Abortion Civil Suit Law Signed

A woman upon whom an abortion has been performed in negligent violation of the Oklahoma Statutes, or the parent or legal guardian of the woman if she is not an emancipated minor, may commence a civil action against the abortion provider, against the prescriber of any drug or chemical intended to induce abortion, and against any person or entity which referred the woman to the abortion provider or prescriber and which knew or reasonably should have known that the abortion provider or prescriber had acted in violation of the Oklahoma Statutes.

The suit may be for actual damages and, in cases of gross negligence, for punitive damages.  The measure of damages shall include damages for the mental anguish and emotional distress of the plaintiff, in addition to all damages available for the wrongful death of the child whose life was aborted

Unless the defendant can prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the abortion was performed on a child who was already dead from natural causes before the abortion, and that the defendant informed the plaintiff that the child was already dead at the time of the abortion, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that if an abortion was performed, that the child whose life was aborted was alive until the abortion was performed, and was capable eventually of living a normal human lifespan had the abortion not occurred.

If judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff the court shall also render judgment for costs including reasonable expert witness fees and for a reasonable attorney fee in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant.  If judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant and the court finds that the plaintiff's suit was frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation, the court shall also render judgment for costs including reasonable expert witness fees and for a reasonable attorney fee in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff.

The bill is clearly written to provide women who have been injured due to negligence an opportunity for recourse.  In violation of statutes include failing to inform the woman of medical risks, failing to inform the woman of public and private agencies, including adoption agencies and services that are available to assist a woman through pregnancy, upon childbirth, and while the child is dependent.

Failure to receive consent and identification of at least one parent of a minor receiving an abortion will also be grounds for a suit. The law is applicable if a provider violates a state law that requires notification of a minor's parents 48 hours before abortion care.

The women, or the parents or guardians of a minor, would have two years from the time of the abortion procedure to file a suit.

This law takes effect September 1, 2012.

Community Service Legislation Heads to Governor’s Desk

Sen. David Holt, R-Oklahoma City, praised the final passage of Senate Bill 1875, a measure allowing counties in Oklahoma to create community service programs for convicted criminals, putting offenders in position to make a positive contribution to their communities while serving their sentence.

The legislation, authored in the House by Rep. Gary Banz, R-Midwest City, was named the “Safari McDoulett Community Service Act,” after an employee in the office of Oklahoma County Commissioner Brian Maughan.

Maughan’s SHINE program is the model for the bill, and McDoulett helped administer the program until her untimely death earlier this year. SHINE stands for Start Helping Impacted Neighborhoods Everywhere.

“Passage of this bill will ensure that Oklahoma County continues to enjoy the benefits of SHINE, but it also gives every county in the state the opportunity to create their own community service program,” Holt said.

Holt’s legislation gives counties the authority to create a community service program, and then authorizes judges to assess a fine on criminals they sentence to community service. That fine would then pay for supervisors and equipment so local governments can put those offenders to work removing graffiti, picking up litter or doing other projects to enhance the community.

The bill accomplishes this by authorizing a board of county commissioners to impose a community service program assessment where district, juvenile and municipal courts in such counties will levy a community service program assessment of $25 to $250 when the person is ordered to complete community service. The measure creates community service program assessment revolving funds in each county and provides that assessments will be forwarded monthly by the applicable court clerk to the revolving fund of the appropriate county

SB 1875 was approved unanimously in the Senate by a 41-0 vote and now heads to the governor’s desk for consideration.

Poaching Bill to Governor

Legislation on its way to the governor’s desk to be signed into law would deter poachers by increasing the fine and mandating they lose their hunting and fishing licenses.

“Poachers currently face a measly $50 fine no matter how many times they’ve been caught,” said Ownbey, R-Ardmore. “Several constituents have been incensed by repeat offenders on their property. One poacher in the district shot a horse while illegally hunting deer and the property owner had already sold the horse and lost the sale of the animal, which I guarantee you is a frustrating situation. We need tougher penalties; otherwise we may see property owners begin to take matters into their own hands.”

