Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Composite

Abortion

Oklahoma Governor Signs Strictest Abortion Ban In United States

Oklahoma now boasts the strongest pro-life legislation in the country, effectively banning elective abortion

Spread the love

Republican Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed the strictest abortion ban in the United States yesterday, effectively banning elective abortion from the conservative state.

Last week Oklahoma lawmakers passed a bill that would only allow abortions if they would save the life of a pregnant woman, or if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest in crimes reported to law enforcement. Yesterday that bill was advanced to Stitt, who signed it citing his promise to support pro-life legislation.

Abortion providers throughout the state already stated that it would cause them to end their practices, and multiple already ended their abortion services after Stitt signed a bill banning abortions more than four weeks along. The bill was authored by Collinsville Republican Rep. Wendi Stearman, and the law went into effect immediately following Stitt’s signature.

“I promised Oklahomans that as governor I would sign every piece of pro-life legislation that came across my desk and I am proud to keep that promise today,” Stitt said in a statement reported by the Associated Press.

“From the moment life begins at conception is when we have a responsibility as human beings to do everything we can to protect that baby’s life and the life of the mother,” Stitt added. “That is what I believe and that is what the majority of Oklahomans believe.”

The bill does not impact the availability of Plan B, nor does the bill’s use of the term “unborn child” apply to in vitro fertilization.

Oklahoma Republicans passed the bill amid a host of other abortion restrictions after a draft Supreme Court opinion was leaked, revealing that the high court is planning to overturn Roe v. Wade, the controversial case that effectively legalized abortion throughout the country via judicial action.

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned, the decision of whether to ban abortion will return to state legislatures.

While many conservative states have already passed laws that would ban abortion immediately after Roe v. Wade is overturned, and many others may move to ban abortion soon after it is overturned, many Democrat-dominated states have enshrined the right to abortion into law.

A recent poll showed that the majority of Americans would prefer for the abortion issue to be returned to legislators and voters, rather than decided in the courts, regardless of being pro-life or pro-abortion.

Spread the love
Avatar
Written By

Tom Pappert is the Editor-in-Chief of Valiant News. He has worked in political news and commentary since 2015, when he began supporting Trump on a left wing college campus. You can follow him on Twitter @realTomPappert, on Gab @realGodEmperorTrump, on Facebook at Tom Pappert, or see his other social media by visiting tompappert.com. Tips can be sent securely to [email protected].

3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. Avatar

    JOHN MAYOR

    May 27, 2022 at 11:05 pm

    The “politic” and “civic” debates surrounding the dissension of “justifiable abortion exceptions” proffered by abortion rights advocates notwithstanding… and, e.g., economics, genetic disability, rape, illegitimate sperm donors’ rights, illegitimate fathers’ rights, etc.!… when abortion rights are asserted WITHOUT a justifiable exception, the question to be asked, is: WHAT determines whether a “non-exceptional fetus”/ “regular fetus” should remain on celestial Earth?
    .
    One important guide in determining whether a fetal abortion should be DISALLOWED for a NORMAL FETUS, is establishing whether semiosis/ meaning making (see, Semiotics/ biosemiosis) is measurable within the fetus… and if present, then establishing just how early this process begins. Nevertheless, as the onset of fetal semiosis will not be the same for all, then a real time metrology will be needed to establish a fetus’ “semiotic onset time frame” (see, https://bit.ly/37Uir6s, S.Q.U.I.D. technoma and the neurobiomagnetism of the brain’s Kvánto(n̲o̲ú̲)n̲e̲u̲r̲o̲n̲ō̲s̲epheren(e̲m̲b̲r̲y̲o̲)s̲e̲m̲i̲o̲(p̲o̲i̲é̲s̲i̲s̲) [i.e., quantum noúneuronly produced embryonic meaning making/ signal making/ sign making/ symbol making/ signing]… from the Greek words, κβάντοσις/ Kvánto, for quantum [see, https://bit.ly/3sy6PNB, Translations, and indivisible], νοῦς/ noús, for mental [a preferred term over “psycho”… see, https://bit.ly/3KHhLyv%5D, νεῦρονός/ neuronō͟s͟, for neuronly [see, https://bit.ly/3kJSsRC and https://bit.ly/3KSH6FR%5D, ἔφερεν/ epheren, for produced [generated], “brought forth” and bore [see, https://bit.ly/3vGYJ7d%5D, έμβρυο/ émvryo, for embryo and fetus [see, https://bit.ly/3LIVcuL%5D, σημεῖον/ sēm[e]îon, for “a sign, mark, token” [see, https://bit.ly/3MVjEcx%5D and ποίησις/ poiésis, for “a making” [see, https://bit.ly/37fkKAt%5D).
    .
    (Search: fetal response to music in the womb… note: Kvántonoúneuronōsepherenembryosemiopoiétic Individuation [see, https://bit.ly/3sgYe1g%5D… but, etc.)
    .
    Simply said, if semiosis is occurring, then an abortion cannot be permitted BEYOND the the onset of evidence of it’s̲ presence, as semiosis is evidence of the onset of rudimentary noesis! And YES!… Neuromathema is presently able to measure the Quantum Dynamics of this subtle process within the embryo! And so and thus, to abort the onset of a process that/ which is able to effect semiosis, is to interfere in the development of the “person” of the child… which, then, is to deny the Human Rights of the child! And, please note: afterupon the onset of semiosis, the process continues throughout one’s life, and is disabled through pathosis or death; and thusly, a pursuit of a “completion” of the process of semiosis within the fetus– specifically!– is a misguided approach to a scientific study of it’s̲ parameters and scope!
    .
    See, https://bit.ly/3kKO98Hhttps://bit.ly/3M40lxi… and, https://bit.ly/3wrOaUD (start at 12:00)
    .
    All the Best!… and may the Lord find you Blessworthy!

