By Jack Minor

A “bizarre” and unexplained state court decision that was contrary to normal procedures may have given pro-life supporters the perfect storm that could prompt the United States Supreme Court to re-visit the case that legalized abortion in the first place.

Citizens of Oklahoma were in the process of gathering signatures to place a personhood amendment on the ballot for this November’s elections, when the proposal was challenged by abortion advocates.

In Oklahoma and many states with initiative processes, groups and individuals opposed to a proposed initiative are allowed to challenge the proposal. The ACLU and Center for Reproductive Rights challenged Oklahoma’s plan, arguing that the declarative statement in the amendment violated federal constitutional law.

In what Personhood USA called “a rare move against the people of Oklahoma,” the state Supreme Court sided with pro-abortion groups and ruled on the constitutionality of the amendment before it was passed by the voters.

Steve Crampton, vice president for legal affairs and general counsel for Liberty Counsel, who represents Personhood Oklahoma, told WND the court’s decision was totally “bizarre.”

“Typically in legal cases, courts refuse to issue a ruling until a law is actually passed. The reason has to do with standing, before the proposal becomes a law, no one is been affected by it,” he said.

The Obama administration has even acknowledged this principle. Justice Department lawyers asked a judge in Pittsburgh to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Geneva College challenging Obamacare regulations requiring employers to offer birth control coverage that includes so-called morning after drugs that abort fertilized embryos on the grounds the regulations have not taken effect yet.

“It is highly unusual for a state court to decide immediately on the federal constitutionality of a state initiative before the people have had a chance to vote on it,” he said.

“It would be akin to a person interrupting debate on a proposal in the legislature and telling them they could not go forward in the legislative process because it was unconstitutional.”

He said, “If the Supreme Court can stop the legislative process from taking effect then who exactly is the one passing the laws?”

He says he believes the state Supreme Court was attempting to avoid tackling the actual issue of abortion itself.

“I believe they were looking to pull a ‘Pontius Pilate’ and simply wash their hands of the issue,” he said. “They issued their decision before the ink was even dry on our briefs and the decision was a simple page and a half decision.

“It’s quite a remarkable move and goes contrary to decisions by other high courts that have been faced with similar issues. In Mississippi the same pro-abortion groups opposed ‘Personhood’ last year, but in that case their high court said ‘who are we to rule on this half-baked process. It is too premature and inappropriate; we don’t have that kind of power.’”

He said. “The same thing happened in Ohio where their Supreme Court said the issue needed to be passed by voters before they would consider the issue.”

Even in California, where an openly “gay” judge declared a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman unconstitutional, the court waited until the amendment actually passed prior to hearing the case.

In another unusual twist, the court’s decision is surprisingly short and provides no reasoning as to the basis of the decision.

“The measure is clearly unconstitutional pursuant to Planned Parenthood V Casey,” the high court decision says. “Twenty years ago, this court was presented with an initiative which facially conflicted with the Casey decision. This court held: ‘the issue of the constitutionality of the initiative petition is governed by the United States Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Casey.’”

Typically when a court issues a decision judges provide specific reasoning, explaining how they arrived at their conclusion. However, in this case, the court provided no explanation as to how the personhood amendment violated the 1992 Casey decision.

Casey involved a challenge of several provisions in the Pennsylvania Control Act that would among other things require doctors to provide women with information about the health risks and possible complications from an abortion, a 24-hour waiting period prior to an abortion and a parental consent requirement.

In a 5-4 ruling the U.S. Supreme Court established a new standard for determining abortion issues, such as whether the legislation posed an “undue burden” on the mother.

In addition to establishing the new standard, the court upheld the state’s 24-hour waiting period, and informed and parental consent requirements, stating that these restrictions did not create an undue burden.

Crampton said amendment supporters are planning to appeal the Oklahoma decision to the United States Supreme Court, noting that there is nothing in any personhood amendment that would violate Casey.

Liberty Counsel is attempting to get as many organizations as possible to submit amicus briefs in the next 90 days in an attempt to persuade the court to re-visit Casey and possibly Roe v. Wade, the 1972 case that legalized abortion.

Crampton points out that the personhood amendment is not even a law and does not in and of itself make any type of abortion illegal, but simply defines the term person.

“This amendment does not outlaw abortion or criminalize any conduct,” he said. “If as a result of this amendment, lawmakers were to subsequently pass legislation outlawing abortion, you would still have a long way to go before abortion would finally be illegal.”

He said, “Casey never said anything about personhood. All it did was set forth a standard for prohibitions in abortion. It doesn’t say anything about declarations such as what is happening with personhood legislation.

“By claiming Casey as the justification for its decision, they have unwittingly given us the perfect opportunity to formally petition the court for a re-consideration of Casey and Roe,” he said.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/courts-pontius-pilate-move-to-open-abortion-challenge/

The opinion drew the enthusiastic approval of the Tulsa World’s editorial staff, contending: “Our leaders didn’t fail us. Rather, they demonstrated they can behave as reasonable and resolute leaders should. They applied the law and made wise and just decisions. Oklahomans should feel gratified their leaders have shown such leadership even in the face of certain harsh repercussions.”

Whether or not the members of the Court will be retained in the next election remains to be seen.

However, far from “reasonable,” “wise,” or “just,” the Oklahoma Court’s decision to deny the people of Oklahoma their right to petition on behalf of the preborn, strike the proposal before it had been sent to the ballot for its approval or rejection, and prematurely substitute their judgment for that of the nation’s High Court, smacks of the kind of judicial activism that Conservatives have been warning against in the years since Roe v. Wade. The opinion is not only an explicit overreach, it also runs counter to the decisions of several state Supreme Courts and a 23-year-old U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

The Oklahoma Senate passed a similar measure by a vote of 34 to 8 in February. Imagine abortion supporters filing suit to halt the House committee hearing, and persuading the Court to rule the measure unconstitutional before it had been brought to a full vote on the floor. Democracy in Oklahoma would essentially be dead—replaced by what could only be described as judicial tyranny of the highest order.

But this scenario is what transpired in Oklahoma last week. The citizen initiative process is the constitutionally protected right of the people to act as the legislative body. The gathering of petition signatures is the garnering of co-sponsors. And the vote on the general election ballot is a vote by the legislative bodies.

At least one state Supreme Court agrees with the sentiment. Last year, the same actors who sued in Oklahoma brought suit in Mississippi, asking the state’s high court to block a personhood vote.

Justice Randy G. Pierce, writing for the majority, would have no part of it:

Essentially, Plaintiffs ask this Court to render judgment upon the substance of Intervenors’ initiative – its constitutionality – in advance of the election. …This Court is without power to interfere with pre-election proposals, because to do so may place the administration of government at the footstool of the judiciary.

This Court will exercise judicial restraint and follow the reasoning of the majority of courts throughout the United States, both federal and state, which: “have articulated a policy of deference toward direct legislation processes.” …We cannot invade the territory of the Legislature or the electorate to review the substantive validity of a proposed initiative, and thereby, we will honor the maxim embodied in the constitutional mandate of separation of powers.

If one is tempted to chalk up the Mississippi decision to the blood red composition of the southern state, consider the decisions of state courts of a more purple hue. Both in 2008 and again this year, the Colorado Supreme Court has denied challenges to personhood, swatting away attempts to interfere with the democratic process. In March, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed, outright, a suit brought by a pro-abortion group.

Even in the liberal bastion that is Oregon, the Supreme Court would only rule on the sufficiency of a personhood measure’s ballot title and “reject[ed], without discussion, the remainder of petitioners’ arguments.”

It’s true, the Oklahoma Court is not beholden to the opinions rendered by their counterparts, and their decision can only serve as evidence of their radically liberal disposition.

However, the 1989 Webster v. Reproductive Health Services SCOTUS case took up a Missouri law in which the preamble found that “The life of each human being begins at conception” and that “unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being.” It also mandated state laws to be interpreted to provide preborn children with “all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state.”

The majority upheld the law. Further, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “that it effectively would overrule Roe v. Wade. I think that should be done, but would do it more explicitly.”

