Oklahoma City News, Entertainment & Occasional Humor • Established 2007

The “Personhood” movement is coming to Oklahoma…

Last year, Mississippi voters rejected Initiative 26. Called the personhood amendment, it would have defined a person as “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.” If passed, the bill would have made things like birth control and abortion illegal.

Well, now the “personhood” debate is coming to Oklahoma thanks to certified wacko and Republican leader Mike Reynolds.

From NewsOK:

A ballot measure that would criminalize abortion by granting “personhood” status to a human embryo is one of nearly a dozen proposals that Oklahoma lawmakers want to send to voters in November.

The personhood amendment is similar to a proposal that was rejected by Mississippi voters last year, but the author of the Oklahoma proposal, Rep. Mike Reynolds, said Monday that he’s modified the language to specify that the measure does not apply to miscarriages or to cases where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother.

“I am absolutely for saving every unborn child,” said Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City. “I think without question it would limit the number of abortions.”…

If approved by the Legislature, Reynolds’ bill would place a question on the November ballot asking voters to “expand the class of human beings that currently enjoy the inherent right to life under the Oklahoma Constitution to include every human being.”

While the measure would not apply to miscarriages or medical treatments to save the life of a mother, it would ban birth control methods or in vitro fertilization that “kills a person.” The measure also states there would be no exceptions for pregnancies that occur as a result of rape or incest, a provision that Martha Skeeters, the head of the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, finds troubling.

“I think most people in Oklahoma would be horrified by the idea that a state legislator is trying to force women made pregnant by rape to carry their rapist’s child,” Skeeters said. “Women live their lives knowing what their own circumstances are, knowing what their own values are, and are perfectly capable of making their own moral decisions. They don’t need the government making those decisions for them.”

Even if Reynolds’ bill is unsuccessful, an effort already is underway to launch a signature drive to place the initiative on the ballot.

Dan Skerbitz, a Tulsa accountant and director of Personhood Oklahoma, said he plans to file notice this week with the Secretary of State’s Office of his intent to gather signatures. Skerbitz said he expects the 90-day signature drive to take place from March to May, and that the language in his proposal would be similar to the initiative in Mississippi.

“The goal would be to basically protect the unborn, which would mean the intentional killing of the unborn without due process would be a crime,” Skerbitz said…

I’ll be honest with you, I’m kind of excited about this. I’ve always wondered if Oklahomans are crazier than Mississippians, and now we’ll finally get the chance to know for sure. Mississippi voters rejected the measure by a 59% vote. If Oklahoma voters reject it by a lesser margin (or God forbid approve it), we are crazier. If not, Mississippians are the crazy ones. Or maybe we’re all crazy, who knows.

Also, I like how the difference between the Mississippi initiative and the “toned-down” Oklahoma version is that we’re apparently okay with miscarriages. How civilized of us! Sure, under the new law it will be a crime to use birth control or to get an abortion if you are raped and impregnated by your uncle, but we’re okay with miscarriages. I’m sure nothing can go wrong there. It will be interesting to see what happens when the first woman suffers a miscarriage after “accidentally” falling down a flight of stairs in Loud City at a Thunder game.

Anyway, in a normal state this proposed law would never make it out of a committee, but we’re in Oklahoma. Our lawmakers are crazier than a person enjoying a steak at Western Sizzlin’. I’m surprised they haven’t passed a law yet that makes it illegal to even think about abortion or something that declares the baby-delivering stork the new state bird of Oklahoma. Crap, I may have just given the wackos at the capital another idea. I apologize.

p.s. – Couldn’t really think of any proper photo to include with this post, so I just went with the new PETA ad featuring PC North graduate Olivia Munn. You’re welcome.

email

Comments

  1. So for birth control would this just ban things like RU-486 or would it also apply to traditional birth control and Plan B?
    This is all sorts of fucked up. Go Oklahoma!

  2. It’s pretty awesome we are so caught up on the economic issues of the state, that the great and mighty OK legislature has the time to take on these important social issues.

    sigh…

  3. How many unwanted children has Mike Reynolds adopted? If he wants all these unwanted kids to be born into the world then he should adopt 20 or 25 of them.

  4. So what happens when he gets testicular cancer (from one of the diseases he will be treated for secretly from cheating on his wife…because we all know elected officals only have morals so far as to just talk about them) and has to get his testicle removed? The number of unborn children that will be killed from that alone will be more than all the abortions in Oklahoma’s history. I say we charge him with infanticide every time he decides to ‘pinch’ one off. Sorry for the rant, I just think it should be illegal for any government official to even mention the word, abortion.

  5. I love how it’s an abomination to mandate that the uninsured be required to buy health insurance instead of using the E.R. as a general practitioner. Yet, it’s ok to legislate morality AND circumvent the rights of women, as if “they know better”. I love Oklahoma, but as a moderate democrat, it is becomming increasingly difficult to live here.

  6. We are already seen as a state of the dustbowl, tornados, religious fanatics and now this. They sure know how to make our state seem backward, dusty, stormy and ignorant.

