Supreme Court rejects OK personhood appeal

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal by abortion opponents to get a “personhood” amendment on the Oklahoma ballot. Therefore the April ruling of the Oklahoma Supreme Court stands: The proposed amendment is “clearly unconstitutional.” The amendment would have defined a “person” as “any human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being to natural death.”

This is not a person

Categories: abortion, Health, Law, Supreme Court, war on women

17 replies

  1. Oooh, this is such a hard one for me. I am not against abortion but…

  2. Then can I use all my little eggs as tax deductions? Wait… then if a man gets himself off, wouldn’t that be murder?

  3. I’m really happy to be “from” Oklahoma… but I’m in Kansas; from the frying pan into the fire… :-(( but I love the land and the weather, it’s just most of the people….

  4. I sometimes wonder, if all women were born with the innate ability to detect if they are pregnant and spontaneously abort any fertilized embryos at will, how would Conservatives institute mind control over women to prevent them from doing so?

  5. Shows once again how important this election is. The winner probably will have one or two appointments that will decide the balance of thinking on the Supreme Court.

  6. The images and the caption are perfect: This is not a difficult concept. An acorn is not an oak tree, it is squirrel food.


  1. Colorado should reject personhood and its advocate | Pied Type

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: