Oklahoma Democrat Apologizes for Bill Implicitly Affirming that Life Begins at Conception

Last week, a Democratic state representative in Oklahoma introduced an interesting piece of legislation, which would’ve provided that a father’s financial responsibility to his child and his child’s mother begins when the child is conceived.

The representative, Forrest Bennett, is himself a proponent of legal abortion, but as he put it in a tweet announcing the bill, “If Oklahoma is going to restrict a woman’s right to choose, we sure better make sure the man involved can’t just walk away from his responsibility.”

Pro-lifers were swift to respond with a resounding, “Yes, exactly!” The pro-life movement, believing as it does that human life begins at conception, has long favored requiring fathers to support their children from that point. We know that many if not most women who have an abortion do so because of lack of support, usually from their partner, and policies such as this one might make it easier for many pregnant mothers to choose life. They’re also good in principle, recognizing as they do that life begins at conception and that both mothers and fathers are responsible for their children from the moment they come into existence.

One of the many arguments against abortion is that it places pregnant women in the undesirable and unjust position of being solely responsible for their child. Abortion makes it easier for men to abandon their child and their child’s mother, noting that, if she doesn’t want the baby, she should simply have an abortion, which in some circumstances can make women feel as if abortion is their only real option.

But it turns out that abortion supporters were less than thrilled with Bennett’s bill. One Oklahoma resident responded to the announcement saying, “The pro-birth crowd will strangle us with it too. Please don’t do this.” The trouble, it seemed, is that the bill implicitly affirms that human life begins at conception, an enormous concession to the pro-life argument.

In response to the pushback, Bennett was swift to apologize and promise to rework his legislation. “I understand how the language in my message and bill both hurt the cause instead of helping it, and I apologize for not being more thoughtful,” he tweeted.

“Twitter isn’t the place to try to point out that, *IF* this state outlaws abortion and *IF* it tries to define life as beginning at conception, it owes its people the kind of policy that supports & helps babies & parents, not just policies that force birth. But I tried to anyway,” Bennett added. “This bill was supposed to do that, and again, while I appreciate those who see the sincere motivation behind it, I also acknowledge that it creates more problems.”

If the Supreme Court does reverse Roe and Casey this summer with a ruling that sends abortion-policy decisions back to the states, the pro-life movement should be prepared for a long battle. We will need to work to legally protect unborn children while also convincing more and more of our fellow citizens that such protections are both just and desirable. It’s discouraging to see that one small, eminently reasonable policy measure to move the needle in a bipartisan, pro-life direction has been stymied by abortion absolutism.