Instead, the Oklahoma Court relied, exclusively, on 1992’s Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. Four Justices dissented in that case, with Justice Scalia writing: “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”

Justice Clarence Thomas added in 2000’s Stenberg vs. Carhart: “[T]he Casey joint opinion was constructed by its authors out of whole cloth. The standard set forth in the Casey joint opinion has no historical or doctrinal pedigree. The standard is a product of its authors’ own philosophical views about abortion, and it should go without saying that it has no origins in or relationship to the Constitution and is, consequently, as illegitimate as the standard it purported to replace.”

In 2007, the most recent anti-abortion law to find its way to the Court was upheld by five justices thereby reversing the pro-abortion Stenberg decision.

There is not an honest soul in America who considers the abortion controversy “case closed.” The Oklahoma Court, in a brazen attempt to prevent a challenge to current abortion jurisprudence brought by the populace of an entire state, has erred by preventing the people from protecting human life in such practices as human cloning, experimental research on human embryos, and the destruction of human beings following reproductive assistance.

As much as the Oklahoma Court is under the impression that the SCOTUS would strike a total abortion ban, they are also aware that they are as likely to uphold a state constitutional amendment recognizing the most basic human rights of all human beings from the beginning of our lives. Fortunately for the advocates of the rights of all persons, we can now take our argument directly to the U.S. Supreme Court and ask them to follow Justice Scalia’s advice in the Casey dissent:

“We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.”

The Oklahoma Court ruling has, inadvertently, propelled the Personhood movement several years forward!

The implications of this case are enormous! Not only will the Personhood movement receive more exposure, which results in an unmatched opportunity for education and saving babies’ lives, but there is a very real chance for victory. The Oklahoma case could be the first to directly and successfully challenge Planned Parenthood v. Casey, dismantling the abortion stronghold in America, and demanding basic human rights for every single human being. This is cause for celebration!

On its face, a ruling against us could be seen as a negative outcome, particularly in light of the Oklahoma House of Representatives failure last week to bring Senate Bill 1433, the Personhood Act, to a full vote.

The truth about Personhood is that it is God’s movement. From our first effort in Colorado, we attempted to recognize full personhood rights for preborn children not because we thought it would be easy, nor because we thought we would be an instant success. Rather, we sought to protect every innocent child because it is the right thing to do—because we know that we are commanded to “love our neighbor as ourselves” and to “rescue those being led away to slaughter.” We have seen the Holy Spirit move in astonishing ways, time and again. No longer content to regulate the abortion industry, Personhood USA declared that we were “in it to end it,” and we have continued to stand on this principle.

In my 16 years in the pro-life movement, I have never seen God move in such profound ways. In each personhood campaign the lives of preborn babies have been saved. For us, this is the most important reason to keep moving forward.

Further, this is the first time that I have witnessed hundreds—and often thousands—of churches united in purpose, promoting the dignity and value of every person from the pulpit, and calling on their church members to act. Likewise, I have never seen tens of thousands of young people and first-time pro-life volunteers compelled to action—collecting signatures and witnessing on behalf of the preborn.

Personhood is the first direct challenge to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Regardless of the outcome of this case, Personhood has proven itself effective in its methods and strategy, not only by saving lives, but by legally being the first to bring a legitimate, direct legal challenge to Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Yes, we understand that we may not win the first time, but many do not, including the Nebraska partial birth abortion case. Whatever the outcome, we will not give up.

As I explained above, our mission is obedience to Christ and defending the lives of all innocent children. The ‘end goal’ has never been to get a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, or to overturn Roe, because it is often argued that such actions are not necessary to end abortion. As Justice Scalia explained in his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 SCOTUS decision that, unfortunately, reaffirmed legalized abortion, Roe v. Wade was “plainly wrong.”

To again quote Justice Scalia’s dissent, “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.” Of course, I do not agree that the states have the right to allow the killing of children, but I DO agree that the states can and should outlaw abortion.

This latest Oklahoma Supreme Court decision has taken us straight to the heart of the battle, fast forwarding several years. And it is a huge breakthrough for the Personhood movement!

