There is a campaign happening in Oklahoma right now where abolitionists are petitioning to gather the necessary 120,000 signatures to put on the next election ballot a bill that would abolish all abortion. Yesterday, (March 2, 2016) the Oklahoma State Supreme Court heard arguments from Thomas Russell Hunter (who has brought the petition on behalf of the International Coalition of Abolitionist Societies) and the ACLU who is, of course, fighting to strike down the peoples’ right to put forth such a petition.
The argument from Mr. Hunter can be read here in the linked pdf file and I highly recommend you all read it: https://abolishabortionok.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Protest_Response.pdf
The argument from the ACLU legal counsel was essentially two-fold:
- The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the right to abortion is constitutional and legal precedent should preside, AND
- The petition effort would only be an “expensive public opinion poll” that would cost the taxpayers lots of money.
Mr. Hunter was able to offer a rebuttal not only in his prepared statement that you can read in the pdf file linked above, but also by making the following points:
- It is the peoples’ right to exercise the petition process and that many people exercise that right every day including those proposing the legalization of marijuana or the like.
- One cannot oppose the right to petition simply because it troubles them or they disagree with the viewpoint put forth by the petitioners, And
- Opposing this right to petition cannot be done so on the grounds that it will cost taxpayer dollars because there is almost certainly a Oklahoma State budget for this process and it is a bit odd to call this relatively inexpensive process a financial burden when the state of Oklahoma is spending millions of dollars on things like refurbishing stone steps at the capitol building. Mr. Hunter made the point clearly by asking the question, “What is the state budget for the petition process.” To which the ACLU counsel replied, “…I really don’t know.” Which I find as an odd reply if you are objecting on the grounds of it being a financial burden. Mr. Hunter further clarified that, “People can circulate petitions for marijuna. People can circulate petitions for anything and everything. But if the ACLU doesn’t like it, they will say it will cost a lot of tax dollars when in reality this is just their way of preventing the petition from going forward.”
At this point the Oklahoma State Supreme Court representative who heard the statements from Mr. Hunter and the ACLU legal counsel will gather the statements, create a report and present this to the Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices who will then rule on whether or not the people of Oklahoma can gather signatures for this petition.
Mr. Hunter concluded his arguments with the following statement not written in the pdf document above:
“…The only thing that I would add…is that we are people in Oklahoma. We want to circulate an initiative petition to put before the rest of our community, the state, … the opportunity to vote on whether or not we will continue to deprive innocent human beings the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The ACLU knows that in Oklahoma were we given the right to circulate this petition, we would collect the signatures, it would go on the ballot, and it would put the state, our courts, our legislators, all those in government, in opposition. Because they would have to defend the measure were the people to vote for it. We would like to circulate the petition. We feel that this is…what is being done here is that they [ACLU] are using the argument of stare decisis and the argument that precedence has already said that they can’t do this. We’re[The ACLU] not going to make a constitutional argument, we’re [the ACLU] going to say that we’ve already said, “No!”. [And this] is in violation of the very reason that I am here to defend. We believe this is constitutional.”
Well done abolitionists in Oklahoma.