With ACLJ’s Help, Oklahoma Upholds Statute Banning the Killing of Unborn Babies

A major abortion ban was just upheld in a state Supreme Court after the ACLJ filed a critical amicus brief in the case.

The war amid the states over the Dobbs fallout rages, and the ACLJ helped achieve yet another victory for the unborn – this time in Oklahoma. Traditionally a staunchly pro-life state, Oklahoma had two pro-life statutes challenged by abortionist advocates. The ACLJ intervened to help Oklahoma continue protecting the unborn.

The ACLJ recently filed an amicus brief in the Oklahoma Supreme Court because pro-abortion radicals filed a lawsuit attempting to “create” a right to abortion in Oklahoma. Previously, the Oklahoma Supreme Court had never “found” a right to abortion in the state’s constitution. We filed our brief on behalf of more than 127,000 ACLJ supporters and 41 Oklahoma state Senate and House members.

Even before Oklahoma became a state, the Oklahoma Territory outlawed abortion, except to save the life of the mother. After becoming a state, Oklahoma enacted the 1910 law, which banned abortions. Later, in 1936, the Oklahoma Supreme Court explained that the state’s anti-abortion statutes “were enacted and designed for the protection of the unborn child, and through it, society.”

As we explained in our brief, abortion “presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views.” Because it’s a moral issue, abortion impacts all facets of society: the unborn child’s parents, the government, the public – and, of course, the unborn child.

Recently, the Oklahoma Supreme Court finally gave its ruling on the two disputed statutes. First, it upheld a ban on abortion unless necessary to “preserve the life” of the mother, a caveat that was in the statute itself. Second, it struck down a newer statute that prohibited abortion “except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency.”

In the end, though the Court’s reasoning was admittedly strained and convoluted, and while it should not have judicially created any such “right” to abortion, however limited, the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld a ban on abortion, making Oklahoma one of the most pro-life states in the nation and protecting the rights of unborn children to life. The lives of countless unborn babies will be saved.

Further, to mitigate the game of pro-abortion doctors merely saying an abortion is necessary even if a woman’s life isn’t truly at risk, the Court held that the “mere possibility or speculation” of a woman’s life being in danger “is insufficient.” In other words, a woman’s life must meaningfully be in peril for even this small exception to apply.

Unfortunately, as part of its convoluted reasoning, the Court held the Oklahoma Constitution protects a limited right to abortion, based on the state’s due process clause and its conclusion that Oklahoma’s history and tradition recognized a right to abortion in the limited context of when it’s necessary to save the woman’s life. This reasoning is unfortunate because the statute at issue already had a life-of-the-mother exception. The Court had no need to create such a right in the state constitution because it was plainly in the statute. Further, the Court lacked the authority to judicially engineer such a right in the State’s Constitution. To do so was judicial activism.

Disappointing the abortionists, though, the Oklahoma Supreme Court didn’t rule “on whether the Oklahoma Constitution provides a right to an elective termination of a pregnancy, i.e., one made outside of preserving the life of the pregnant woman as we have defined herein.” This reemphasizes the fact that abortions in Oklahoma can only occur if the mother’s life is seriously in danger, or, in other words, when the abortion is necessary as opposed to merely an elective choice.

While the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling gave us mixed results in its reasoning, the result was still a win for life since one of the two Oklahoma abortion ban statutes was upheld.

Oklahoma House Majority Floor Leader Jon Echols, a key leader in this case, echoed this same sentiment on a recent Sekulow broadcast. Although a technical right to abortion was found for Oklahoma, Rep. Echols praised the work of the ACLJ and spoke of the importance of making sure the right to life is upheld in Oklahoma:

Thank you so much for the work we did on the brief. I almost feel bad taking any credit for it. That was your legal team that did a great job getting everyone together. . . . What we care about at the end of the day is all life. We are anti-abortion because life is meaningful, life is precious, life is created in the image of God, and it all has value.

Rep. Echols perfectly summed up the ACLJ’s philosophy in defending life. We believe all human life is sacred, so we fight for those who cannot fight for themselves.

Rep. Echols recently told us in a meeting that as a leader in Oklahoma’s legislature, he “looks forward to working with the ACLJ because the quality of the ACLJ’s work is excellent and the ACLJ’s commitment to the life of the unborn, the family, and religious liberty is genuine.” Having worked with Rep. Echols now for some time, the feeling is mutual, and the ACLJ commends his leadership, skill, and passion for serving Oklahomans.

We told you that the battle would go to the states after the Dobbs ruling; Oklahoma is no exception. Across America, towns, cities, and states are pushing legislation regarding abortion laws. And we are engaging in the battle for life on all levels of government. The ACLJ will continue its crusade to protect the sanctity of human life in every state.