  7. As someone who is pro-life I can totally understand the other point of view that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body and it’s nobody’s business .My only question is that of value and who gets to decide what has value and what does not have value. From my perspective the only difference between you and me and a 2 second old fertilized egg is time. Does a 2 second fertilized egg of a married couple wanting to have a baby have more value than let’s say a 2 second fertilized egg of an unwanted pregnancy of a teenage girl? Patrick’s argument about incest and rape is a case used for abortion and to tug at our hearts for the victims of such situations and indeed these things do happen and actually if it’s only happened once during the course of human history that’s one time too many. However, the vast majority of abortions are out of convenience and nothing more. Most statistics I’ve seen say only about 1% of abortions are due to rape/incest. In India abortions take place in the millions only because they were female. Is that ok??? Did they only have value and worth if they had only been male? Look I’m not one to vote for a candidate because they speak the loudest about passing a law to ban abortions nor am I going to picket an abortion clinic. However, we must all realize that we were all once a 2 second fertized egg and I think we can all agree that we have value and deep down inside we know this to be true without the government/society/somebody else having to tell us we have value. Why do we we as humans place such an importance for human rights and dignity of life outside the womb but then at the same time for some of us disregard it as excess skin up to a certain maturation point. I don’t think any of us regardless of what side of the fence we sit on would ever say to a woman who was 2 weeks pregant “Hey have you decided on the name of the excess cells in your womb yet?” No we call it a baby don’t we if we know it is a pregnancy that is wanted. But if it’s not wanted it becomes way to easy to depersonalize it and call it excess cells or a fetus. Just something to think about.

    • Interesting Embo. I’ve heard that argument used before. “It’s not about Value. It’s about MY property.” Says the 19th century southern plantation owner. “It’s not about value. It’s about our sovereignty.” Says the apartheid South African of the early 1980’s. It’s not about value it’s about my ideal of a utopian society through socialism!” Says the staunch communist of the USSR in the 1950’s. I totally get what you are saying however your point of view does not conform to how it is observed in REALITY!!! Why would I make that statement. Well because if every woman such as yourself all came to that same conclusion that you stated above than I might believe it to be true as perceived in reality. But unfortunately many women DO believe that a fetus has value at conception and makes the choice to put that fetus above their own body and yes even to the possibility of death. So my argument is a valid one from my perspective. Now you have every right to not agree and I’m going to have to pin you down here. What exactly do you mean by that statement? Do you mean that none of us ultimately has value. Do you mean once somebody is born they have value? or do you mean that at some point in the womb a fetus has value? After all I truly am a seeker after truth and either a fetus right at conception has value or it doesn’t.

      • Yuck. And yes, his answer is a woman should not have the right to choose what happens with her body.

        Btw, it is an election year…the craziness will be in full force this year.

      • If The Lost Ogle ever starts a page for “weirdest post of the month” then R Anders’ post should be the first one in!

        Wow!

  8. You make a very good and valid point, R Anders. But it is still your viewpoint, opinion, perspective. No matter what, people will always have their own opinions about various matters, despite any amount of persuasion. In my opinion, there is too much gray area in the debate of abortion. When does life really start, is all ejaculated semen potential lives, what if the woman is raped, what if the woman did not know she was pregnant and unknowingly caused her own miscarriage, what if the child is going to grow up completely unwanted by his or her parents, what if some people believe life begins at a different time than conception, what if, what if. When there is gray area, when people have their own wide range opinions, the state has no right to come in and mandate what is right and what is wrong. Simply put.

    People have very passionate opinions on abortion, on opposing sides. Not one side is completely right and not one side is completely wrong. We are all here for the good of mankind, not to cause infanticide or unleashed biopower of the state. Everyone has the right to a choice, and no one should ever be forced into a choice, especially something as critical and important as becoming a mother.

    • First GB I would like to thank you for your very thoughtful and intelligent response. It is a breath of fresh air unlike some of the other replys I’ve seen. My response is not to attack you personally but to only bring up one issue I have with what you have said because I found it very fascinating in your response to all the other things you laid out in your argument. And that is your statement “We are all here for the good of mankind.” I find that fascinating because that is a truth claim. Where did you get that notion of the absolute from? I can give example after example of people/societies/governments that would contradict what you just claimed according to their worldview. You see I was very careful in how I worded my posts above because my point wasn’t necesarily about me wanting the government to ban abortions. It had to do more with moral relativism which is a rampant world view in our culture. The problem with moral relativism is that if you look deep enough it really can’t be lived out. Why? Well anytime somebody says “You should not” you are appealing to a standard outside of your standard or mine to say that something was absolutely wrong/right. For instance, I think we can all agree that what Jerry Sandusky did to all those little boys was absolutely wrong. But a moral relativist can’t actually make that statement. Now what he can say is “well from my perspective it was wrong buy from Sandusky’s perspective it was ok. I’m not right he’s not wrong and he’s not right and I’m not wrong it’s just a personal bias we both have.” So the real question that it comes down to is that of truth. I like the Christian apologist RC Sproul’s definition of truth ” Truth is defined as that which corresponds to reality as perceived by God because God’s perception of reality is never distorted. It’s a perfect perception of reality.” Now as to the topic of whether there is a God or not that’s a whole new topic altogether. God Bless!!

Previous Post Lost Ogle Q & A: Brian Winkeler
Next Post Gary England has unblocked us. Order is restored to the universe