Judge rules Oklahoma abortion law unconstitutional

[cal04]

Oklahoma declares anti-choice law posting details of women’s abortions online unconstitutional.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/20/oklahoma-unconstitutional/

Last year, the Oklahoma legislature passed a controversial abortion law that mandated collecting personal details about every single abortion performed in the state and posting them on a public website. Although women wouldn’t have to disclose their name, address, or other specific identifying information, many were concerned that patients could still be revealed. The law was supposed to go into effect on Nov. 1, 2009, but delayed because of a legal challenge by the Center for Reproductive Rights. Yesterday, an Oklahoma County district judge ruled the law unconstitutional:

The court ruled that the bill passed by the legislature addressed too many disparate topics and therefore violated the Oklahoma Constitution’s “single-subject” rule which requires laws only address one topic at a time.

The law also would have banned abortions based on a woman’s gender preference for her child; created new responsibilities for state health agencies to gather and analyze abortion data and enforce abortion restrictions; and redefined a number of abortion-related terms used in Oklahoma law. <...>

This is the second time in two years that the Oklahoma legislature has tried to restrict abortion in the state by bundling numerous provisions into one bill. In September, the Oklahoma District Court struck down another state law imposing various abortion restrictions, including the most extreme ultrasound requirement in the country, ruling that it violated the state’s single subject rule.

In October, ThinkProgress interviewed Oklahoma state Rep. Jeannie McDaniel (D), an outspoken opponent of HR 1595. She told us that the legislation — introduced by two men — demonstrated “a very strong feeling” in Oklahoma “that women aren’t capable of making reproductive decisions when it comes to terminating a pregnancy.”


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20100219_14_0_OKLAHO398221
http://reproductiverights.org/en/press-room/court-strikes-down-intrusive-ok-abortion-law-declares-unconstitutional

[vegiegals]

1. Nice to see some sanity.

[Union Yes]

11. +1 nt

[enlightenment]

2. Good - they struck down the whole thing.

It was written in a way that they could have taken down part without taking down the rest - and one of the nastiest bits was in the 'definition' section, where they defined a person from conception forward.

Nice to see some common sense in Oklahoma's courts.

[leftstreet]

3. K&R

[customerserviceguy]

4. This issue aside

it's got to be damned inconvenient to write laws in Oklahoma, can anybody imagine if the US Congress had to pass laws that did only one narrowly defined thing at a time? There'd be a hundred votes a day!

[RC]

6. How would that be worse that what we have now where some unseen clerk sticks a sentence

in a bill that has nothing to do with the bill, and kills something that is good and needed.

[customerserviceguy]

7. It seems to me that both are extremes

While the extreme you cite can be cured by openness (putting the full text of bills on the Internet for a week or two, for example), the other extreme makes it very tough to pass legislation that can address a complicated situation.

[Richard Steele]

16. CongressCritters would actually have to vote on the ISSUES? Oh, the horror!

Pfft.

[Thothmes]

18. But at least the laws passed should have

been well read and understood before they passed The current system with 2000 page laws which contain so many fine print goodies and special favors is not a suitable way to do business. IMO

[winyanstaz]

5. Well good news...

There is an honest judge left in America!

[upi402]

8. Judges are vital n/t

[niyad]

9. k and r--good news from OK at last.

[Union Yes]

10. KNR for sanity! nt

[EFerrari]

12. Great news. Thanks, cal04!

K&R

[bertman]

13. Excellent! nt

[alp227]

14. They got it...that law is silly, stupid, invasive, and...UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Good thing that Oklahoma prevents legislative bundling. I suppose that an individual "post abortion patients names online" bill would NEVER pass.

[DeSwiss]

15. K&R

- Why won't the OK legislature just pass this as the law, if it's a Patriarchate-Theocracy they're shootin' for.....

[Better Today]

17. Actually it sort of sounds like they don't want their bills to pass

constitutional muster. If this is the second time they've been pinged for this bundling. I wonder if this is a tactic to be able to go to the constituents and say "honestly, we really tried" while knowing nothing will change. Oh, and it also gives them the chance to say a RW favorite, "it isn't our fault abortion is still legal, it's those damned activist judges."

Yeah, I think they're doing it on purpose to assure that it won't be upheld in court, but they (the pols) get all the perks of passing it.

[greiner3]

19. Damn it;

That's their intention, to pass feel good laws that ultimately get struck down by 'activist judges and liberals.' This way the legislature can keep campaigning against abortion and not have to actually ban it. To do so would take away a huge difference between Dems and themselves.

Or not.

[pleah]

20. K AND R!

[RedRoses323]

21. K&R

:kick:

[XOKCowboy]

22. Damn Activist Judges!!

You wait. It's coming.....

[Carnage251]

23. K&R

[Zoeisright]

24. How about violating privacy laws?

I'm happy it was struck down, but I don't like the 'violating the state's single subject rule'. It's a privacy issue. Always has been, always will be.

[beyurslf]

25. How long before they amend their constitution to allow more than one topic in a bill?

[defendandprotect]

26. And for other medical condition do we file public information about on a public website????