Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. State
Plaintiffs claimed that the state’s six-week ban violated the state constitution’s 1) guarantee of due process — right to choose to terminate a pregnancy and bodily integrity (Art. II, § 7), 2) guarantee of due process — right to health (Art. II, § 7), 3) guarantee of equal protection (Art. II, § 7), 4) right to open courts (Art. II, § 6), 5) prohibition on special laws (Art. V, §§ 46, 59), 6) guarantee of due process — the law was insufficiently clear (Art. II, §7), 7) prohibition on ex post facto laws (Art. II, § 15), 8) Freedom of Speech Clause (Art. II, § 22), and 9) prohibition on unreasonable access to patient medical records (Art. II, § 30). They also argued that Oklahoma precedent prevents the legislature from delegating the state’s police power to private citizens.
Plaintiffs further claimed that the near-total ban violated the state constitution’s 1) guarantee of due process — right to choose to terminate a pregnancy and bodily integrity (Art. II, § 7), 2) guarantee of due process — right to health (Art. II, § 7), 3) guarantee of equal protection (Art. II, § 7), 4) right to open courts (Art. II, § 6), 5) prohibition on special laws (Art. V, §§ 46, 59), 6) guarantee of due process — the law was insufficiently clear (Art. II, §7), 7) prohibition on ex post facto laws (Art. II, § 15), 8) Freedom of Speech Clause (Art. II, § 22), and 9) prohibition on unreasonable access to patient medical records (Art. II, § 30). They also argued that Oklahoma precedent prevents the legislature from delegating the state’s police power to private citizens.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court initially declined to temporarily block the two bans pending a decision on whether to take jurisdiction of the case and rule on the merits. The Court subsequently assumed jurisdiction over the case and applied its recent precedent holding that the Oklahoma constitution protects abortion when necessary to preserve a patient’s life. It held that both the private enforcement bans had unconstitutionally narrow medical exceptions that could not be severed from the remainder of the statutes and struck them down. The Court did not rule on whether the state constitution protects the right to abortion beyond a situation in which the patient’s life is at risk.
