Oklahoma Lawmakers Pass Bill That Would Revoke Medical Licenses of Abortionists

Photo Credit: All Nite Images
Photo Credit: All Nite Images

OKLAHOMA CITY — Lawmakers in Oklahoma have passed a bill that would revoke the medical licenses of abortionists in the state.

As previously reported, Sen. Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, introduced S.B. 1152 earlier this year, adding a provision to a section that regulates the way physicians are licensed in the state.

“Any physician participating in the performance of an abortion shall be prohibited from obtaining or renewing a license to practice medicine in this state,” it reads. “No person shall perform or induce an abortion upon a pregnant woman. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than three years in the state penitentiary.”

The legislation passed the House on Thursday 59-9, just over a month after it was approved in the Senate 40-7.

“This is a core function of government,” Dahm had said during the hearings. “This is our proper function, to protect life.”

“If we take care of morality, God will take care of the economy,” supporter David Brumbaugh, R-Broken Arrow, also remarked.

But abortion advocacy groups have decried the move as a “new low.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“Oklahoma politicians have made it their mission year after year to restrict women’s access vital health care services, yet this total ban on abortion is a new low,” Amanda Allen, senior state legislative counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told Reuters.

The group has threatened to file a legal challenge if it the bill is signed into law.

Paul Blair, pastor of Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, remarked in an op-ed for the Edmond Sun that the state should push back if the courts strike down the law as unconstitutional.

“The ultimate fate of abortion laws in Oklahoma won’t hinge on what lawmakers do. It won’t hinge on what the courts do. The future hinges on what our leaders do in response to the courts,” he wrote.

“Many northern states said ‘no’ in a response of moral outrage to the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott decision. Oregon, Colorado, Washington and Alaska have all said ‘no’ to federal marijuana laws,” Blair said, noting that he doesn’t personally agree with the marijuana legalization. “Sometimes the forces of history come together with the right people at the right time to bring justice to people who have been denied it for too long. This could be that time.”

The bill now moves to the desk of Gov. Mary Fallin, who has not yet indicated whether she will sign the measure.

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Tangent002

    Blatantly unconstitutional.

    • Oleg Shishko

      Yes!! The murder of children is grossly unconstitutional!

      • Tangent002

        The Supreme Court disagrees.

        • Amos Moses

          Yeah, and they were right about Dred Scott………. right?

        • ISA41:10

          The SCOTUS does not make law. Show me the federal abortion law.

          • gogo0

            wow, this again.
            the constitution is the law, SCOTUS interprets the constitution to define what is and isnt lawful under the constitution. there you go, easy stuff

          • ISA41:10

            Where in the Constitution does it say abortion is legal?
            Where is the federal abortion law?

          • Jalapeno

            That’s not how the constitution works…

          • ISA41:10

            Really? Are you telling me that once the SCOTUS makes a decision, it is law? Can you show me where in the Constitution it states that?

          • Jalapeno

            The SCOTUS does not make laws, and the constitution is not an exhaustive list of what is and what is not legal.

          • ISA41:10

            OK! Then show me the federal abortion law? Show me the federal homo marriage law?

          • Jalapeno

            That’s still not how it works.

            The constitution is a framework of what laws we allow in this country.

            The SCOTUS interprets the framework and makes specific decisions about what laws we will allow.

            All states are bound to those decisions.

            So..if, for instance, there is a decision saying that any laws banning abortion are not allowed under that framework..there doesn’t need to be a national law. There’s a federal statement saying that any state laws that violate that are unconstitutional.

          • ISA41:10

            “All states are bound to those decisions.”

            Wrong! This is why we have 3 branches of government….for checks and balances. When the SCOTUS makes a ruling, Congress has to agree to the decision and make, change or remove the law. The executive branch then signs it into law. If the SCOTUS can bind states to rulings, then Congress does not need to exist. They are the ones who are the “law makers”, period!

            The SCOTUS does not have exclusive power to bound any state to a decision. No where in the Constitution is that written.