  2. Avatar

    JOHN MAYOR

    May 27, 2022 at 11:46 pm

    As google-youtube has deliberately compromised the playback of the PUBLIC VIDEO, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYzLr4kAdM, through bitly.com’s, shortened URL (see, https://bit.ly/3wrOaUD), simply paste the longform URL into the search bar of genmirror.com/ytp, and tap Go… bypassing yt altogether!

    This video is viewed by many to be the best description on the Net, of the key processes underpinning semiosis.

  3. Avatar

    JOHN MAYOR

    May 28, 2022 at 1:14 am

    The problem with returning this item over to State Legislatures and Legislators, is that NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS & BENEFITS are– by COMPARTMENTALIZED DEFAULT!– nigh impossible to uphold! And so and thus, virtually ENTRENCHING A DIVIDED COUNTRY OVER A MATTER, THAT/ WILL FOSTER CONTINUED THREATS TO NATIONAL UNITY AND HARMONY– PITTING STATE INTERESTS AGAINST STATE INTERESTS!… AND GIVING DEFERENCE TO SOME, WHO HOLD THAT AMERICA’S CONSTITUTION IS GOVERNED BY THE, “FEDERALIST PAPERS”!
    .
    T̲H̲E̲ ̲F̲E̲D̲E̲R̲A̲L̲I̲S̲T̲ ̲P̲A̲P̲E̲R̲S̲ ̲A̲R̲E̲ ̲N̲O̲T̲ ̲L̲A̲W̲!… they are ESSAYS expressing OPINIONS about a proposed Constitutional framework for the patrons of America, and how this framework could be interpreted (albeit, ESSAY OPINIONS from contributors to this framework). Had all or part of these papers been added as a LEGAL PREAMBLE to the proposed U.S. Constitution, then there’d be no question as to their legitimacy as an OFFICIAL GUIDE re Constitutional interpretation and re the scope of each and every provision to be included in the proposed document… but, these were not included (nor a distilled version of same), because there was an unspoken fear that to do so, would compel entrenched opposition to this, that and the other before the document could be ratified– and because, a FORMAL LEGAL PREAMBLE is no longer a matter of public debate, but a course of legislated action that must either win, or fail. And so, to move the debate into the public arena… and away from the prospect of having the document socially shredded by amassed dissent!… is to invite proactive discourse on ESSAY OPINIONS about a proposed Constitutional proposal, while– all the while– document designers were “feeling the pulses” of “America’s patients” to gauge whether their “designer bedside manners” were either an assist to the document’s ratification, or but blunders that/ which needed further “treatment” before passage could be effected. In my opinion, it was an unfortunate– but necessary– tact(ic) move… but, the drawback, was that the courts would be without an OFFICIAL GUIDE with which to aver DEFINITIVE yeas or nays re issues of Constitutional interpretation and provisional scope… and must either “pull rabbits out of hats”, or give deference to the “Federalist Papers”. And that, became an ongoing Judicial dilemma…
    .
    “The amount of deference that should be given to The Federalist Papers in constitutional interpretation has always been somewhat controversial. As early as 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous case McCulloch v. Maryland, that ‘the OPINIONS expressed by the authors of that work have been justly SUPPOSED to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them WHICH EXCEEDS THEIR MERIT; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a RIGHT TO JUDGE of their correctness must be retained.’ In a letter to Thomas Ritchie in 1821, James Madison stated of the Constitution that ‘the LEGITIMATE MEANING of the Instrument must be derived from THE TEXT ITSELF; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must BE NOT IN THE OPINIONS OR INTENTIONS OF THE BODY WHICH PLANNED & PROPOSED THE CONSTITUTION, but in the sense ATTACHED TO IT by the people in their respective State Conventions where it RECD. ALL THE AUTHORITY which it possesses.'” – The Federalist Papers, Wikipedia (see, Judicial use) (Note: the bold lettering is my emphasis.)
    .
    Nevertheless!… and on a positive note!… now that the American Constitution is in place, all that Americans need do (through their Representatives!) is to ratify a Constitutional Amendment that would entrench all or part of a distilled rendition of the Federalist Papers in a FORMAL LEGAL PREAMBLE, and/ or script a further FORMAL LEGAL PREAMBLE.
    .