Since the beginning of Personhood USA, there has been one huge blessing after another, sometimes in disguise. Please join me in anticipating what is coming next!

In His Service,

Keith Mason

President, Personhood USA

On April 30, repeatedly citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Oklahoma State Supreme Court denied Personhood Oklahoma’s right to petition, ruling the ballot measure “unconstitutional.”

In a rare move against the people of Oklahoma, the State Supreme Court ruled against the ballot initiative before it went to a vote, denying the people’s right to vote on the issue and the circulator’s right to petition the government. In the Casey decision, Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion brings weight to the State’s right to allow the people to decide the permissibility of abortion:

“The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Justice Scalia, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.

“Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, according to Justice Scalia’s opinion, have no basis in law. Because of this, the undue burden of the standard of Casey is completely unworkable,” explained Gualberto GarciaJones, Personhood USA legal analyst. “With such a vague standard and any variety of interpretations, it is impossible for citizens to understand it and apply it. Justice Scalia said citizens can resolve the issue of abortion by persuading one another and voting. If Oklahoma citizens are denied the opportunity to do so, our only recourse is to petition the Supreme Court.”

Steve Crampton, Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel for Liberty Counsel, who represents Personhood Oklahoma, said: “This ruling epitomizes judicial overreaching. It not only misinterprets and misapplies federal constitutional law, but it also denies states’ rights and strips Oklahomans of their right to petition for a substantive change in state law, which is guaranteed under the state constitution. We are hopeful that the United States Supreme Court will reverse this decision.”

While five U.S. Supreme Court Justices are required for a favorable ruling, only four are required to approve a petition for certiorari.

Personhood Oklahoma had been collecting signatures for the Personhood Amendment for two months. The amendment reads, “A ‘person’ as referred to in Article 2, Section 2 of this Constitution shall be defined as any human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being to natural death. The inherent rights of such person shall not be denied without due process of law and no person as defined herein shall be denied equal protection under the law due to age, place of residence or medical condition.”

“The people of Oklahoma will not be silenced,” explained Dan Skerbitz, Director of Personhood Oklahoma. “We have 13,000 volunteers who have been circulating petitions and are ready and willing to continue this fight for human lives. We are more determined than ever to rise up against judicial tyranny and cowardly State Representatives who do not represent the will of the people of Oklahoma. “

On Wednesday, veteran pro-life legislator Rep. Mike Reynolds, R, Oklahoma City, made a common procedural motion to suspend the House rules and bring the bill to a full vote. Speaker Pro Tempore Jeff Hickman, R., Dacoma, responded, charging that all motions were required to be scheduled by Majority Floor Leader Dale DeWitt, R., Braman.

For clarification purposes, Rep. Reynolds asked which House rule Rep. Hickman was relying upon to deny the motion. Unable to cite any rule, Hickman responded that “it was the custom of the House that business be scheduled through the Floor Leader.”

“If you can’t cite a rule, it makes it impossible for me to ask to suspend that rule,” said Reynolds. “So Mr. Speaker, I guess the motion that you would have me make is that I should suspend the custom of the House. Now that would be ridiculous in any legislative body.”

After scheduling the motion with Floor Leader DeWitt, Rep. Reynolds moved to suspend the House rules again late Thursday. Although the motion had not yet been brought for consideration, Rep. Hickman claimed that it had been struck down the previous day.

Voting to adjourn for the day and killing the Personhood Act were 57 pro-abortion representatives. 22 pro-life House members voted “no” to adjournment, to continue legislative business and grant the bill an opportunity to be heard.

Earlier this week, Personhood USA called on Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin to ask that the measure be sent to her desk for her signature. Fallin’s office released a statement indicating that no request would be made.

The Oklahoma Southern Baptist Convention, the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, the Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, National Right to Life affiliate Oklahomans for Life, and leaders of nearly every Christian denomination held a press conference on Tuesday, demanding a vote on the measure. The Oklahoma Eagle Forum and Personhood Oklahoma had previously endorsed the measure.

“The Republican leadership in Oklahoma is testing the resolve of the state’s pro-life movement. The question at hand is who will fight harder–politicians settling for inaction or the people advocating for the lives of the preborn?” said Keith Mason, President of Personhood USA. “The babies cannot wait. Abortion is an intolerable evil, and the people will defeat it.”

The failure of the House to pass the Personhood Act leaves Personhood Oklahoma’s petition drive as the remaining hope for the state’s preborn children. The group must collect 155,000 petition signatures by the end of May to put the Oklahoma Personhood Amendment on the November ballot.

“The Oklahoma legislature has become the best advocate for a vigorous initiative process. They have proven to the world that there is simply no guarantee that a majority of politicians, Democrats or Republicans, will stand for what’s right,” added Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D., Legal Analyst for Personhood USA. “Once an initiative is passed, it doesn’t change its mind. We urge all pro-life Oklahomans to take up the banner of life that the legislature so carelessly threw on the ground, and appeal to the people through the personhood constitutional amendment initiative.”

Representatives voting to deny the recognition of the rights of the preborn include: Armes, Banz, Billy, Brown, Cannaday, Casey, Condit, Coody, Cooksey, Dank, Denney, DeWitt, Dorman, Enns, Glenn, Grau, Hall, Hickman, Holland, Hoskn, Inman, Jordan, Joyner, Kouplen, Liebmann, St. Martin, McCullough, C. McDaniel, J. McDaniel, R. McDaniel, McNiel, McPeak, Nelson, Nollan, Osborn, Ownbey, Peters, Peterson, Quinn, Renegar, Richardson, Roan, Rousselot, Russ, Schwartz, Scott, Sears, Shelton, Shoemake, Shumate, Thomsen, Vaughan, Virgin, Watson, Williams, Wright, Speaker of the House Kris Steele

Pro-life Representatives casting a vote for the Personhood Act to proceed include: Bennett, Blackwell, Brumbaugh, Christian, Derby, Faught, Hamilton, Kern, Key, Lockhart, Sc. Martin, Moore, Morrissette, Mulready, Murphey, Reynolds, D. Roberts, S. Roberts, Sanders, Stiles, Trebilcock, and Wesselhoft

Late last week, the Oklahoma House leadership, including Republican Speaker of the House Kris Steele, and under the guise of a unified caucus, chose to deny the Personhood Act a vote on the House floor, ignore the House Public Health Committee’s “do pass” recommendation, and buck the national and state Republican Party Platforms which support and affirm the personhood of every unborn child.

“Governor Fallin should provide clear and identifiable leadership on this issue and utilize her influence as head of the state Republican Party to bring the legislation to a vote,” said Keith Mason, President of Personhood USA. “The time has come for her to demand that the House leadership cease this obstruction.”

As a United States Congresswoman, Fallin co-sponsored the Right to Life Act, a bill that would “implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person” by the authority granted to Congress to enforce the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. “The right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being,” it reads. “The terms `human person’ and `human being’ include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.”

“Unborn babies are losing their lives in Oklahoma today with no legal recourse. Personhood is one issue where the Governor should fulfill the promises she made to her constituents and avoid a share in the blame by leading the way for the passage of the Personhood Act,” continued Mason.

Every major Christian and pro-life Oklahoma organization has lent their support for the measure including the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, the Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Oklahomans for Life, Personhood Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma Eagle Forum.

State representatives are already calling for the removal of Speaker Steele. “The next motion would be that we remove the speaker and get rid of this tyranny that we’re dealing with in the House of Representatives,” said Rep. Mike Christian, R, Oklahoma City.

Other House members including Rep. Gus Blackwell of Laverne are calling for a vote: “We’re pro-life. We want a vote on this bill. We demand a vote so our constituents can see that what we say, we back up with a green light on this bill.”

Rep. Sally Kern, R, Oklahoma City told CapitolBeatOK, “I am pro-life and do not agree with refusing to grant a floor hearing to any pro-life bill that has gained committee approval.”

“We’re pro-life. We want a vote on this bill. We demand a vote so our constituents can see that what we say, we back up with a green light on this bill,” said Rep. Gus Blackwell, R, Laverne.

A second group, including representatives from the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, the Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Oklahomans for Life and other pro-personhood organizations and legislators will hold a gathering today to continue the call for an up or down vote.