House Bill 2573 increases the fine for poaching to a $500 minimum fine and $1,500 maximum fine. The legislation makes the penalty for a second offense a fine of $1,500-2,500, six months in county jail or both. The legislation also mandates that a repeat offender could lose their hunting and fishing licenses for up to 10 years.

“The current law does a poor job of protecting property owners. It is costing people money and I think repeat offenders should face stiff penalties that might make them think twice about their behavior,” Ownbey said. “I don’t think Oklahomans want to continue to tolerate repeat poachers.”

Ownbey said after working with the National Rifle’s Association, some protections were written into the law to protect someone accidentally shooting on a property if they were not trespassing. The bill also removes a requirement that property owners post a no hunting or no fishing sign.

House Bill 2573 was approved by a vote of 91-1.

RU-486 Bill Signed Into Law

State Representatives Josh Cockroft and Sean Roberts praised Gov. Mary Fallin for signing into law yesterday a significant pro-life bill.

House Bill 2381 would make it a felony for a physician to prescribe a pill known as RU-486 or milfepristone for the inducement of an abortion without being physically present.

“Regardless of your position on the abortion issue, this bill is about the safety of our citizens,” said Cockroft, R-Tecumseh, and primary author of the bill. “To allow a physician to prescribe this pill without conducting a proper examination of the patient to determine whether the drug will create a harmful reaction is unacceptable, which is why the Legislature attempted to deal with this issue last year.”

Cockroft said the legislation is needed because a loophole in a measure passed last session allows physicians to give an exam and prescribe the pill over the Internet. That measure required physicians to provide an examination and set up a follow-up appointment before prescribingRU-486 for the inducement of an abortion.

State Rep. Sean Roberts, who co-authored the bill, said a proper examination is needed to check for ectopic pregnancies and other contraindications that would make the abortion pill dangerous and potentially lead to serious complications such as hypotension, cardiac problems or hemorrhaging.

“This is not like taking an aspirin for a headache,” said Roberts. “RU-486 creates a major bio-physical reaction in the human body that necessitates a pre-examination of the patient and the physical presence of physician during the procedure to treat any harmful effects. I’m grateful for the partnership of Rep. Cockroft and Gov. Fallin on this pro-life issue.”

Felonies are punishable by a fine of $1,000 or a prison sentence up to two years in the Department of Corrections. The legislation would also make physicians liable for damages.

Inhofe to Investigate EPA's "Crucify Them" Strategy

The EPA is bragging that its new fuel standards are being imposed on the auto industry by effectively bypassing Congress. In fact, the EPA has adopted Obama’s new mantra: “We Can’t Wait” as its rallying cry for imposing regulations without congressional authority or oversight.

In a recent press release, the EPA boasted that the Obama Administration was undertaking a series of “executive actions” because “we can’t wait for Congressional Republicans to act.”

In the press release announcing their proposed MY 2017-2025 GHG/fuel economy standards, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood boast that they are bypassing Congress, "Today‘s announcement is the latest in a series of executive actions the Obama Administration is taking to strengthen the economy and move the country forward because we can’t wait for Congressional Republicans to act"

In a speech on the Senate floor, Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, announces that he has launched an investigation into the Obama-EPA's apparent "crucify them" strategy targeted at American energy producers. This investigation will look into EPA's actions towards domestic energy production specifically in light of the agency's recent dishonest efforts relating to hydraulic fracturing.

Drug testing for TANF recipients- Update

The senate amended version of HB2388, drug testing for TANF recipients, states that beginning November 1, 2012, all adult applicants for TANF will be screened to determine if they are engaged in the illegal use of a controlled substance or substances.   If the Department has made a determination that the applicant is engaged in the illegal use of a controlled substance or substances, the applicant's request for TANF cash benefits shall be denied.

If at any time during the controlled substance screening process, the applicant refuses to participate, that refusal shall lead to a denial of TANF benefits.

If there has not already been a chemical drug test administered as part of the controlled substance screening process, the applicant may submit proof of a negative chemical drug test from a state certified laboratory to challenge the Department's finding. Proof of the chemical drug test must be submitted to the Department no later than the tenth calendar day following denial.

If denied an applicant shall not be approved until one year has passed since the date of denial. However, if an applicant has successfully complied with a recommended substance abuse treatment program after the date of denial, the applicant may be approved for cash benefits after six months have passed since the date of denial, rather than the required one year.

