Oct. 30, 2015
One of the bad raps we pro-lifers get for opposing elective abortion is that we’re waging a “war” on women. Never mind that pro-lifers contribute millions of dollars in volunteer time and financial gifts annually, staffing and funding a vast network of crisis pregnancy providers to care for mothers grappling with unplanned pregnancies. Never mind that many of us were, ourselves, children from unplanned pregnancies. Never mind that we grew up with ultrasound pictures on the refrigerator, or that we believe that abortion is the taking of human life.
Pro-lifers denounce violence and march peacefully in the hundreds of thousands every January, and we’re accused of waging a war. Meanwhile, an ideologically pro-abortion outfit protects child sexual abuse on procedural grounds. Guess who gets the free pass?
The sterile-named Center for Reproductive Health, which has filed multiple lawsuits in Oklahoma and Kansas against a variety of pro-life bills, is charging that Oklahoma’s SB 642 violates the state’s requirement that bills deal with only a single subject. The bill includes four measures, all designed to catch and penalize child molesters who bring underage girls in for abortion to cover up their crime:
- It makes it a felony to procure or knowingly participate in an abortion on an unemancipated minor behind her parents’ backs.
- It provides accountability by requiring abortionists to preserve fetal tissue from abortions on minors as evidence for any investigation into child sex abuse, according to regulations to be written by the state’s Board of Health.
- It further provides accountability by giving the Health Board authority to regularly inspect abortion practices to ensure compliance with this and all other requirements for licensure.
- It provides penalties by making violations a felony punishable by up to $100,000/day, subject to a judge’s discretion.
Are such steep penalties necessary? Live Action’s undercover videos a few years ago demonstrated that abortionists are not above covering up child sex abuse:
The Center for Reproductive Rights claims the Oklahoma law is overly broad, but their simultaneous challenges to multiple, unrelated pro-life laws suggests an ideological motive. Still, it takes a certain amount of chutzpah to use a procedural challenge to protect the “reproductive rights” of child sex abusers.
Let’s hope and pray the Oklahoma Supreme Court promptly finds the law in order, and that protecting children from sexual abuse is a compelling state interest.