Embryos gain personhood in Oklahoma bill

22 thoughts on “Embryos gain personhood in Oklahoma bill”

  1. I had heard about the Oklahoma bill from a commenter on my own blog, Herb Van Fleet. Herb lives in Tulsa, last I heard. It blows my mind. Excellent post, and love the poster. It is spot-on. I found the idea of naming fetuses as income tax dependents particularly intriguing. It offers vast opportunities for tax cheats, not to mention the abetting of moral turpitude.

    IRS man: “What happened to Freddy Fetus?”
    Taxpayer: “Oh, he didn’t survive gestation. But don’t worry, we’re going to keep trying. Every year.”


  2. Amendment XIV (1868)

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Notice the word, “born.”
    Note that pregnant females are both born and citizens of the United States with federally protected privileges (which includes dominion over her own body) and immunity (federal protection) against any state that would deprive her of life, liberty, or property.

    1. Scary that lawmakers can’t read the Constitution, isn’t it? Not to mention Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court, in discussing the Constitution’s use of the word “person” said: “… the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.”

    2. Hey Ima. If state legislatures can redefine marriage as a contract between people of the same sex, what makes you think they can’t redefine “born” as meaning “conceived”? 🙄

      1. Big difference, Jim.

        The constitution doesn’t define, authorize or oppose marriage of any nature. Lacking that federal power, it devolves to the states and citizens.

        In fact, in my opinion, the government (of any jurisdiction) has no business dictating the specifications of any contracts that don’t involve fraud or some other harmful element. I see no logical reason why a marriage contract should be special.

        Just me of course.

    1. Yes, I’m very upset with my old home state. But the bill still has to get through the House and be signed by the governor. I seem to recall they rejected a similarly regressive bill a few years ago. Hope I’m right about that.

    1. The law doesn’t address that situation, but in theory, it would be possible. After all, that embryo would become a legal “person” at the moment of conception.

... and that's my two cents