[Updated at 7:56 p.m.] The Oklahoma Senate voted Tuesday to override the governor's vetoes and pass two strong anti-abortion measures.
One law requires women to undergo an ultrasound examination and listen to a description of what it shows before getting an abortion.
Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee, a Republican, said Tuesday's vote shows lawmakers listened to Oklahoma's citizens and "made a bold statement in support of the sanctity of life."
But Democratic Gov. Brad Henry has called the legislation "an unconstitutional attempt by the Oklahoma legislature to insert government into the private lives and decisions of its citizens."
Henry vetoed the bill and another abortion-related measure Friday, but the state House on Monday overwhelmingly voted to override both vetoes, with House Speaker Chris Benge, a Republican, lauding his colleagues for "moving quickly." The Senate's 36-12 vote Tuesday was the final step required to make the bills laws.
[Posted at 11:27 a.m.] Oklahoma is the latest battleground in the nation's abortion war, with the state legislature threatening to override the vetoes of two abortion-related bills.
Despite Democratic Gov. Brad Henry's support for "reasonable restrictions" on abortion, he vetoed the bills on Friday.
But the state House on Monday overwhelmingly voted to override both vetoes, with House Speaker Chris Benge, a Republican, lauding his colleagues for "moving quickly."
If the state Senate overrides the legislation, the bills will become law. Senate spokeswoman Malia Bennett said the body possibly will take up the issues on Tuesday.
One bill requires women to undergo an ultrasound examination and listen to a description of it in order to get an abortion, legislation the governor says is "an unconstitutional attempt by the Oklahoma legislature to insert government into the private lives and decisions of its citizens."
"State policymakers should never mandate that a citizen be forced to undergo any medical procedure against his or her will, especially when such a
procedure could cause physical or mental trauma," Henry said. "To do so amounts to an unconstitutional invasion of privacy."
Henry said one of the flaws of the bill is that it lacks an exemption for rape and incest victims.
Henry vetoed similar legislation in 2008. His veto was overridden. The State Supreme Court struck down the legislation because it contained multiple subjects, a violation of the state Constitution requiring measures to deal with single subjects, Bennett said.
The governor says the latest version of the measure is unconstitutional because it puts "government into the private lives and decisions of its citizens." He said opponents are prepared to challenge the measure again.
"Because a similar provision of law has already been struck down by the courts, this legislation will be challenged again, resulting in a costly and potentially futile legal battle for the state," he said.
The other measure prohibits pregnant women and their families from seeking legal damages if physicians "knowingly and negligently" withhold key
information or provide inaccurate information about their pregnancies.
He said it is "unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform a pregnant woman in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on his patient."
Such an issue would be particularly relevant to fetuses with disabilities.
"By prohibiting recovery of damages in wrongful birth and life malpractice actions, the legislation would allow unscrupulous, reckless or negligent physicians to knowingly withhold information or negligently provide
inaccurate information to pregnant women without facing the potential of legal consequences," he said.
The House voted to override the veto of the ultrasound bill by an 81 to 14 vote, well above the three-fourths required. State Rep. Lisa Billy, a Republican, said the bill "does nothing more than give women as much
information as possible before they make the life-altering decision to have an abortion."
"I don't want a single woman to go through the life-long torture of having an abortion without having all the relevant information," Billy said.
The House voted 84 to 12 to override the veto over the legal damage prohibition. State Rep. Dan Sullivan, a Republican, said the bill "simply states that a doctor cannot be sued based on the opinion after birth that a
child would have been better off if he or she had been aborted."
"A bipartisan coalition of members supported this bill the first time, and I am pleased they did again today," Sullivan said.
Benge, the House Speaker, said, "We must move to stop the degradation of human life seen in recent years and stand up for those who cannot defend themselves."
– CNN's Joe Sterling contributed to this report.
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
Let them have abortions, we don't need anymore trailer park trash on tv.
He doesn't mind letting a woman go through the life-long torture of caring for a child that cannot ever be happy, healthy or whole.
I live in Oklahoma and I am glad to have a rational governor like Brad Henry in office. We have so many backwards politicians in our state trying to pass unconstitutional laws based on "God's will". There are many educated, successful Okies in the world doing great things, but they're never heard of because things like this keep making the news and people like Rick (who couldn't be bothered to capitalize his name) perpetuate the ignorant views of my state.
Abortion is a personal choice. The government should not tell women what to do with their bodies. Late-term abortions are awful though, if the fetus is able to survive outside the womb you might as well carry it to term and put it up for adoption but if you're in the first trimester the choice to continue should be yours and yours alone.
I don't see anything here about not allowing abortions. We reading the same article?
52% of abortions are obtained by Women with available incomes of over 30,000 yearly. This includes incomes over 60,000. A little better than most trailer trash that I know of Rick. I have two friends who both have doctorates, their entire family participates in community theatre. They appear to be happy and healthy, and yet they spent a number of years in a trailer park.
I'm curious exactly how you go about evaluating what human "trash" is. Certainly someone so willing to eliminate a human life as you would appear to approach the definition of true human detritus, being banal to the species.
I'm also curious to know at what point you think a human life becomes worthwhile to live? It seems to me that those humans most admired are those that over come tremendous obstacles to achieve greatness. You appear to define a worthwhile life as one that starts in splendor and has an easy course charted for it.