“As Baptists we uphold the value and sanctity of life,” said Dan Fisher, Pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Yukon. “We believe that life should be protected from the moment of conception, and we believe that anything that stops that other than a natural process is the unnecessary ending of life that is called murder.”

“In our country, no person or government can arbitrarily and unilaterally just deprive you of your life,” added Paul Blair, Pastor of Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond.

The Baptist General Convention sent an action alert following Speaker Steele’s decision to disallow a vote on the measure.

“Speaker Kris Steele and the State House Republican Caucus yesterday decided the Personhood Act, SB 1433, would not come to the House floor for a vote. He and your state representatives need to hear this is unacceptable!” it read. “Oklahomans are pro-life and they need to hear that from Oklahoma Baptists TODAY! Let them know that you support the pro-life Personhood Act, SB 1433, coming to a vote and ask it be heard immediately on the house floor.”

Likewise, the Catholic Dioceses distributed a handout supporting personhood in every Oklahoma parish.

“The Personhood Act was passed by the Senate and approved by a House Committee; but on Thursday of this week Speaker of the House Kris Steele announced that he would not allow SB1433 to be voted on by the entire House,” it read. “Please immediately call, email, fax and/or visit with Speaker Steele and with your own Oklahoma House Representative and tell them that an unborn child is a person and demand that the entire House be allowed to vote on SB 1433.”

Rep. Mike Christian, R, Oklahoma City commented, “We need to put it on the board and put a vote on it and let the people see where we stand. And again, if he doesn’t want to do that, then we take another step forward in the next couple of weeks to remove him as speaker.”

“I believe Oklahomans are overwhelmingly in support of the personhood initiative which says life begins at conception,” explained Rep. Mike Reynolds, R, Oklahoma City. “It’s on the agenda. All he has to do is recognize her.”

SB 1433 received the backing of the House Committee on Public Health by a vote of 7 to 4 in late March with a recommendation of “do pass”, and passed the State Senate in February by a vote of 34 to 8. Despite it’s overwhelming support, and expectancy to pass in the House of Representatives, Speaker of the House Republican Kris Steele blocked the vote on Wednesday, denying pro-life House Representatives the opportunity to vote on the historic measure. Representative Steele publicly stated at a state Capitol press conference that the House Republican Caucus had voted not to take up the measure. It has now been reported in the Tulsa World that Representative Randy Terrill asserted that there was no caucus vote, followed up by Speaker Steele’s admission that it was in fact a utilization of the whip system instead, so there is no record of votes on the matter.

“The idea that this was a caucus decision is bogus,” confirmed Rep. Mike Reynolds, R, Oklahoma City. “It is my understanding that there was no vote in caucus.”

The Tulsa World also reported that according to Representative Steele, if the measure comes up for a vote, he will vote yes.

In 2011, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed HB 1571, a personhood-like bill that ended up dying in the Senate committee. However, none of the local or national pro-life groups were able to support that bill after a hostile amendment was introduced in the House of Representatives by pro-abortion Rep. Doug Cox.

“We are not surprised that there are a few Republicans such as Representative Doug Cox and House Speaker Steele, who wish to suppress life-affirming and pro-family legislation such as the Personhood Act,” commented Keith Mason, Personhood USA President. “However, it is surprising that these Republicans can be allowed to do everything in their power to kill a bill and then blame the entire Republican caucus. It is not too late – truly pro-life Oklahoma Representatives can still call for a vote and pass SB 1433.”

House Representatives have told Personhood Oklahoma and Personhood USA that the bill is still alive and could still be heard before next Thursday. Pro-life and pro-family organizations are calling for a vote.

“We are calling on the Oklahoma House of Representatives to vote on the Personhood Act, and we call on Oklahoma voters to remind them of the importance of SB 1433,” continued Mason. “If the Christians in Oklahoma will rise up and demand a vote, it will happen but they must act now! We are encouraging all pro-life people in Oklahoma to relentlessly call their Representatives and the Governor and demand that 1433 receive a vote.”

