>A win for abortion rights in Oklahoma…so far

>According to the Tulsa World, an Oklahoma judge ruled the state’s law posting details about women who seek abortions online as unconstitutional.

The law, according to the newspaper, “banned abortions based on gender and required women to supply a host of information to be placed on a public Web site. However, the information would not have identified the women.”

The law was struck down because it violated the state’s single-subject rule, meaning the law dealt with more than one subject. The state’s constitution requires legislation addresses one subject.

The judge also said he struck down the law because of its reference to banning abortion based on gender, calling it “uncivilized.”

It’s not the first time a judge has struck down a law violating the single-subject rule, according to the newspaper:

In August, Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki Robertson struck down Senate Bill 1878 on the same grounds. SB 1878 required a women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound within an hour of the procedure and have its findings explained to her. The measure also covered the posting of signs in clinics, administration of the abortion pill RU-486 and lawsuits. Both bills were put on hold before they could go into effect after legal challenges were filed. The Legislature currently is reworking the bills, placing subjects in single pieces of legislation.

I wrote about this a while back when the Oklahoma State Legislature was considering the law. In my post, I said:

These scare tactics and intimidation methods are a clear way to scare women from having an abortion. Plain and simple. Unsatisfied with repeated attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade being shot down by various courts, these politicians looking to impose their pro-life agenda onto their constituents have resorted to fear and public ridicule in order to eliminate abortion. These types of laws scare me not only because they violate one’s privacy, but they can also be used to justify the publication of information related to other medical procedures.

Not only do I stand by those statements, I also condemn any attempt to justify this law and the purpose for its existence. Bravo to this judge for striking down this law because its clear violation of the state’s constitution and for its violation to the right to privacy. Whether these reactionary conservatives like it or not, the Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land and any state’s attempt to circumvent that right granted to women is in direct conflict with the Constitution.