          • gogo0

            if banning it is found unconstitutional by SCOTUS then it is included along with all our other unenumerated rights in the protections provided by the constitution.
            think very carefully, and then if you have further questions please enroll yourself in a high school civics class

          • ISA41:10

            LOL! Again, show me the federal homo marriage law. Guess what? You can’t!!! There is only a SCOTUS ruling which does not carry the weight of law. Case in point. In my state of Florida the law states;

            Article 1

            SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

            Take a HS civics course and educate yourself!!!!

            “The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

          • gogo0

            welcome back afchief

            there is nothing in the constitution ensuring your legal right to barbeque or sew your needlepoint swastikas, but you are still free to do so under the protections the constitution affords you, and any law stopping you from doing that would be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

            whether you acknowledge the legal precedent they establish does not matter, their rulings define what is and isn’t constitutional in the united states. put a “WHITES ONLY” sign in your business’s window to test and see if a SCOTUS ruling is as toothless as you think.

          • ISA41:10

            Sorry, poor analogy!!! Their rulings are only opinions and nothing more. Why are liberals so hard headed? Read some more;

            “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

            For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9e.asp

          • gogo0

            when you have control of the us army you are able to do unconstitutional things like that.

            however afchief, you do not. your only option is to accept there is nothing you can do against a supreme court ruling that you dislike because it clashes with the opinion of a book that also banned shellfish and pigs because at the time people were too ignorant to cook them safely enough to keep from dying. it’s going to get more and more difficult to live with one foot in the modern world and the other foot in 200CE

          • ISA41:10

            Liberals have absoutely no understanding of our Constitutional government. NONE!

            In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton referred to the judiciary as the least dangerous branch of government. He argued that under the Constitution, judges would possess “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution further restrained the judgment of the federal judiciary.

            “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” reads the amendment in unmistakably clear prose. The Founding Fathers obviously made no provisions in the Constitution for same-sex marriage. In fact, they made no provisions for marriage at all. Laws on marriage age, eligibility, blood tests, witnesses, divorce, and the like were reserved to the states.


            • A. George Washington: “[T]he fundamental principle of our Constitution… enjoins [requires] that the will of the majority shall prevail.37

            • B. Thomas Jefferson: “[T]he will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived.38

            • C. The Judiciary is now regularly anti-majoritarian.

            • D. The primary purpose of the Supreme Court is not to protect the minority from the majority.

            • E. The primary purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to protect the minority from the majority; the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect every citizen, whether in the minority or the majority, from the intrusion upon their rights by government.

            • F. Congress is a better guardian of the people and the minority than are the courts.

            • G. Federalist #51: “The members of the Legislative department . . . are numerous. They are distributed and dwell among the people at large. Their connections of blood, of friendship, and of acquaintance embrace a great proportion of the most influential part of the society. . . . they are more immediately the confidential guardians of their rights and liberties.39

            • H. In 1875, Congress banned all segregation,40 but in 1882, the Supreme Court struck down that law.41 While the Court is often praised today for ending segregation in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, what the Court actually did in that case was only to reverse its own position that had kept segregation alive 70 longer than Congress’ ban.

            • I. Thomas Jefferson: “When the Legislative or Executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them [the people] not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.42

          • gogo0

            keep whining ineffectually as more and more gays marry each day, it’s really helping!

  • robertzaccour

    People that kill other people unjustly can’t have a medical license; go figure…

    • Chewbacca1066

      You consider a lump of cells to be a person?

      • robertzaccour

        Yes I do. You’re a lump of cells yourself. Remember that.

        • Chewbacca1066

          So under your logic, sperm cells are half a human then?

          • robertzaccour

            Before joining the egg? No.

  • Nidalap

    Nice pic of the protester with the “Stop patriarchy” sign. Who wants you to get an abortion? The guy who doesn’t want any consequences if you happen to “get yourself” pregnant?

    Yeah…way to stop all that patriarchy…

    • Found One

      Your imagination is no solution.

