Recently, a bill was put forth to the Oklahoma State Legislature that has become an item of controversy in the state and throughout the nation: The Personhood Bill, bill SB 1433. This bill proposes that Oklahoma should adopt the view that life begins at conception. In theory, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. If a person wants to carry that view in their personal life, that's fine. What I have a problem with is that if it becomes the legal definition, it stands to threaten a woman's constitutionally guarranteed right of choice. Supporters say that it won't change a woman's right to choose, but rather simply acknowledges that life begins at conception. But no where in the bill does it guarantee that it won't affect a woman's choice. My question is, if it were true that it changes nothing, then why force the issue? Why not simply leave that to your own moral code or that of your religion?In addition to the obvious uproar over the right of choice, opponents of the bill worry that passing this bill will restrict contraception options and inhibit or shut down fertility clinics. Fertility clinic doctors postulate that, technically, if a fertilized embryo is dropped in a lab or another accident occurs, the technician could be brought up on homicide charges. Unlikely to happen, sure, but it makes a point.
I'm not in favor of abortions, however, I do believe women should have the right to terminate an early pregnancy, especially in the case of sexual assault, gross disability, or when it jeopardizes the health of the mother. I don't believe abortions should be used as a method of birth control. That being said, I also don't want to see a child grow up abused, unloved, and unwanted because the mother wasn't permitted a choice. I think when a woman decides to obtain an abortion, counseling should be provided, and various options fully discussed with the woman, so that person can make an informed choice. Taking away a woman's right to choose will only lead to the same back-alley tragedies that occurred in decades past, and everyone loses.
Another bit of concern for me is the religious agenda behind this bill. Oklahoma is smack in the middle of the Bible Belt and is extremely conservative. Everyone has the right to pursue their religion if it doesn't harm anyone or hinder another person's beliefs. Supporters of this bill, including elected officials, consistently throw God into the equation. What happened to the separation of church and state? I'm not naive enough to think that bills and laws don't die or get passed through religious support, but it shouldn't be the case.
I read a public opinion about this issue that struck me. In this commentary, a woman discussed making the choice to continue with her pregnancy. It's not something she's regretted, but she is thankful that she had the right to make the choice she did and would not want to deprive other women of a similar choice. But she conceeded that it's been a constant financial struggle for her to be a single parent. What made me take note was that she said the same people who support this bill, who complain and rant and want to force women to keep any pregnancy, are the same people who complain and moan and protest about having to support the welfare programs designed to help parents who can't make ends meet, including this woman, who is working two jobs.
Republicans, in general, are supposed to advocate less government involvement in our lives. If that's the case, then why was this bill, that shoves the government's nose into our private lives, overwhelming supported by the Oklahoma Senate?
This bill is a setback for women's rights, and needs to be withdrawn, or at least admended to guarantee that a woman's federally protected right to choose is not hindered. Otherwise, you may as well just take my shoes, put me back in the kitchen, and take away my right to vote.





