Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

[Carla_Danger]

Again, don't kill your baby in Oklahoma. Go somewhere else to kill your baby. Oklahoma isn't havin it. Problem solved. Movin on..

What the baby killers don't seem to get is that doesn't prevent them from having an abortion. It says what the consequences of doing so are. It's like then speed limit. The signs saying what the speed limit are don't prevent people from driving over it. However, if someone chooses to do so, there are consequences.

WINNER!

Winner!


Oklahoma governor vetoes bill that would criminalize abortion - CNNPolitics.com

Let's see if there are enough votes to overide the veto before we announce the winner on that one.mmmkay?

Wise observation. And the issue isn't going away. Most Oklahomans don't support abortion. They'd prefer if you wanna kill your babies, go do it someplace else.

What's that got to do with anything? Okiehoman's don't get to vote away other peoples right to privacy.

 

[Carla_Danger]

What the baby killers don't seem to get is that doesn't prevent them from having an abortion. It says what the consequences of doing so are. It's like then speed limit. The signs saying what the speed limit are don't prevent people from driving over it. However, if someone chooses to do so, there are consequences.

WINNER!

Winner!


Oklahoma governor vetoes bill that would criminalize abortion - CNNPolitics.com

Let's see if there are enough votes to overide the veto before we announce the winner on that one.mmmkay?

I doubt it will work in your favor. Those Republican politician's are just blowing smoke up your rear because they have nothing else to offer the citizens. It would be an invitation for mega lawsuits, and Okiehoma is already facing a budget crisis.

Nope, this is gonna go over the same way Okiehoma's ridiculous ban on sharia law went over.

It's back to the drawing board. Maybe Okiehoma law makers can do something productive and come up with another bill to ban fetuses from food.

The think that the proabort leftards don't understand or appreciate is the fact that a person (like myself) who has good reason to believe that an abortion really is a violation of a child's Constitutional rights is worried MORE about correcting that injustice than they (we) are worried about popularity, politics, etc.

It is a complete betrayal for the governor who claims to be pro-life to decline the chance that she had to advance the cause in defense of those children's rights.

Their blood is on her hands too now and the lawmakers will have the same blood on theirs, if they have a chance to overide her veto and don't do it.

You right wing extremist don't give a crap about those babies once they're born. If you did, you wouldn't be forcing those babies into homes where they are unwanted, unloved, with people unable to care for them.

Mary "pig face" Fallin will have to figure out another way to trample over women's right to privacy.

 

[oreo]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

Yep--this is one that the U.S. Supreme court would have slapped down immediately. What a waste of taxpayer dollars.

 

[Chuz Life]

What the baby killers don't seem to get is that doesn't prevent them from having an abortion. It says what the consequences of doing so are. It's like then speed limit. The signs saying what the speed limit are don't prevent people from driving over it. However, if someone chooses to do so, there are consequences.

WINNER!

Winner!


Oklahoma governor vetoes bill that would criminalize abortion - CNNPolitics.com

Let's see if there are enough votes to overide the veto before we announce the winner on that one.mmmkay?

Wise observation. And the issue isn't going away. Most Oklahomans don't support abortion. They'd prefer if you wanna kill your babies, go do it someplace else.

What's that got to do with anything? Okiehoman's don't get to vote away other peoples right to privacy.

No-one has the right to violate the rights of a child and then to shield that violation behind their so called 'right to privacy '

 

[Chuz Life]

WINNER!

Winner!


Oklahoma governor vetoes bill that would criminalize abortion - CNNPolitics.com

Let's see if there are enough votes to overide the veto before we announce the winner on that one.mmmkay?

I doubt it will work in your favor. Those Republican politician's are just blowing smoke up your rear because they have nothing else to offer the citizens. It would be an invitation for mega lawsuits, and Okiehoma is already facing a budget crisis.

Nope, this is gonna go over the same way Okiehoma's ridiculous ban on sharia law went over.

It's back to the drawing board. Maybe Okiehoma law makers can do something productive and come up with another bill to ban fetuses from food.

The think that the proabort leftards don't understand or appreciate is the fact that a person (like myself) who has good reason to believe that an abortion really is a violation of a child's Constitutional rights is worried MORE about correcting that injustice than they (we) are worried about popularity, politics, etc.

It is a complete betrayal for the governor who claims to be pro-life to decline the chance that she had to advance the cause in defense of those children's rights.

Their blood is on her hands too now and the lawmakers will have the same blood on theirs, if they have a chance to overide her veto and don't do it.

You right wing extremist don't give a crap about those babies once they're born. If you did, you wouldn't be forcing those babies into homes where they are unwanted, unloved, with people unable to care for them.

Mary "pig face" Fallin will have to figure out another way to trample over women's right to privacy.

Your attempt to distort the efforts of those who are defending the rights of chilren in the womb like that (like you just did) is appreciated.

It shows the weakness and desperation of your own position.

The defense of the rights of children against abortion is no more tantamount to "forcing children into abusive homes" than our laws against molestation are towards forcing celebacy onto pedophiles.

We have a constitutional obligation to protect all rights EQUALLY and we have no right to exclude children and their rights from that duty.

 

[Carla_Danger]

WINNER!

Winner!


Oklahoma governor vetoes bill that would criminalize abortion - CNNPolitics.com

Let's see if there are enough votes to overide the veto before we announce the winner on that one.mmmkay?

Wise observation. And the issue isn't going away. Most Oklahomans don't support abortion. They'd prefer if you wanna kill your babies, go do it someplace else.

What's that got to do with anything? Okiehoman's don't get to vote away other peoples right to privacy.

No-one has the right to violate the rights of a child and then to shield that violation behind their so called 'right to privacy '

You don't give two shits about the rights of a child. You only care about the fetus. Lets be clear on that.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

What a fucking idiot, clearly this law would be unconstitutional.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Winner!


Oklahoma governor vetoes bill that would criminalize abortion - CNNPolitics.com

Let's see if there are enough votes to overide the veto before we announce the winner on that one.mmmkay?

I doubt it will work in your favor. Those Republican politician's are just blowing smoke up your rear because they have nothing else to offer the citizens. It would be an invitation for mega lawsuits, and Okiehoma is already facing a budget crisis.

Nope, this is gonna go over the same way Okiehoma's ridiculous ban on sharia law went over.

It's back to the drawing board. Maybe Okiehoma law makers can do something productive and come up with another bill to ban fetuses from food.

The think that the proabort leftards don't understand or appreciate is the fact that a person (like myself) who has good reason to believe that an abortion really is a violation of a child's Constitutional rights is worried MORE about correcting that injustice than they (we) are worried about popularity, politics, etc.

It is a complete betrayal for the governor who claims to be pro-life to decline the chance that she had to advance the cause in defense of those children's rights.

Their blood is on her hands too now and the lawmakers will have the same blood on theirs, if they have a chance to overide her veto and don't do it.

You right wing extremist don't give a crap about those babies once they're born. If you did, you wouldn't be forcing those babies into homes where they are unwanted, unloved, with people unable to care for them.

Mary "pig face" Fallin will have to figure out another way to trample over women's right to privacy.

Your attempt to distort the efforts of those who are defending the rights of chilren in the womb like that (like you just did) is appreciated.

It shows the weakness and desperation of your own position.

The defense of the rights of children against abortion is no more tantamount to "forcing children into abusive homes" than our laws against molestation are towards forcing celebacy onto pedophiles.

We have a constitutional obligation to protect all rights EQUALLY and we have no right to exclude children and their rights from that duty.

In your opinion, you mean.

The Roe Court had it right that the fetus is not legally a person, and is not entitled to Constitutional protections, which allows citizens to make their own decisions as to when life begins. And whether you like it or not, you'll never be able to force women to give birth against their will.

Even if you right wing extremists manage to gut the Supreme Court decision, women will find a way to have abortions, just like they did before.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Let's see if there are enough votes to overide the veto before we announce the winner on that one.mmmkay?

I doubt it will work in your favor. Those Republican politician's are just blowing smoke up your rear because they have nothing else to offer the citizens. It would be an invitation for mega lawsuits, and Okiehoma is already facing a budget crisis.

Nope, this is gonna go over the same way Okiehoma's ridiculous ban on sharia law went over.

