‘Landmark’ Oklahoma Resolution Calling Abortion ‘Murder’ Passes House

The resolution carries no weight of law, but sends a strong pro-life message to state officials.

Oklahoma Rep. Chuck Strohm delivers remarks on Monday, May 8, 2017 after the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a resolution asking state officials to treat abortion as murder.

By Liberty McArtor Published on May 9, 2017

Oklahoma’s House of Representatives passed a resolution Monday calling abortion murder. Passed by a voice vote, HR 1004 also claims the U.S. Supreme Court violated the Constitution in cases like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which legalize abortion nationwide. 

Authored by Rep. Chuck Strohm, the measure carries no weight of law. But in remarks on Monday, the Republican called it a “landmark resolution.”

“It calls upon our Attorney General, governor, judiciary, elected officials, to enforce Oklahoma law,” he said.

According to its text, HR 1004 asks Oklahoma officials to “stop murder of unborn children by abortion,” KFOR reported.

Strohm posted a video of his remarks to Facebook on Monday. He called presenting the resolution an “honor.”

“Does the Supreme Court have the right to violate every act of decency and law by imposing — no, not by imposing, but by forcing — the murder of unborn children on our society?” He asked before the House Monday. “I will uphold this truth that the answer is no.” 

“No one — not a doctor, father, judge, or mother — has rights that allow them to murder an unborn child,” Strohm added. 

The Hill noted that Oklahoma’s abortion laws are strict. For instance, the state bans abortions after 20 weeks (except when the mother’s life is in danger) and requires a waiting period of 72 hours before going through with an abortion procedure. 

Americans United for Life (AUL) placed Oklahoma at the top of its 2017 Life List. It was Oklahoma’s second year in a row to land at the top of the AUL’s pro-life ranking. 

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Autrey Windle


  • Timothy Horton

    I wonder if these morons realize under this declaration they’ll also have to publically declare every woman who has an abortion guilty of first degree premeditated homicide? And that every woman who has a miscarriage must be guilty at a minimum of criminally negligent manslaughter?

    Of course not. This is purely emotional theatrics, no thinking involved.

    • Bryan

      Tim, It’s obvious that you have not read the law in question. It does not define the degree of murder nor does it address miscarriages at all. As Ms. McArtor says, it has “no weight of law”. In my opinion, it looks more like some of the measures passed in states about 160 years ago. The logic is similar. To paraphrase it says, people are given certain rights by the Constitution, states are granted certain privileges based on the Constitution, we are the sovereign state of Oklahoma, we believe based on the Constitution that the Supreme Court overstepped their authority in certain cases, and we are asking state officials to recognize that abortion in non-life threatening situation infringes on the rights of the unborn child. In essence this is a State’s Rights issue.
      Back to your response to the article. Based on what you wrote, you seem to be saying that if they had to publicly “declare every woman who has an abortion guilty of first degree premeditated homicide”, that would somehow be wrong. Again the law itself does not say that. However, for the sake of argument, if it did or if it said something similar (manslaughter instead of murder, for instance), why would that be wrong or bad? Would that make the statement that abortion is murder less true?
      Emotion says you can’t charge every woman who has an abortion with murder because murder is bad and the woman may have had no other choice. It’s not fair to charge people with something that’s bad unless they’re bad people.
      Reason says if abortion is murder then, yes, every person involved in the abortion of a child is partly or wholly responsible for the murder of that child. Whether or not anyone is charged in that specific instance is a separate question. Rationally it would be irresponsible to go after all of the people involved for several reasons, cost and prison capacity being high on that list.
      The other part of the unspoken argument seems to be that since everybody’s doing it and we can’t punish everybody for it, it should be ok. The problem there is that just because somebody does something, that doesn’t make it right. Many southern states tried to argue that slavery was ok because everybody was doing it and they couldn’t punish all offenders. That didn’t make them right either.

      • Autrey Windle

        Bryan, will you please run for some office where I can vote for you? My, what great sense you make!

      • Timothy Horton

        Would that make the statement that abortion is murder less true?

        The statement isn’t true. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Abortion isn’t illegal and a fetus isn’t a legal person. This was pure political grandstanding and makes the politicians of Oklahoma look like real clowns.

        • Charles Burge

          Actually there are some inconsistencies in the law. For example, women in some states have been charged with child abuse or endangerment for using drugs while pregnant. Some states also have so-called “fetal homicide” laws, under which someone can be charged with murder if they injure a pregnant woman in a way that results in the death of the child.

          Setting aside the legal issues, I’d really like to hear your personal opinion. At what specific point in development does someone become a human being?

          • Timothy Horton

            They are always a human being, a member of the human species. A fetus becomes a person IMHO when it is viable outside the womb without heroic medical measures, somewhere around the 27th or 28th week.

            Yes, there is quite a bit of gray area and inconsistency in the law. One of the things which makes Roe v. Wade such a good compromise is that it recognized viability as a critical concept and also recognized every instance of viability must be decided on a case by case basis.

          • Charles Burge

            Well it’s a good thing you qualified it with “IMHO”, since your opinion isn’t based on sound science. 🙂

            For example, PLoS ONE states that by 14 weeks, unborn children exhibit conscious “motor planning” and “social behavior.”

            The American Medical Association Complete Medical Encyclopedia states that by 20 weeks, the fetus “now sleeps and wakes and hears sounds.”

            Since you qualified that a human being isn’t necessarily the same thing as a person, what is a person, exactly?

          • Timothy Horton

            PLoS ONE states that by 14 weeks, unborn children exhibit conscious “motor planning” and “social behavior.”

            Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact a fetus isn’t viable until the 24th week at the very earliest, usually the 27th or 28th.

            You seem to be the one quite unfamiliar with the science.

          • Charles Burge

            No I’m simply disputing your criteria for defining personhood (which I’m still waiting for you to precisely define). I’m assuming that “viable” here means “able to survive without significant medical attention”. If that’s accurate, what about patients who become dependent on ventilators or dialysis machines. Do they cease to be persons?

          • Timothy Horton

            You asked for my opinion on when should a fetus be considered a person, I gave it. If you don’t like it, tough.

          • Charles Burge

            OK fair enough. I just think it’s a pretty mushy definition, especially for a scientist. For example, today’s “heroic medical measures” are tomorrow’s routine care. Does that mean the definition of personhood can (or will) move to an earlier stage of pregnancy in the future?

          • Timothy Horton

            I just think it’s a pretty mushy definition, especially for a scientist.

            We live in an analog world and there isn’t always a clean concise “one size fits all” dividing line. Again, Roe v. Wade anticipated this which is why they left room for individual considerations. The decision also covers advances in medical technology which make external machine supported viability be even earlier. That’s why I said without heroic medical measures which still means 27th or 28th week.

          • myintx

            At 20 weeks, 28 weeks, 38 weeks and birth the same being exists. And if his or her parents were human beings then he or she is also. Look up the legal definition of “murder”. It doesn’t have the word “person” in it. It has the words “human being”. Abortion is the legal killing of a human being. Make abortion illegal and it is murder. Either way, abortion is the killing of a human being that has done nothing wrong – how can anyone support that?

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          “I wonder if these morons realize…” “This is purely emotional theatrics, no thinking involved.”

          Perfect example of the Giant Sequoia Tree sticking outta one’s eye socket.

  • mbabbitt

    If the willing taking of innocent human life (all chromosomes are present) is not considered murder in a nation, there is something terribly wrong with that nation – just like slavery was – and is always – evil even though legal.

I Am No Angel, He Said
Bobby Neal Winters
More from The Stream
Connect with Us