      • Nidalap

        Glad you admit that it’s a problem! 🙂

        I DID note, however, that you didn’t put forth any potential solutions of your own…

  • bowie1

    And in the meantime many couples are not able to have children due to infertility issues, while these women throw away a child like yesterday’s garbage. Something is wrong with that picture!

    • Found One

      Yes, god made mistakes. Many of them.

    • Nidalap

      Many, if not all, problems with today’s society can be traced directly to rebellion against God. It’s a compulsion that will drive people to forsake all common sense in the following of it…

      • Chewbacca1066

        Out of the tens of thousands of the deities to exist in the imagination of humans, which “god” do you refer?

        I can only presume its the Yahweh/Jesus hybrid deity of Christianity.

        • Nidalap

          Good guessing! (^_^)

      • Bob Johnson

        Some things never change. The jews of the Bible were always in trouble for rebelling against God, flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Babylon exile, Romans. Yet somehow humanity just continues to plod along.

        And some folks are still waiting for the rapture 2000 years later.

    • Jalapeno

      ..Yeah, there really is something wrong with that picture. Trying to make a moral obligation because someone else can’t be in that situation at all is pretty wrong.

  • Found One

    Sen Dahm was home schooled on a program supplied by young earth creationists. A Beka Books and Pensacola Christian Academy. He pursued no education past the home school course.

  • Amos Moses

    Planned Parenthood Celebrates Women’s History With Buy-One-Get-One-Free Sale

    NEW YORK CITY, NY—March is Women’s History Month and today is International Women’s Day, so Planned Parenthood is celebrating by offering a sale on all abortion services. “History clearly shows that women can’t accomplish much without access to safe, legal abortion. So we thought there would be no better way to celebrate this great month and this great day than to help our clients have more abortions, more affordably,” Planned Parenthood Czar Claire Simmons announced at a press conference Tuesday.

    Each abortion purchased throughout the month of March at any Planned Parenthood facility across the nation will come with a coupon (non-transferable) for an additional free abortion of equal or lesser value.

    Planned Parenthood’s National Director of Marketing, Faye Townsend, explained, “We know from our own research that approximately half of all women getting an abortion have had a previous abortion, so we’re confident we can expand the number of repeat customers even more with this limited time offer.”

    “These are difficult days for the abortion service industry,” Townsend added. “Everyone’s posting sonograms on social media and giving names to the products of conception before birth, and abortion ends up being the last choice. We want to make abortion sexy again.”

    Planned Parenthood officials confirmed that clients will be able to combine the abortion coupon with the free condoms offered at every facility since the organization’s own research shows that 27% of women getting an abortion were using condoms.

    Todd Whitcomb of New York City, who attended the press conference with his 14-year-old stepdaughter, applauded the announcement. “It’s nice to know there are still some companies around that are willing to help families through the tough times,” he told reporters.

    The BabylonBee

    • Guest

      I find it odd that you would repeat a satire article about something that didn’t happen at all.

      Wedged between two articles:

      Pope Francis Declares All Cats Christians At Vatican Summit


      Retired Sniper Finds Work Picking Off Hand-Raisers At Baptist Church

      • Amos Moses

        Ahhhhhhh,,, satire……….

  • Chewbacca1066

    Its an absolute joy to watch the slow-motion train wreck of the Republican party. They are quickly confining themselves to poorest, most ignorant, most undereducated parts of the United States (which happens to be their “base”..

    • ISA41:10

      That this nation elected Obama is beyond disturbing. That Hillary is the leading candidate for the Democratic Party is arguably even worse. This is a condemnation of a large percentage of an American population that simply has no morals. The Democratic voters do not care who the POTUS is as long as they get their free-stuff. Hillary represents the very sickness of our society, definitely not the cure

      • Chewbacca1066

        Would you give some examples of morals that conservatives have and liberals do not?

        Granted, conservatives tend to follow Abrahamic religions which derive their morals from bronze-age ethics, and that’s not really anything to be proud.

        Regardless, with every passing day, more conservatives die than are replaced. Conservatism is dying simply due to demographics and increasing education levels.

  • BarkingDawg

    I doubt that this law will survive a court challenge