Weekly Opinion Editorial
INSTABILITY!
by
Steve Fair
This week, the Oklahoma Supreme Court(OSC)
ruled the state constitution protects the right to an abortion to a woman in
life-threatening situations. In the 5-4 decision, the OSC determined Senate
Bill# 612 was unconstitutional and violated Section 861 of the state
constitution.
Enacted in April 2022, SB#612 prohibited
all abortions except in narrowly defined medical emergencies and made abortion
a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and/or a $100,000 fine. The OSC’s concurring and dissenting opinions on
the decision can be found at: https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=493235
Governor Kevin Stitt disagreed with the
OSC opinion, calling it an ‘activist’ opinion.
Stitt pointed out the majority(concurring) opinions failed to mention
the unborn. “From the moment life
begins at conception, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to
protect that baby’s life and the life of the mother,” Stitt said.
In the dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John
Kane wrote: “This court should adhere to the Constitution given to us, not
craft what we believe to be a ‘better’ Constitution. The power lies with the people.”
Justice Yvonne Kauger, 85, wrote the 4,870-word
majority/concurring opinion. The Sermon
on the Mount is only 2,000 words! Kauger,
appointed to the OSC in 1984 by Governor George Nigh, lists four feminist arguments
why a women should have the right to an abortion. In her rambling conclusion, Kauger cites several
injustices against women in the past and winds up by writing: “For some women, the draconian law which allows no
exception, in the absence of a medical emergency to preserve the life of the
mother, may be a death sentence. In some instances, women may have fewer rights
than a convicted murderer on death row.”
The justices who joined with
Kauger in the majority opinion, the governor who appointed them to the high
court and the date of their appointment are as follows: Winchester (Keating in
2000), Combs (Henry in 2010 ), Gurich (Henry in 2011), and Edmondson (Henry in
2003).
Justices who voted No were Kane (Stitt in
2019), Kuehn (Stitt in 2021), Rowe (Stitt in 2020), Darby (Fallin in 2018). Three
observations:
First, the OSC is more unstable than Justine
Bieber. How the OSC will rule is
inconsistent and impossible to predict. The
OSC’s pick and choose past rulings on what is ‘log rolling/single subject’
legislation are classic examples. What
they see as constitutional in one ruling will be ruled the exact opposite in
another case. Their rulings are often
illogical and legally indefensible. They
have often overturned the will/vote of the people of Oklahoma based on their liberal
interpretation of a law.
Second, Oklahoma needs judicial
reform. The current retention ballot isn’t
working. Since the Sooner state went to
the retention ballot (1972) for the state’s three courts of appeal, no jurist
has been voted out. That is not because
they are all doing a bang-up job. It’s
because Oklahoma voters can’t find out anything about the judges on the ballot,
so they skip the retention ballot. Proposals
to term-limit judges hasn’t gotten anywhere in the legislature. Proposed reforms to the nomination process (controlled
by the state attorney’s association- OBA) always hit a dead end. The reason liberals and quasi- conservatives
get appointed to the OSC is because the OBA is not conservative. Having liberals involved in the selection of
the justices have put liberals on the court.
Third, legislating from the bench is alive
and well in Oklahoma. The OSC has routinely
struck down legislation and overturned the vote of the people. That proves elections have consequences. It makes a difference who is elected
governor. All, but one of the Justices (Winchester), who voted against the
unborn were appointed by a Democrat governor. It is not the job of the OSC to rewrite the
constitution. Their job is to interpret
the law, not make it.
The hyperbole, exaggerated scenarios liberals use to make their case for terminating a child’s life in the womb fail to address the one overriding question: when does life begin? If it begins at conception, then no one has a right to murder another and any law that allows it is draconian.
No comments:
Post a Comment