If an applicant has been denied TANF cash benefits two times due to the provisions of this subparagraph, the applicant shall be ineligible for TANF benefits for a period of three years from the date of the second denial.

Child-only cases and minor parents under eighteen years of age are not subject to the drug screening.

In cases where the application for TANF benefits is not for child-only benefits, but there is not a parent who has been deemed eligible for cash benefits under the provisions of this paragraph, any cash benefits for which the dependent children of the family are still eligible shall not be affected and may be received and administered by an appropriate third party approved by the Department for the benefit of the members of the household.

The amended version has passed the Senate 46 to 2 and sent back to the House for approval.

2012 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Report

Recent Gallup polls indicate that 33% of American nonretirees now anticipate that Social Security will be a major retirement funding source. In 2007, prior to the recession and financial crisis, just 27% did so.

Current retirees are to say they rely on it as a major source of income today (57%). This gap in nonretiree expectations versus retiree reality has been a consistent trend over the past decade.

The average nonretired American now expects to retire at age 67, up from age 63 a decade ago and age 60 in the mid-1990s.

The same poll finds a new low of 38% of nonretirees saying they will have enough money to live comfortably in retirement, down slightly from 42% last year. When Gallup first asked the question in 2002, 59% thought they would have enough. The report on social security confirms those concerns.

The 2012 forecasts from the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare programs predict gloomier financial prospects for Social Security compared to last year’s projections, while the outlook for Medicare has remained mostly unchanged from 2011. The two programs constitute nearly 36% of federal spending in 2011, and both have serious long-term financial challenges because of demographic shifts: “Through the mid-2030s, population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment will be the largest single factor causing costs to grow more rapidly than GDP.”

The 2012 overview report states that in 2011, 44.8 million people received Social Security benefits, 10.6 million received disability insurance benefits and 48.7 million were covered under Medicare.

The report’s findings include:

•The projected year of asset exhaustion for Social Security has been moved forward by three years, to 2033. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund will be exhausted by 2035, while the Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund will run out of assets by 2016. Income for the Social Security trust fund will remain higher than costs until 2021, beyond which assets owned by the trust fund will cover deficits, though only until 2033.

•The long-term deficit in the Social Security program has worsened since the 2011 report. The deficit is expected to be 2.67% of taxable payroll — the highest recorded since the last major Social Security financing reforms three decades ago. Much of the financial deterioration is caused by updated economic assumptions, weak economic performance and higher-than-expected inflation in 2011.

•Short-term financial adequacy measures (testing whether the trust fund has adequate assets to cover a year’s worth of costs) show that the OASI trust fund will remain financially adequate for the period 2012-2021. The short-term forecasts for the DI trust fund show assets falling short starting in 2013 and being exhausted by 2016, two years earlier than previously estimated.

•Because taxes are a major source of program funding, the deficit of Social Security costs relative to tax income was $148 billion in 2011 and was projected to be $165 billion in 2012. The size of the deficit is primarily due to the temporary reduction in payroll taxes. The deficit of Social Security costs relative to non-interest income was $45 billion in 2011; it is expected to decline further to $53 billion in 2012.

•The annual cost of Social Security benefits as a share of taxable earnings is projected to grow from 11.3% in 2007 to 17.4% in 2035; as a share of GDP, program costs are projected to rise from 4.2% in 2007 to 6.4% in 2035.

•The projected date of asset exhaustion for the Medicare Hospitalization Insurance (HI) trust fund remains 2024. Medicare’s costs as a share of GDP are projected to rise from 3.7% in 2011 to 5.7% in 2035. A deficit of $38 billion in non-interest income is projected for 2012, and HI costs are projected to grow to 5.82% of taxable payroll in 2050. Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) costs are estimated to increase from 2% of GDP in 2011 to 3.4% in 2035. Estimates of Medicare costs assume implementation of a 31% reduction in physician rates, something considered highly unlikely.

The report notes that once assets have been depleted, tax revenues alone will be insufficient to meet scheduled benefits. Congress will then be faced with the choice of either raising taxes or decreasing benefits: “Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.”