– Advertisement –

Oklahoma Legislature Passes Inconsistent Bill Banning Physical Abortions After Fertilization, But Allows Chemical Abortions

by | May 20, 2022 | Abortion, News, Opinion, Politics, Social-Issues, US | 0 comments

- Advertisement -

- Advertisement -


We need your support. As big tech continues its crackdown on conservative blogs, our days on these platforms are numbered. Go Ad-Free plus get Exclusive Member-Only content by subscribing to us on Substack!

We pray to God that more states will follow suit and that this bill is not the end of our movement. While this bill is a significant measure to ending abortions, the bill does fall short as it comes to certain prescription medications that would prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, which the bill states that life begins, into the uterus.

The bill, HB4327, defines “fertilization” as “the fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum” and defines “unborn child” as “a human fetus or embryo in any stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.” While these are good definitions, the bill goes on to assure the state that chemical abortions are not restricted under this legislation.

“Abortion” means the act of using, prescribing, administering, procuring, or selling of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the purpose to terminate the pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge that the termination by any of those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of an unborn child. It does not include the use, prescription, administration, procuring, or selling of Plan B, morning-after pills, or any other type of contraception or emergency contraception.

Though the bill defines life as beginning at conception rather than implantation, it is inconsistent to allow the use of morning-after pills or contraception that prevents implantation. If one believes that life begins at conception, why should we allow exceptions to a law designed to prevent the unjust termination of life for children who have not yet been implanted into the uterine wall?

Further, the bill allows exceptions to the law in the cases of rape or incest so long as these incidents have been reported to law enforcement. Again, why should the child have to die because of an atrocity committed by a parent?

The bill also allows exceptions for abortion in the case that a mother’s life is in danger. We should reject this language altogether and think about these rare situations differently. First, every attempt should be made to save both the life of the mother and the child. In the case that it is not possible to save the life of the unborn child, it should not be as a result of an intentional abortion, but rather, seen as a tragic and unavoidable incident. We should not play the semantic games of the pro-aborts who desire to see us affirm or make exceptions for abortions in any situation, thus, weakening our arguments against it.

While we can be glad that this bill is a significant step toward ending abortion, it still falls short. Let’s pray and continue to work adamantly to save the lives of all children in the womb.

We are being actively censored on many platforms because of our conservative views. The more places you follow us, the more likely we are to get our message out. Please support us by following us on Facebook, following us on Twitter, following us on Parler, following us on Instagram, and visiting our gear and apparel store. Also, please subscribe to our newsletter. If you would like to support us financially, a contribution of any amount is greatly appreciated.







Follow Us

- Advertisement -

- Advertisement -

- Advertisement -

You Might Also Like…