And how exactly do you define happiness Homa? Are you happy? Or do you only experience excitement and lust? Have you ever had children? The parents of disabled children who I know don't consider it torture at all. I believe the happiest and friendliest children I know are down syndrome children. Would you have aborted Steven Hawking? Granted an unusual example, but why would that have to be their potential even for them to have the right to live?
Mr. Hawking theorizes that there is definitely life out there and some of it is likely to be unfriendly. How do we know what kinds of lives are going to be useful in the future? Who's going to be more likely to stand down a homicidal acid spitting arthropod from vega 6, an effete poet laureate with a "full life", or a piece of "trailer trash" that enjoys watching murder on the television.
I suggest that to entirely eliminate the cave from the man is to eliminate a necessary part of our species, and could very well lead to the elimination of our species.
I confess I know of no habitat outside of a cave that's so close to that existence as a trailer.
You both seem to put human life somewhere in the neighborhood of dog, to be put down if it doesn't meet it's owners arbitrary standard. Do we so own an unborn life? I believe we've already fought an entire war about one human having that sort of authority over another. Perhaps we'll have to do it again. Perhaps we are already doing it again.
I know the teabaggers will be protesting these bills, because they are for more government, right?
What is WRONG with the state of Oklahoma???? Do you not have budgets to balance, highways to pave or build???? Are you just so determined to insert yourself in the private lives of women that you cannot stand to let a year go by without enacting so backward, rightwing, intrusive piece of legislation?? How insulting to the women of Oklahoma. Get a life and start acting like legislators rather than parents. Most people already have those and they are not elected officials....
Thank you so much for your comment! I live in Oklahoma and am a victim of terrible bills such as this. It is not the government's job to humiliate women and make an abortion as difficult as possible. It is wrong and violates my privacy as a woman. These bills are a major waste of taxpayer dollars. Thank you for being a voice of reason!
why is it The GOB wants small goverment. Then wants to make a state spend money fighting a law that they know is wrong and sticking there nose is states business just like the GOB to say lets wall street do its thing but you are not smart enough to make a decision.
Regardless of why a woman chooses to terminate a pregancy, be it lack of financial, emotional, spiritiual resources, age at conception, family support or health status, it is the the woman's decision; not yours or mine. She need not have to explain to everyone or anyone. It is a private matter between whomever she involves. She has the right to complete, accurate, and unbiased information from her healthcare provider just as any other person would expect when they visit the doctor for some other condition or treatment. Women never expect to have to contemplate having an abortion and they don't make the decision lightly. We have to trust women to know whether or when they are ready to parent. It is a big responsibility. But, whether a woman chooses continue a pregnancy to or to terminate, her decision should be respected.
Lets be clear about his legislation in Oklahoma. It is designed to create obstacles for women seeking a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURES based on personal judgements. Unfortunately, in many states all over the country during every legislative session, bills are introduced to chip away at access to abortion services via mandatory waiting periods, viewing of ultrasounds, spousal consent, etc. Oklahoma is not much different that others states like Arizona, Colorado, or Florida. What's important though is that women stand up, take action and let their legislators know that this kind of legislation will not be tolerated.
The, once again, I ask which of you "I will control your life" idiots is going to step forward and care for any unwanted children. Pay the medical costs for the care for the totally disabled, deformed or otherwise unable to fend for themselves births. Many of these births end up being cared for by welfare, foster homes, indigent medical care, but none of you self rightous bible thumpers will come forward to help. Until you do, get the hell off your high horse and let idividuals deal with these issues for themselves. I am tired of all the Government contols put upon the population by a bunch of self serving morons.
What about the father – it is his baby as well – what about the baby's voice!? What about common respect for the voice that can not speak? Maybe we should do the same things Hitler did – no one spoke up for jews, the retarted, the mentaly ill, the homosexuals, the one's who could not speak for themselves. What was their value?
When Men (or women) start to actually take care of their children, maybe there would not be so many abortions. That being said, why shoud anyone except the pregnant woman have any say about what she does or does not do with HER body. Do we ever see any legislation that would require men to have anything even similar done to their body? Maybe there should be a big issue raised about how babies are conceived and that the man who become deadbeat parents should be forced to have a vasectomy! How would a man like being told he must do that?? No abortion is a good thing, however, the woman is the one who gets the lifetime job of raising the child if the father won't take responsibility. Think of all the people on welfare and how many babies are still born that the states have to care for because of deadbeat parents who won't support their own. Think of all the problems people have adopting babies in the US, which is probably why they go overseas for an adoption. If we didn't have Roe v Wade, there would certainly be many more children supported by welfare which you and I pay for. Abortion is a personal choice that only the affected woman should have to deal with, it's between her and her God. NO ONE ELSE has the right to say what she does with her own flesh and blood body.
Yep. Strange how those who howl for Big Government to get out of our lives are always the most eager to push for laws controlling the most private and personal parts of our lives– birth, sex and death.
Abortions are wrong if they can lay doen and make them they should have them and raise them..but if no than they should just put them up for adoption not kill them thats MURDER!!!!
I am always against abortion because it is a sin to kill an innocent child.;.`
we should ban all forms of abortion because it is not right to kill an unborn child:*: