JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Thursday, March 04, 2010

Oklahoma Supreme Court rejects broad abortion law
Haley Wojdowski at 12:35 PM ET

[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Oklahoma [official website] ruled [order, PDF] Tuesday that a state law [SB 1878, DOC] imposing broad restrictions on abortion violates the state constitution. The law required women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound within an hour of the procedure and contained sections on requirements for abortion clinic signs, the administration of an early-term abortion pill, and rules on lawsuits relating to abortions. The court held that the legislation "facially, patently, and obviously contained multiple subjects," and therefore violates the Oklahoma constitution [text], which requires legislation to be limited to one subject. The Oklahoma legislature is currently considering other bills [HB 2780, DOC] that separately contain much of same substance as the overturned law. The Center for Reproductive Rights [advocacy website], which brought the suit on behalf of a medical clinic, praised [press release] the court's decision, but expressed concern about the new bills being considered by the legislature.

The court's decision affirmed a lower court ruling [decision, PDF; JURIST report] issued last August. In February, Oklahoma state court judge Daniel Owens ruled [press release; JURIST report] that a different state law [HB 1595, PDF], making it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion based on the gender of a fetus and requiring numerous reporting requirements, also violated the state constitution's single subject requirement.






Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 US House votes for 20-week abortion ban
3:57 PM ET, June 19

 UK Supreme Court allows families of Iraq soldiers to sue government
2:28 PM ET, June 19

 AI: China mining companies contributing to Congo rights abuses
12:51 PM ET, June 19

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LATEST FORUM

Is Egypt's Stance on the Blue Nile Dam Legally Justified?
DOMESTIC
Zeray Yihdego
University of Aberdeen School of Law

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org