The Return of Personhood

The so-called personhood movement is back in Oklahoma.

State Rep. Mike Reynolds, an Oklahoma City Republican, pictured right, has introduced House Bill 1029, which, if signed into law, would begin legal rights at the moment of conception, threatening women’s basic reproductive rights, including access to birth control.

The anti-abortion measure, dubbed the Personhood Act of 2013, is similar to the one that failed to get a vote last year in the Oklahoma House. In addition, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled last year that the language in a petition drive to allow a statewide vote on the personhood issue was unconstitutional.

Here’s the pertinent language in the bill:

A. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Personhood Act of 2013".
B. The Oklahoma Legislature finds that:
1. The life of each human being begins at conception;
2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being; and
3. The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.
A. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Personhood Act of 2013".
B. The Oklahoma Legislature finds that:
1. The life of each human being begins at conception;
2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being; and
3. The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.
C. 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.
D. As used in this section, “unborn child” or “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.
E. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.
F. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as applying to spontaneous miscarriages.

Note the ambiguity in section E. What exactly does “indirectly” mean in this context? How would a zealous anti-abortion prosecutor or judge define this term? How do you define it? Note the lack of any reference to birth control. Could birth control be construed as a premeditated action against a fertilized egg under this bill or new, companion legislation in the future? That’s not so far-fetched. How would the bill affect medical protocols surrounding female eggs and sperm with in vitro fertilization procedures?

Last year, an anti-personhood rally at the Capitol, which I attended, drew hundreds of participants, mostly women, and was probably at least one reason the House leadership didn’t allow a vote on the issue. Reynolds’ new bill is expected to face the same type of organized opposition. Some political observers expect other personhood bills to be introduced as well.

The personhood movement is simply another way anti-abortion zealots are trying to restrict access to reproductive rights. Even if this bill or a similar bill passes in Oklahoma, the obsessed anti-abortion crowd will not stop its efforts to completely regulate women’s bodies, which it sees as a function of a government operated solely on its contradictory value system.

The personhood movement crosses a line that all people concerned with their health and bodies should consider. Should we allow right-wing religious ideology to dictate our medical definitions and care? No, of course not. According to Reynolds' legislative profile, he is "an Ordained Deacon and a member of Southern Hills Baptist Church."

It’s uncertain if a personhood bill can pass in Oklahoma, but Republicans do hold a veto majority in both the House and Senate and most politicians, even some Democrats here, are afraid to vote against anti-abortion measures because of what they perceive as negative political costs. Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican, would also be aware of the political costs if she plans to run for reelection or for another office in the future.

It’s important to note a similar personhood amendment was actually voted down in Mississippi in 2011.