The name Oklahoma used to mean the classic Rogers and Hammerstein musical about the legendary ranchers and farmers – the men and women who created the state with their back – breaking work and optimistic spirit. The show began with Curly singing “Oh, what a beautiful morning . . .”

That sunny, expansive vision crashed with a thud for millions of people in Oklahoma on April 27 when the legislature overrode the governor’s vetoes of two abortion measures – the most restrictive and onerous in the nation. Both laws had been passed before, in 2008, as part of an omnibus bill along with several other anti-abortion measures. But the state courts struck them down on a technicality, violation of a clause in the Oklahoma Constitution requiring bills to deal with a single subject. This time, the Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature avoided that pitfall and broke the omnibus bill into separate measures. Governor Brad Henry, a Democrat, did sign two into law: one requires clinics to post signs stating that a woman cannot be forced to have an abortion; the other makes it illegal to choose to have an abortion because of the sex of a child.

He vetoed two bills. The first requires a woman to undergo an ultrasound, and the monitor must be placed by the doctor or technician where she can see the image. She then must listen to a detailed description of the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for victims of rape or incest. Several other states have passed laws recently, requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion. In Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, doctors are required to offer the woman a chance to see the image, but it is not mandatory. Governor Henry in his veto, said the ultrasound law would allow an unconstitutional invasion of a woman’s privacy, and it was flawed by not exempting rape and incest victims.

The second measure that became law when the governor’s veto was overridden, prevents women who have delivered a disabled baby from suing the doctor for withholding information about birth defects while the fetus was in the womb. Those who opposed this law argued that it protects doctors who deliberately mislead a woman to prevent her from making the choice of having an abortion. Sponsors of the bill aver that parents should not be able to blame and sue the doctor for lack of counsel after a child is born with birth defects. In his veto of this bill, Governor Henry said, “It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient.”

On the day of the override, the Republican majority leader, State Senator Glen Coffee, declared, “This is a good day for the cause of life. The voice of the people has spoken twice now this session in the Senate and twice in the House, and I sincerely hope those who would reverse the people’s voice would think twice about acting.” His attempt to divert opponents from seeking reversal in the courts was unsuccessful. Hours after the override vote, the Center for Reproductive Rights, a national organization, went to court to challenge the ultrasound law as unconstitutional. Their argument was three fold: That the law violates the woman’s right to privacy, the woman’s right to equal protection and the doctor’s right to freedom of speech.

Two other anti-abortion bills are still being discussed in both Oklahoma legislative houses and are expected to pass. One would require that a woman complete a lengthy questionnaire, explaining her reasons for seeking an abortion. Based on their responses, statistics would then be posted online. The other bill restricts insurance coverage for the abortion procedures. This could end up conflicting with the complex provisions on federal funding for abortion in the Health Reform Act passed by the United States Congress.

State Senator Todd Lamb, the majority floor leader, said after the vote, “The goal of this legislation is just to make a statement for the sanctity of human life. Maybe someday these babies will grow up to be police officers and arrest bad people or will find a cure for cancer.” In direct contrast to his words, advocates for women and family planning warn that the series of anti-abortion laws make Oklahoma one of the most hostile states in the country for women seeking to end a pregnancy.

Anita Fream, the chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma said, “These laws all have the same goal, and that’s to discourage women from seeking abortions in the first place. They just throw down one roadblock after another in front of women and hope maybe they will give up.”

Their passionate statements reflect the enormous divide in the on-going national debate of Pro-Life against Pro-Choice positions and arguments. It is almost four decades since the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court declared abortion to be legal in the United States. For now, Pro- Life forces in Oklahoma have scored a two-prong victory. However, the courts will have the final say when they rule whether this victory will stand or be set aside.

Joyce S. Anderson is the author of “Courage in High Heels,” “Flaw in the Tapestry,” “If Winter Comes” and “The Mermaids Singing.” She can be reached at JSAWrite@aol.com.