It's back to the drawing board. Maybe Okiehoma law makers can do something productive and come up with another bill to ban fetuses from food.

The think that the proabort leftards don't understand or appreciate is the fact that a person (like myself) who has good reason to believe that an abortion really is a violation of a child's Constitutional rights is worried MORE about correcting that injustice than they (we) are worried about popularity, politics, etc.

It is a complete betrayal for the governor who claims to be pro-life to decline the chance that she had to advance the cause in defense of those children's rights.

Their blood is on her hands too now and the lawmakers will have the same blood on theirs, if they have a chance to overide her veto and don't do it.

You right wing extremist don't give a crap about those babies once they're born. If you did, you wouldn't be forcing those babies into homes where they are unwanted, unloved, with people unable to care for them.

Mary "pig face" Fallin will have to figure out another way to trample over women's right to privacy.

Your attempt to distort the efforts of those who are defending the rights of chilren in the womb like that (like you just did) is appreciated.

It shows the weakness and desperation of your own position.

The defense of the rights of children against abortion is no more tantamount to "forcing children into abusive homes" than our laws against molestation are towards forcing celebacy onto pedophiles.

We have a constitutional obligation to protect all rights EQUALLY and we have no right to exclude children and their rights from that duty.

In your opinion, you mean.

The Roe Court had it right that the fetus is not legally a person, and is not entitled to Constitutional protections, which allows citizens to make their own decisions as to when life begins. And whether you like it or not, you'll never be able to force women to give birth against their will.

Even if you right wing extremists manage to gut the Supreme Court decision, women will find a way to have abortions, just like they did before.

So , I suppose you can give me a link to your posts telling people who oppose gun ownership that SCOTUS has ruled and that proposed gun laws are unconstitutional?

LOL You partisan hacks make this too easy.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I doubt it will work in your favor. Those Republican politician's are just blowing smoke up your rear because they have nothing else to offer the citizens. It would be an invitation for mega lawsuits, and Okiehoma is already facing a budget crisis.

Nope, this is gonna go over the same way Okiehoma's ridiculous ban on sharia law went over.

It's back to the drawing board. Maybe Okiehoma law makers can do something productive and come up with another bill to ban fetuses from food.

The think that the proabort leftards don't understand or appreciate is the fact that a person (like myself) who has good reason to believe that an abortion really is a violation of a child's Constitutional rights is worried MORE about correcting that injustice than they (we) are worried about popularity, politics, etc.

It is a complete betrayal for the governor who claims to be pro-life to decline the chance that she had to advance the cause in defense of those children's rights.

Their blood is on her hands too now and the lawmakers will have the same blood on theirs, if they have a chance to overide her veto and don't do it.

You right wing extremist don't give a crap about those babies once they're born. If you did, you wouldn't be forcing those babies into homes where they are unwanted, unloved, with people unable to care for them.

Mary "pig face" Fallin will have to figure out another way to trample over women's right to privacy.

Your attempt to distort the efforts of those who are defending the rights of chilren in the womb like that (like you just did) is appreciated.

It shows the weakness and desperation of your own position.

The defense of the rights of children against abortion is no more tantamount to "forcing children into abusive homes" than our laws against molestation are towards forcing celebacy onto pedophiles.

We have a constitutional obligation to protect all rights EQUALLY and we have no right to exclude children and their rights from that duty.

In your opinion, you mean.

The Roe Court had it right that the fetus is not legally a person, and is not entitled to Constitutional protections, which allows citizens to make their own decisions as to when life begins. And whether you like it or not, you'll never be able to force women to give birth against their will.

Even if you right wing extremists manage to gut the Supreme Court decision, women will find a way to have abortions, just like they did before.

So , I suppose you can give me a link to your posts telling people who oppose gun ownership that SCOTUS has ruled and that proposed gun laws are unconstitutional?

LOL You partisan hacks make this too easy.

I'll take you up on that challenge, but since it was your idea, you get to hunt for the postings. Fair enough?

Challenge 1. Find a post where another poster on this forum opposes gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Challenge 2. Find a post by me, stating that I am against gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

Why is it so hard for some to understand that some people consider baby killing kind of a big deal? As for Roe v. Wade, probably one of the most flawed SC decisions in history. Anyhoo, I don't love on OK, therefore, what do I care,

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The think that the proabort leftards don't understand or appreciate is the fact that a person (like myself) who has good reason to believe that an abortion really is a violation of a child's Constitutional rights is worried MORE about correcting that injustice than they (we) are worried about popularity, politics, etc.

It is a complete betrayal for the governor who claims to be pro-life to decline the chance that she had to advance the cause in defense of those children's rights.

Their blood is on her hands too now and the lawmakers will have the same blood on theirs, if they have a chance to overide her veto and don't do it.

You right wing extremist don't give a crap about those babies once they're born. If you did, you wouldn't be forcing those babies into homes where they are unwanted, unloved, with people unable to care for them.

Mary "pig face" Fallin will have to figure out another way to trample over women's right to privacy.

Your attempt to distort the efforts of those who are defending the rights of chilren in the womb like that (like you just did) is appreciated.

It shows the weakness and desperation of your own position.

The defense of the rights of children against abortion is no more tantamount to "forcing children into abusive homes" than our laws against molestation are towards forcing celebacy onto pedophiles.

We have a constitutional obligation to protect all rights EQUALLY and we have no right to exclude children and their rights from that duty.

In your opinion, you mean.

The Roe Court had it right that the fetus is not legally a person, and is not entitled to Constitutional protections, which allows citizens to make their own decisions as to when life begins. And whether you like it or not, you'll never be able to force women to give birth against their will.

Even if you right wing extremists manage to gut the Supreme Court decision, women will find a way to have abortions, just like they did before.

So , I suppose you can give me a link to your posts telling people who oppose gun ownership that SCOTUS has ruled and that proposed gun laws are unconstitutional?

LOL You partisan hacks make this too easy.

I'll take you up on that challenge, but since it was your idea, you get to hunt for the postings. Fair enough?

Challenge 1. Find a post where another poster on this forum opposes gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Challenge 2. Find a post by me, stating that I am against gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

In other words, no you can not provide a link to you telling other liberals that gun ownership is a right as upheld by SCOTUS and that's the end of it.

See, if you asked me to prove I'm not a partisan hack, I could easily do so. My posts speak for themselves.

You on the other hand.................

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Why is it so hard for Republicans to stay out of people's personal business? Even if this law manages to pass, which I doubt, the state will then end up spending tens of thousands of dollars failing to defend it from court challenges. This issue was settled in 1973. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. — In a move that is unprecedented nationwide, an Oklahoma Senator has introduced a bill that would criminalize abortion as first-degree murder.

Sen. Joe Silk, R-Broken Bow, recently introduced S.B. 1118 which adds killing an unborn child to existing murder statutes.

“No person shall perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion after conception,” it reads. “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs an abortion as defined by Section 1-745.5 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.”

Oklahoma Senator Introduces Bill to Criminalize Abortion as First-Degree Murder

Why is it so hard for some to understand that some people consider baby killing kind of a big deal? As for Roe v. Wade, probably one of the most flawed SC decisions in history. Anyhoo, I don't love on OK, therefore, what do I care,

You should care NOLA because quite frankly your personal opinion about abortion is irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as one of the left wing moron's opinions about guns is.

It's about being consistent and is what separates the normal people from liberals.

Absent a constitutional amendment , abortion is a protected right.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You right wing extremist don't give a crap about those babies once they're born. If you did, you wouldn't be forcing those babies into homes where they are unwanted, unloved, with people unable to care for them.

Mary "pig face" Fallin will have to figure out another way to trample over women's right to privacy.

Your attempt to distort the efforts of those who are defending the rights of chilren in the womb like that (like you just did) is appreciated.

It shows the weakness and desperation of your own position.

The defense of the rights of children against abortion is no more tantamount to "forcing children into abusive homes" than our laws against molestation are towards forcing celebacy onto pedophiles.

We have a constitutional obligation to protect all rights EQUALLY and we have no right to exclude children and their rights from that duty.

In your opinion, you mean.

The Roe Court had it right that the fetus is not legally a person, and is not entitled to Constitutional protections, which allows citizens to make their own decisions as to when life begins. And whether you like it or not, you'll never be able to force women to give birth against their will.

