{"id":127796,"date":"2016-10-06T10:11:47","date_gmt":"2016-10-06T14:11:47","guid":{"rendered":"\/news\/?p=127796"},"modified":"2016-10-06T10:11:47","modified_gmt":"2016-10-06T14:11:47","slug":"oklahoma-supreme-court-tosses-pro-life-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/oklahoma-supreme-court-tosses-pro-life-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Oklahoma Supreme Court throws out four-part pro-life law"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

In a unanimous decision this week, the Oklahoma Supreme Court threw out more laws that restricted abortion, continuing its pattern of reversing pro-life laws in the state. Senate Bill 642 was ruled to be unconstitutional, the state’s high court ruled.\u00a0Tulsa World<\/a> reports:<\/p>\n

The law, Senate Bill 642 by Sen. Greg Treat, R-Oklahoma City, would require abortion providers to take a sample of the fetal tissue when the abortion patient is younger than 14 and send it to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The bill was passed as a measure aimed at catching child rapists, its supporters say.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The bill also had other provisions, and UPI notes,<\/a>\u00a0“It encompassed four abortion-related topics: parental consent for minors, tissue preservation, inspection of clinics and legal liability of abortion providers.” But the court struck the entire bill:<\/p>\n

“We find that each of the four sections of SB 642, lack a common purpose and are not germane, relative and cognate,” Justice Joseph Watt wrote for the nine-member court.<\/a> “Although each section relates in some way to abortion, the broad sweep of each section does not cure the single subject defects in this bill. Although defendants urge that SB 642 does not constitute logrolling, we find the provisions are so unrelated that those voting on this bill were faced with a constitutionally prohibited all-or-nothing choice to ensure the passage of favorable legislation.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n