Reproductive Rights

The GOP push to grant personhood to human embryos, which can be viewed as an attack against contraceptive methods, is yet another absurd side show to needlessly incite a segment of the Oklahoma Republican voting base this year, but such an extremist law would surely face a major lawsuit and would never be enacted.

Even Mississippi voters—yes, MISSISSIPPI--voted down a similar measure last year. That’s one of the places Oklahoma often competes with in the race to create the nation’s first official Christian state theocracy.

State Rep. Mike Reynolds, an Oklahoma City Republican, pictured right, has introduced a bill that would present the personhood issue to voters next November in the form of a constitutional amendment. He says the proposed constitutional amendment is different than the one Mississippi voters rejected because it exempts miscarriages and situations in which a mother’s life is threatened by her pregnancy.

Personhood is the current anti-abortion initiative du jour, but it’s unlikely to be successful. What it does do, however, is rally Republican voters under a frame that holds far more connotations than just taking away women’s reproductive rights.

Here are some ideas to consider about the proposed personhood amendment:

(1) Let me state the obvious. A human embryo is not a person. Generally speaking, it’s what scientists have termed what happens once a fertilized egg cell or zygote begins to divide and form an embryo, which is part of a woman’s body. It’s a type of cell matter that may or may not form into a person outside the womb. The fact that people can and will argue over the definition of personhood means the issue would never be resolved.

(2) The personhood movement is disingenuous. Obviously, anti-abortion activists want to make abortion illegal. Why not just approach the issue in this upfront matter? Here are two reasons why: (1) Leaders of the anti-abortion movement know it’s highly unlikely they will make abortion illegal in this country, and (2) the anti-abortion industry has well-funded operations that seem more about sustaining themselves than stopping abortions. Again, why don’t leaders of the anti-abortion movement attack Roe v. Wade or try to pass a constitutional anti-abortion amendment on the federal level? It’s because they would lose. The ugly truth is that, generally speaking, the anti-abortion movement tries to punish impoverished women in poorer states because they can’t get a national majority to change the law.

(3) As I stated, “abortion” is a code for a host of other myths and symbols in the right-wing, but more than anything else it has become an excuse for some voters to not engage in the world around them. If opposition to abortion is a voter’s only litmus test, then other aspects of our communal life—civil rights, the economy, foreign policy—become secondary, and this is a tragic error. Anti-abortion activists, under a banner of sanctimony, encourage this reductionist world view. Meanwhile, for many in the right-wing, opposition to abortion also means larger concepts, such as returning to a mythical past, so-called family values, religious piety, elitism and rebuke, and a sense of belonging to a group, which disingenuously insists it’s the one that faces discrimination, not the women it attacks year after year.

(4) Personhood for human embryos is clearly part of the ongoing attack on women’s reproductive rights, including contraception. Birth control and in vitro fertilization that results in an embryo’s death would be illegal under the amendment. What happens with Plan B, an emergency contraceptive, under this amendment? The amendment can obviously be viewed as a prelude to banning all contraception. The nebulous concept of personhood for human embryos could have broader implications that could hold responsible anyone who knowingly participated in an embryo’s death, including a male who either encouraged or didn’t prevent an abortion of a pregnancy created by his sperm.

What are the legal ramifications of a bill passed by the Oklahoma House that gives “inalienable rights” to persons at “the state of fertilization or conception”?

House Bill 1571, sponsored by state Rep. Steve Vaughan, R-Ponca City, defines “person” in the following way:

. . . “person” means a human being at all stages of human development of life, including the state of fertilization or conception, regardless of age, health, level of functioning, or condition of dependency.

The short, terse bill, which recently passed the House in a landslide 74-2 vote, goes on to point out:

All persons are created free and have inalienable rights.

Here are some legal questions the bill raises:

(1) What does this mean in terms of abortion? Would it essentially make abortions illegal here since a fertilized egg, right at the point of conception, would have as many rights as anyone else? Doesn’t the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Roe v. Wade case mean states can’t make abortion illegal? Wouldn’t this bill essentially be struck down as unconstitutional? Would the state have to defend the bill in court? How much in taxpayer money would it cost?

(2) What if a female has a fertilized egg right at the moment of conception, and she doesn’t know it? Does the embryo have legal protection anyway? If a female unintentionally hurt a fertilized egg that she didn’t know about would she be held responsible because she knew there was a potential for pregnancy even if she was or wasn’t using birth control? Would there be age distinctions on this issue? How will this bill, if approved, affect access to birth control? Is this a first step in giving rights to unfertilized eggs and sperm?

(3) Would a fertilized egg’s rights supersede those of a female carrying it? Would females in the future here have no bodily rights once they are at any stage of pregnancy? Would a female who has had an abortion in the past now be held responsible for violating the rights of a person? Could law enforcement officers in the future—and don’t think this is out of the question down the road—do spot-pregnancy tests on women, say, during an DUI arrest, to ensure fertilized eggs are not getting mistreated? Wouldn’t it actually be a duty under the law?

The point is bills like these create a legal quagmire and commit the state to fighting lawsuits filed against it. On a pragmatic level, it does nothing more than that. It might make Vaughan and 73 other state legislators feel good about the “sanctity of life,” but it’s irresponsible, especially during a budget crisis, to pass a bill that could obviously lead to spending state money fighting lawsuits.

The two representatives who had the political courage to vote against the bill were Democrats Mike Shelton, Oklahoma City, and Emily Virgin, Norman.

Gov. Brad Henry’s recent veto of the Statistical Abortion Report Act bill was another sensible and prudent move against a backdrop of extremist GOP-sponsored bills that have defined the 2010 legislative session.

House Bill 3284, sponsored by state Rep. Pam Peterson (R-Tulsa), would require women in Oklahoma to fill out a lengthy questionnaire before they receive an abortion. The information would then be published on a web site maintained by the state. The bill’s alleged purpose is to collect research information about abortions, but it’s really just another way to harass and intimidate women seeking the procedure.

According to media reports, Henry’s veto message included this:

By forcing rape and incest victims to submit to a personally invasive questionnaire and posting the answers on a state website, this legislation will only increase the trauma of an already traumatic event. Victims of such horrific acts should be treated with dignity and respect in such situations, as should all people.

Requiring patients to publicly reveal highly intimate and personal details of their lives to obtain a medical procedure protected by this nation’s highest court constitutes an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and barrier to legal medical treatment.

Henry vetoed two other abortion-related bills this session. One bill would require women to have an ultrasound before the procedure and listen to a detailed description of it. The other bill prohibits women from collecting lawsuit damages if a physician withheld crucial information about their fetuses. The GOP-controlled legislature later voted to override Henry’s two vetoes.

Henry has also vetoed other extremist legislation that would allow Oklahoman to openly carry weapons and to allow the state to opt-out of the new federal health care program. The legislature sustained those two vetoes.

In his last year in office, Henry continues to check extremists who are intent on destroying Oklahoma’s image by passing ultra-conservative, freaky legislation that draws scrutiny and criticism from national media outlets.

As I’ve written before, Henry’s actions show how important it is that Oklahomans elect a Democrat as governor this year. If the Republicans leading candidate for governor—U.S. Rep Mary Fallin—gets elected, and the GOP maintains its majorities in the House and Senate, the 2011 legislative session will produce an avalanche of extremist bills that damage the state’s image.