“The life of each human being begins at conception. The laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state,” it reads. “‘Unborn child’ and ‘unborn children’ shall include all unborn children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.”

Republican Speaker of the House Kris Steele released a statement today indicating that the decision was made by the House Republican Caucus:

“The House Republican Caucus voted today not to hear the personhood bill on the House floor. This decision was not made unilaterally, but as a caucus collectively. I accept the will of our caucus.”

“The idea that this was a caucus decision is bogus,” said Rep. Mike Reynolds, R, Oklahoma City. “It is my understanding that there was no vote in caucus. Even if there had been one, many members were not present.”

The Oklahoma Personhood Act was passed by the state Senate in February by a vote of 34 to 8 and given a recommendation of “do pass” by a vote of 7 to 4 in the House Public Health Committee. The bill had received the endorsement of the state’s National Right to Life affiliate, Oklahomans for Life, the state’s Personhood USA affiliate, Personhood Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma Eagle Forum.

“It seems the Oklahoma GOP leadership is trying to fill the Romney Republican mold—pro-life speech with no action,” said Keith Mason, President of Personhood USA. “Not voting on the Personhood Act with majorities in the House and Senate and GOP Governor begs the question; if they won’t vote pro-life, why should we vote for them?”

The move to drop the bill from consideration leaves Oklahoma’s pro-life citizens with the lone option of pursuing a state constitution personhood amendment through the citizen initiative process.

The Oklahoma Personhood Amendment petition drive was launched on March 1st, anticipating inaction in the state legislature. 155,000 signatures collected by the end of May will send the personhood amendment to a vote of the people in November.

Similar to the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution, Oklahoma’s personhood amendment will guarantee that the rights of all persons cannot be denied:

“A “person” as referred to in Article 2, Section 2 of this constitution shall be defined as any human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being to natural death. The inherent rights of such person shall not be denied without due process of law and no person as defined herein shall be denied equal protection under the law due to age, place of residence or medical condition.”

Oklahoma’s pro-life personhood supporters are being encouraged by the group organizing the initiative, Personhood Oklahoma, to visit www.PersonhoodOklahoma.com to download and circulate the statewide personhood petition.

The measure would define the word “person” to include every human being, at every age, and guarantee the inherent right to life of every person.

“A ‘person’ as referred to in Article 2, Section 2 of this Constitution shall be defined as any human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being to natural death. The inherent rights of such person shall not be denied without due process of law and no person as defined herein shall be denied equal protection under the law due to age, place of residence, or medical condition,” it reads.

“The lawsuit filed today is par for the course, and therefore completely anticipated,” said Keith Mason, President of Personhood USA. “The opponents of personhood will stop at nothing to deny the people of Oklahoma their First Amendment right to petition the government on behalf of the preborn and ultimately recognize the most basic and fundamental human rights of the smallest and most defenseless people group.”

Personhood opponents have previously sued personhood groups who have initiated amendment petitions. Both in 2008 and again earlier this month, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU were defeated at the Colorado Supreme Court in their bid to challenge the 2008 and 2012 Colorado Personhood Amendments (cases: 07SA245 and 12SA10).

Last Thursday, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed a suit filed by Healthy Families Ohio challenging Personhood Ohio’s personhood petition effort (case: 2012-0070). According to NBC 4, Healthy Families Ohio charged that the ballot title, describing the effects of the amendment, was not a “fair and truthful” description of the measure.

Last fall, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in favor of the pro-life advocates (case: 2010-CA-01949-SCT). Personhood Mississippi reported that Planned Parenthood and the ACLU filed suit to prevent the Mississippi Personhood Amendment from reaching the ballot. “Just as this Court cannot prohibit legislators from offering proposals in the House or Senate, this Court cannot impede voters from submitting proposals through the voter initiative process,” read the majority opinion.

“The pro-abortion groups have been beaten back, again and again, with courts in multiple states defending the people’s right to initiate pro-life petitions and upholding the measures’ descriptions,” continued Mason. “We’re confident that this Court will, once again, rule that the people of Oklahoma are well within their constitutional right to pursue laws which promote the values they hold and respect the lives of all people.”