This act of judicial arrogance has thrown open the door for the biggest pro-life challenge to legal abortion in 40 years!

For months now, you and I have invested an enormous amount of effort and money in Oklahoma.

• We activated over 13,000 petitioners!
• We mailed and called over 600,000 citizens!
• We assisted legislators in crafting language.
• We lobbied and brought the fight to the legislature. 

And now, because you have never given up and because you have supplied the prayer and financial support we need, we are preparing for a showdown to challenge the very foundations of Roe v. Wade!

Our persistence is paying off! Our strategy of increasing social tension is working!  Now is the time for the pro-life movement to proclaim: THERE IS NO “RIGHT” TO ABORTION IN THE CONSTITUTION!

The day my counsel laid out the plan of attack, a pro-life warrior like you stepped up with a $50,000 Matching Offer to build a Personhood Supreme Court War Chest!  Will you join him and double your gift to the War Chest today?

The fight to ban Partial Birth Abortion consumed over $250 MILLION DOLLARS before the case even reached the Supreme Court.  But this Personhood case is a chance to “fast-forward” for a fraction of that!  We’ve spent under $50,000 in Oklahoma and we are already on our way to Washington!

(Donations to Personhood Education “Legal Fund” are 100% TAX DEDUCTABLE)

This afternoon I got a report from the field about how Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are already lawyering up ahead of our challenge.  This is the showdown we’ve been waiting for!  The Personhood movement must recruit the best lawyers and craft the best strategies for arguing before the Supreme Court.

We need $250,000 in the next 3 weeks to activate the grass roots, engage the best attorneys, and fund a recall effort against the Oklahoma Supreme Court justices.

I can’t stress enough the critical need for funds and prayer RIGHT NOW.  Will you commit to praying daily for God’s strength and wisdom to be with us? Will you commit to giving financially, knowing your gift of up to $50,000 will be doubled for this historic showdown?

We’ve already invested our prayers, our sweat, and our sacred honor. You and I have been taken to the mountain-top. And if you look over with me now you’ll see the day we end abortion in America.

Momentum is building and I know now is the time to fight fire with fire--to fight Planned Parenthood’s millions with the blessed gifts of the righteous.  Will you join me with your best gift for the Personhood Supreme Court War Chest today?

I need you. The babies need you. And the weak-kneed lawyers, judges & politicians need to hear from all of us!

We need your best gift for the Personhood Supreme Court War Chest today.  Time is short, the pressure is building, and our biggest opportunity yet is bringing total victory within view.  I pray I can count on you.

In Christ,

Keith Mason, Personhood USA

Mainstream media outlets across America could hardly contain their glee last week after the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the state’s citizen-led personhood amendment initiative “unconstitutional.”

The opinion drew the enthusiastic approval of the Tulsa World’s editorial staff, contending: “Our leaders didn't fail us. Rather, they demonstrated they can behave as reasonable and resolute leaders should. They applied the law and made wise and just decisions. Oklahomans should feel gratified their leaders have shown such leadership even in the face of certain harsh repercussions.”

Whether or not the members of the Court will be retained in the next election remains to be seen.

However, far from “reasonable,” “wise,” or “just,” the Oklahoma Court’s decision to deny the people of Oklahoma their right to petition on behalf of the preborn, strike the proposal before it had been sent to the ballot for its approval or rejection, and prematurely substitute their judgment for that of the nation’s High Court, smacks of the kind of judicial activism that Conservatives have been warning against in the years since Roe v. Wade. The opinion is not only an explicit overreach, it also runs counter to the decisions of several state Supreme Courts and a 23-year-old U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

The Oklahoma Senate passed a similar measure by a vote of 34 to 8 in February. Imagine abortion supporters filing suit to halt the House committee hearing, and persuading the Court to rule the measure unconstitutional before it had been brought to a full vote on the floor. Democracy in Oklahoma would essentially be dead—replaced by what could only be described as judicial tyranny of the highest order.

But this scenario is what transpired in Oklahoma last week. The citizen initiative process is the constitutionally protected right of the people to act as the legislative body. The gathering of petition signatures is the garnering of co-sponsors. And the vote on the general election ballot is a vote by the legislative bodies.

At least one state Supreme Court agrees with the sentiment. Last year, the same actors who sued in Oklahoma brought suit in Mississippi, asking the state’s high court to block a personhood vote.

Justice Randy G. Pierce, writing for the majority, would have no part of it:

Essentially, Plaintiffs ask this Court to render judgment upon the substance of Intervenors’ initiative – its constitutionality – in advance of the election. …This Court is without power to interfere with pre-election proposals, because to do so may place the administration of government at the footstool of the judiciary.

This Court will exercise judicial restraint and follow the reasoning of the majority of courts throughout the United States, both federal and state, which: “have articulated a policy of deference toward direct legislation processes.” …We cannot invade the territory of the Legislature or the electorate to review the substantive validity of a proposed initiative, and thereby, we will honor the maxim embodied in the constitutional mandate of separation of powers.

