Oklahoma Senate Bill SJR17

Oklahoma 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/1/21
• Refer: 2/2/21
• Report Pass: 3/2/22
• Engrossed: 3/14/22
• Refer: 3/30/22

Caption

Constitutional amendment; equating rights of unborn persons to rights of born persons; prohibiting performance of abortion; providing exception.

Impact

If approved, SJR17 would significantly alter the legal framework surrounding abortion in Oklahoma. The bill prohibits all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman, categorizing any unauthorized procedure as first-degree manslaughter. This move effectively constricts reproductive rights and places a heavy penalty on medical practitioners who perform abortions against the law, influencing the availability of reproductive healthcare in the state.

Summary

SJR17, a constitutional amendment proposed in Oklahoma, seeks to establish that the rights of unborn persons are equivalent to those of born persons. This measure not only defines life as beginning at conception but also articulates the interests of unborn individuals in relation to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It makes explicit that the Oklahoma Constitution does not secure or protect the right to perform or receive an abortion, thereby allowing for state regulations against it without any constitutional limitation.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SJR17 is deeply polarized. Supporters argue that the measure upholds the sanctity of life and establishes necessary protections for unborn children, advocating that the state should prioritize these rights. Conversely, opponents view the proposed amendment as an infringement on women's rights and healthcare autonomy, fearing it would lead to unsafe conditions for those seeking abortions and exacerbate inequalities in reproductive health access.

Contention

SJR17 encapsulates a significant point of contention in ongoing debates about abortion rights in America. Critics warn that such a constitutional amendment could invite legal battles over definitions, rights, and access to necessary healthcare, while supporters maintain that it is a vital step in affirming the value of unborn life. The discourse reflects broader national divides on reproductive rights and the extent of governmental power in personal healthcare decisions.