    Reader, despite the cited SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND STATE within the enumerated Sections of the U.S. Constitution, most of us acquainted with the “textual evolution/ contextual evolution” of this document are familiar with yet other opinions of the “founding fathers” that/ which aver a God-centric basis for the document’s manifest existence– and yea, CITE BIBL(IC) PROPHECY. And if this basis be true, then what can we make of– what must we make of!– the following bibl(ic) quotes…
    .
    In the New Testament’s Book of Romans Chapter 13: 1 and 2, we read the following:…
    .
    1) Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2) Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [NIV]
    .
    (ATTENTION: IF THE FOREGOING BE TRUE, THEN HITLER’S AUTHORITY AND GOVERNANCE WAS PERMITTED BY GOD, AS EXPLAINED IN THE STORY OF JONAH, AND THE CONVERSION OF NINEVEH.)
    .
    In the New Testament’s Book of Mark Chapter 3: 23 to 27, we read the following:…
    .
    23) So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24) If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25) If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26) And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27) In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house…” [NIV]
    .
    To the matter… for TRUE Christians, it is clear that we are to be subject to that which is in authority. But, it’s also clear, that the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY within a democratic country– at least!– is a country’s God-allowed respective national constitution!… and which– invariably!– contains Rights and Freedoms (e.g., Freedom of Expression, Freedom of the Press, Security of the Person and NATIONAL EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS… BUT ETC.!). And to resist such… and in keeping with Romans 13: 1 and 2!… IS TO RESIST THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS GRANTED TO A COUNTRY’S PEOPLE THROUGH GOD’S PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY; AND THEREBY, TO RESIST GOD AND HIS HOLY SPIRIT! And in addition to the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY of our national constitutions, is the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)… the signatories to which, are available for all too see.
    .
    And reader… and if I may!… let me offer up juxtaposed analogous “relevant arguments” and translations of Christ’s words conveyed in Mark 3…
    .
    1) How can Constitutional Paramountcy drive out Constitutional Paramountcy? 2) If a Constitution’s words be RELATIVE, NON-DEFINITIVE, INCONSISTENT, SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND NON-INTEROPERABLE in the context of it’s̲ entirety, that Constitution can’t stand. 3) If a Government is divided against itself, that Government can’t stand. 4) If a President opposes one’s self and is divided, such a soul can’t stand; that soul’s end has come. 5) In truth, no one can defeat a strong philosophy’s premise without first binding it’s̲ premise. Then one can defeat the strong philosophy’s premise.
    .
    To close, in keeping with a prerequisite NON-RELATIVE, DEFINITIVE, CONSISTENT, NON-SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND INTEROPERABLE premise of a Constitution, a Constitution that cannot aver NATIONAL EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS for ALL CITIZENS within the purview of it’s̲ mandate, is based upon a RELATIVE, NON-DEFINITIVE, INCONSISTENT, SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND NON-INTEROPERABLE premise… and so and thus, if local and state-wide interpretations of the purview of NATIOMAL EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND BENEFITS D̲E̲L̲I̲M̲I̲T̲S̲ NATIONL EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS– and the Constitution, in truth, supports such a delimitation!– then that Constitution’s “egalitarian premise” is faulty, and NATIONAL EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND BENEFITS can’t be realized; thus, CONSTITUTIONAL PARAMOUNTCY is but RUSEFUL deference to LOCAL AND STATE-WIDE DIVISIONS!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Trending on Valiant News:

Politics

"I wish you guys would play by the rules a little bit."

Politics

Biden took Commander off leash before at least one vicious attack on the Secret Service, records show.

Politics

"People can actually look at President Trump and go, 'I remember what it was like. The world was at peace, inflation was under control...I...