Oklahoma Supreme Court keeps pro-life trigger law in place with one clarification
The Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the state’s trigger law in a new decision, choosing only to clarify that women should be allowed to undergo an abortion if it is medically indicated.
The plaintiffs in the case argued that there is a right to abortion in the Oklahoma constitution, and that the trigger law should be struck down. However in reigningthe magistrates mentioned that including the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which was reversed Roe v. Wadefinding an abortion right within the state constitution means finding a history of allowing abortion in state history — and Oklahoma has protected life since its inception.
“If we adopt the Dobbs The analysis that we need to find a right to terminate a pregnancy is deeply rooted in Oklahoma history and tradition,” they wrote. “Dobbs relies on various state laws that criminalize abortion to help determine whether abortion rights are deeply rooted in this country. Even during the Oklahoma Territory there were laws prohibiting certain terminations of pregnancy. Shortly after statehood and adoption of the Oklahoma Constitution, these laws continued and were amended several times.
Then Roe fall, Oklahoma’s trigger law quickly went into effect, and protected nearly all preborn children from abortion. The only exception allowed is for women experiencing a medical emergency; the justices here made it clear that this included abortion nothing the “absolute certainty” that his life is in danger, but must be a greater danger than “mere possibility.”
Oklahoma law has long recognized a woman’s right to an abortion to preserve her life (“unless it is necessary to preserve her lie”). That is why our history and tradition have recognized a right to abortion if necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.
… We believe that the Oklahoma Constitution creates the inherent right of a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy when necessary to preserve her life. We will define this inherent right to mean: a woman has the inherent right to choose to terminate her pregnancy if at any point in the pregnancy, the woman’s physician determines to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability that the continuation of pregnancy endangers the woman’s life because of the pregnancy itself or because of a medical condition that the woman currently suffers from or is likely to suffer from during the pregnancy. Absolute certainty is not required, however, mere probability or speculation is not sufficient.
Ultimately, the law will be allowed to remain in place, despite a challenge from the abortion industry.
Every single pro-life law in the country contains exceptions to save the life of the mother. There are some circumstances, such as ectopic pregnancy, where treatment to save the mother’s life means that the preborn child will not survive. This, however, is not the same as an induced abortion: the deliberately, directly killing a preborn child, which is not medically necessary.