Even if you right wing extremists manage to gut the Supreme Court decision, women will find a way to have abortions, just like they did before.

So , I suppose you can give me a link to your posts telling people who oppose gun ownership that SCOTUS has ruled and that proposed gun laws are unconstitutional?

LOL You partisan hacks make this too easy.

I'll take you up on that challenge, but since it was your idea, you get to hunt for the postings. Fair enough?

Challenge 1. Find a post where another poster on this forum opposes gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Challenge 2. Find a post by me, stating that I am against gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

In other words, no you can not provide a link to you telling other liberals that gun ownership is a right as upheld by SCOTUS and that's the end of it.

See, if you asked me to prove I'm not a partisan hack, I could easily do so. My posts speak for themselves.

You on the other hand.................

You seem to be struggling with your screen name. You see, when you accuse others, the burden of proof is yours. You won't take my challenge because you know I'm right.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Your attempt to distort the efforts of those who are defending the rights of chilren in the womb like that (like you just did) is appreciated.

It shows the weakness and desperation of your own position.

The defense of the rights of children against abortion is no more tantamount to "forcing children into abusive homes" than our laws against molestation are towards forcing celebacy onto pedophiles.

We have a constitutional obligation to protect all rights EQUALLY and we have no right to exclude children and their rights from that duty.

In your opinion, you mean.

The Roe Court had it right that the fetus is not legally a person, and is not entitled to Constitutional protections, which allows citizens to make their own decisions as to when life begins. And whether you like it or not, you'll never be able to force women to give birth against their will.

Even if you right wing extremists manage to gut the Supreme Court decision, women will find a way to have abortions, just like they did before.

So , I suppose you can give me a link to your posts telling people who oppose gun ownership that SCOTUS has ruled and that proposed gun laws are unconstitutional?

LOL You partisan hacks make this too easy.

I'll take you up on that challenge, but since it was your idea, you get to hunt for the postings. Fair enough?

Challenge 1. Find a post where another poster on this forum opposes gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Challenge 2. Find a post by me, stating that I am against gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

In other words, no you can not provide a link to you telling other liberals that gun ownership is a right as upheld by SCOTUS and that's the end of it.

See, if you asked me to prove I'm not a partisan hack, I could easily do so. My posts speak for themselves.

You on the other hand.................

You seem to be struggling with your screen name. You see, when you accuse others, the burden of proof is yours. You won't take my challenge because you know I'm right.

I challenged your first you loon.

Just say no and move on. Don't stupidly ask me to prove a negative.

 

[Carla_Danger]

In your opinion, you mean.

The Roe Court had it right that the fetus is not legally a person, and is not entitled to Constitutional protections, which allows citizens to make their own decisions as to when life begins. And whether you like it or not, you'll never be able to force women to give birth against their will.

Even if you right wing extremists manage to gut the Supreme Court decision, women will find a way to have abortions, just like they did before.

So , I suppose you can give me a link to your posts telling people who oppose gun ownership that SCOTUS has ruled and that proposed gun laws are unconstitutional?

LOL You partisan hacks make this too easy.

I'll take you up on that challenge, but since it was your idea, you get to hunt for the postings. Fair enough?

Challenge 1. Find a post where another poster on this forum opposes gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Challenge 2. Find a post by me, stating that I am against gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

In other words, no you can not provide a link to you telling other liberals that gun ownership is a right as upheld by SCOTUS and that's the end of it.

See, if you asked me to prove I'm not a partisan hack, I could easily do so. My posts speak for themselves.

You on the other hand.................

You seem to be struggling with your screen name. You see, when you accuse others, the burden of proof is yours. You won't take my challenge because you know I'm right.

I challenged your first you loon.

Just say no and move on. Don't stupidly ask me to prove a negative.

Okay, we'll move on. You got nothing.

 

[paulitician]

What the baby killers don't seem to get is that doesn't prevent them from having an abortion. It says what the consequences of doing so are. It's like then speed limit. The signs saying what the speed limit are don't prevent people from driving over it. However, if someone chooses to do so, there are consequences.

WINNER!

Winner!