If one is tempted to chalk up the Mississippi decision to the blood red composition of the southern state, consider the decisions of state courts of a more purple hue. Both in 2008 and again this year, the Colorado Supreme Court has denied challenges to personhood, swatting away attempts to interfere with the democratic process. In March, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed, outright, a suit brought by a pro-abortion group.

Even in the liberal bastion that is Oregon, the Supreme Court would only rule on the sufficiency of a personhood measure’s ballot title and “reject[ed], without discussion, the remainder of petitioners' arguments.”

It’s true, the Oklahoma Court is not beholden to the opinions rendered by their counterparts, and their decision can only serve as evidence of their radically liberal disposition.

However, the 1989 Webster v. Reproductive Health Services SCOTUS case took up a Missouri law in which the preamble found that "The life of each human being begins at conception" and that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being.” It also mandated state laws to be interpreted to provide preborn children with "all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state."

The majority upheld the law. Further, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “that it effectively would overrule Roe v. Wade. I think that should be done, but would do it more explicitly.”

Instead, the Oklahoma Court relied, exclusively, on 1992’s Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. Four Justices dissented in that case, with Justice Scalia writing: “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”

Justice Clarence Thomas added in 2000’s Stenberg vs. Carhart: “[T]he Casey joint opinion was constructed by its authors out of whole cloth. The standard set forth in the Casey joint opinion has no historical or doctrinal pedigree. The standard is a product of its authors' own philosophical views about abortion, and it should go without saying that it has no origins in or relationship to the Constitution and is, consequently, as illegitimate as the standard it purported to replace.”

In 2007, the most recent anti-abortion law to find its way to the Court was upheld by five justices thereby reversing the pro-abortion Stenberg decision.

There is not an honest soul in America who considers the abortion controversy “case closed.” The Oklahoma Court, in a brazen attempt to prevent a challenge to current abortion jurisprudence brought by the populace of an entire state, has erred by preventing the people from protecting human life in such practices as human cloning, experimental research on human embryos, and the destruction of human beings following reproductive assistance.

As much as the Oklahoma Court is under the impression that the SCOTUS would strike a total abortion ban, they are also aware that they are as likely to uphold a state constitutional amendment recognizing the most basic human rights of all human beings from the beginning of our lives. Fortunately for the advocates of the rights of all persons, we can now take our argument directly to the U.S. Supreme Court and ask them to follow Justice Scalia’s advice in the Casey dissent:

“We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/successful-personhood-usa-supreme-court…

Successful Personhood USA Supreme Court Appeal could overturn 1992 Casey decision

by The Editors

WASHINGTON, May 1, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Oklahoma State Supreme Court has moved to deny Oklahoma citizens a ballot access initiative for Personhood.

Personhood USA stated in a release today that “On April 30, repeatedly citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Oklahoma State Supreme Court denied Personhood Oklahoma’s right to petition, ruling the ballot measure ‘unconstitutional.’”

Calling the courts decision “a rare move against the people of Oklahoma”, the pro-life organization charges, “the State Supreme Court ruled against the ballot initiative before it went to a vote, denying the people’s right to vote on the issue and the circulator’s right to petition the government.”

Citing the Casey decision, Personhood USA states, “Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion brings weight to the State’s right to allow the people to decide the permissibility of abortion:

“The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Justice Scalia, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.”

“Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, according to Justice Scalia’s opinion, have no basis in law. Because of this, the undue burden of the standard of Casey is completely unworkable,” explained Gualberto GarciaJones, Personhood USA legal analyst. “With such a vague standard and any variety of interpretations, it is impossible for citizens to understand it and apply it. Justice Scalia said citizens can resolve the issue of abortion by persuading one another and voting. If Oklahoma citizens are denied the opportunity to do so, our only recourse is to petition the Supreme Court.”

Steve Crampton, Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel for Liberty Counsel, who represents Personhood Oklahoma, said: “This ruling epitomizes judicial overreaching. It not only misinterprets and misapplies federal constitutional law, but it also denies states’ rights and strips Oklahomans of their right to petition for a substantive change in state law, which is guaranteed under the state constitution. We are hopeful that the United States Supreme Court will reverse this decision.”

While five U.S. Supreme Court Justices are required for a favorable ruling, only four are required to approve a petition for certiorari.

Personhood Oklahoma had been collecting signatures for the Personhood Amendment for two months. The amendment reads, “A ‘person’ as referred to in Article 2, Section 2 of this Constitution shall be defined as any human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being to natural death. The inherent rights of such person shall not be denied without due process of law and no person as defined herein shall be denied equal protection under the law due to age, place of residence or medical condition.”

“The people of Oklahoma will not be silenced,” explained Dan Skerbitz, Director of Personhood Oklahoma. “We have 13,000 volunteers who have been circulating petitions and are ready and willing to continue this fight for human lives. We are more determined than ever to rise up against judicial tyranny and cowardly State Representatives who do not represent the will of the people of Oklahoma.”