NRL News

Oklahoma strongly defends three pro-life laws in brief to state Supreme Court

by | Oct 25, 2021

By Dave Andrusko

Responding to a request by abortion providers to put three abortion laws on hold, Oklahoma last week told the state Supreme Court that three pro-life laws are clearly constitutional. The three laws—House Bill 1904, Senate Bill 778, and SB 779—are scheduled to take effect on November 1.

Oklahoma was responding to the plaintiffs–Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma, the Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, and three other plaintiffs – request that the state’s highest court fast track the appeal.

Oklahoma County District Judge Cindy Truong “declined to put the measures on hold pending the outcome of a legal challenge,” Barbara Hoberock explained. “Truong did put injunctions on two of the new laws but declined to put three of the five on hold.”

On October 4, Truong refused to block enforcement of a new law that requires abortionists to be board certified in obstetrics and gynecology. “This court … believes that irreparable harm would occur if we don’t put this requirement into effect,” Judge Truong said from the bench, referring to House Bill 1904.

Judge Truong also upheld Senate Bill 778 and Senate Bill 779. SB 778 and SB 779 will codify in Oklahoma law safety regulations that had previously been, but are no longer, required by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The bills will implement a wide range of regulations, restrictions, and requirements that will provide essential protections, oversight, and safeguards involving chemical abortions. Oklahoma is the first state to provide such comprehensive oversight of this dangerous abortion method.

According to reporter Hoberock

Physicians certified in OBGYN perform most of the abortions in the United States and in Oklahoma, according to the state’s brief. …

“Nothing in the law, after all, bars Plaintiffs — which includes the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood — from hiring as many OBGYNs as they want,” according to the state.

Plaintiffs have claimed that the two bills dealing with medication abortions violate the requirement that bills contain one subject.

“As a legal matter, the claim that SB 778 and SB 779 are single subject violates is dubious; as a factual matter, it is implausible,” according to the state.

Plaintiffs have not shown that the provisions in the two bills are unrelated, the state’s brief said.

Categories: Judicial