Oklahoma governor vetoes bill that would criminalize abortion - CNNPolitics.com

Let's see if there are enough votes to overide the veto before we announce the winner on that one.mmmkay?

Wise observation. And the issue isn't going away. Most Oklahomans don't support abortion. They'd prefer if you wanna kill your babies, go do it someplace else.

What's that got to do with anything? Okiehoman's don't get to vote away other peoples right to privacy.

They feel they have the right to vote away killing babies. The issue isn't going away. Oklahomans would prefer you murder your babies someplace else. I'm fine with States deciding this.

 

[Chuz Life]

Winner!


Oklahoma governor vetoes bill that would criminalize abortion - CNNPolitics.com

Let's see if there are enough votes to overide the veto before we announce the winner on that one.mmmkay?

Wise observation. And the issue isn't going away. Most Oklahomans don't support abortion. They'd prefer if you wanna kill your babies, go do it someplace else.

What's that got to do with anything? Okiehoman's don't get to vote away other peoples right to privacy.

No-one has the right to violate the rights of a child and then to shield that violation behind their so called 'right to privacy '

You don't give two shits about the rights of a child. You only care about the fetus. Lets be clear on that.

Let's see. . .

I support laws that protect children BOTH inside the womb AND after they are born.

You deny them protections until they live too long and develop too much to be denied their rights anymore.

So, who is the real hypocrite in this?

 

[Carla_Danger]

I support laws that protect children BOTH inside the womb AND after they are born.

Those are just words.

I find it ironic that you support Oklahoma's extreme laws, yet Oklahoma has the worst record for taking care of children outside of the womb.

OKLAHOMA CITY — From age 4, when she was taken from her drug-using mother, until she turned 18 last year and left the foster care system, Sasha Gray moved a total of 42 times. There were emergency shelters, foster homes, group homes, a brief trial with her mother and short stays in psychiatric care because of defiant behavior.

When she complained that a foster father had climbed into her bed in his underwear, she was moved again, but state workers kept placing other children in the same house until the man was arrested for molesting his niece.

“Instead of properly investigating it, they let it slide,” Ms. Gray said. She now lives with an aunt and despite the traumatic churning of homes and “parents,” she finished high school and is studying to be a nurse.

Federal data shows that Oklahoma consistently has one of the worst records in the country of documented abuse of children in foster or group homes. In addition to frequent moves and extended stays in overcrowded shelters, the system is short of foster parents, social workers and needed therapies.

All this has exposed many children to lasting psychological damage, including an inability to form emotional bonds, according to the lawsuit, a class-action filed in February by Children’s Rights, an advocacy organization, and several local lawyers.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/16foster.html

 

[Chuz Life]

I support laws that protect children BOTH inside the womb AND after they are born.

Those are just words.

I find it ironic that you support Oklahoma's extreme laws, yet Oklahoma has the worst record for taking care of children outside of the womb.

OKLAHOMA CITY — From age 4, when she was taken from her drug-using mother, until she turned 18 last year and left the foster care system, Sasha Gray moved a total of 42 times. There were emergency shelters, foster homes, group homes, a brief trial with her mother and short stays in psychiatric care because of defiant behavior.

When she complained that a foster father had climbed into her bed in his underwear, she was moved again, but state workers kept placing other children in the same house until the man was arrested for molesting his niece.

“Instead of properly investigating it, they let it slide,” Ms. Gray said. She now lives with an aunt and despite the traumatic churning of homes and “parents,” she finished high school and is studying to be a nurse.

Federal data shows that Oklahoma consistently has one of the worst records in the country of documented abuse of children in foster or group homes. In addition to frequent moves and extended stays in overcrowded shelters, the system is short of foster parents, social workers and needed therapies.

All this has exposed many children to lasting psychological damage, including an inability to form emotional bonds, according to the lawsuit, a class-action filed in February by Children’s Rights, an advocacy organization, and several local lawyers.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/16foster.html

You cant dodge my point about the irony of your hypocrisy.

You dont recognize the rights of children at all. . . Until they live too long and somehow breech your ability to stomach the denial of their rights anymore.

The parents are ultimately most responsible for the care of children after they are born. NOT me , not the government and not even the charitable organizations which I DO support - despite your claims against me.