Recently, Jean Hausheer submitted a candidate survey for the OKGOP, and she had some interesting, yet substantive answers on the issue of abortion. Let’s break down what she says, why she said them, and why her answers prove that she is not qualified to be a lawmaker in Oklahoma.
In response to a OKGOP plank that said, “We support abolition of preborn baby murder as a non-negotiable principle in our party’s platform”, she said:
I am pro life. I do not support abortion abolitionism which does nothing to halt abortions here in OK nor any other state. Again, I am pro life and advocate for preborn with this approach
Jean is able to call herself “pro-life”, because the pro-life movement and establishment has become so devoid of principle that saying “pro-life” can mean anything. It could mean that you merely oppose the death penalty. It could mean that you think certain types of abortion should be banned, but others are okay. Or, as many Oklahomans use it, it could mean that you’re anti-abortion. But that is NOT what Jean Hausheer means when she says “pro-life”. She means she is theoretically and personally against abortion, but doesn’t support its abolition or criminalization. She’ll make this clear as we go through the survey.
It is clear that we as abolitionists are not a part of the institutional Pro-Life Movement. We also hold ourselves as distinct from the pro-life label entirely, and we call folks who agree with our position to throw away that label as well, and become abolitionists. We are seeing a mighty shift in Oklahoma as abolitionists have made mighty moves in Oklahoma politics, namely by doing things like making a linguistic distinction like this. In short, the Pro-Life Movement calls for the regulation of abortion, and refuses to criminalize it as murder for all parties involved. Abolitionists, however, call for the immediate abolition and criminalization of abortion, treating the preborn child as a human being with all God-given rights secured by God’s Law and the Constitution of the USA and Oklahoma. Jean Hausheer wants to be identified with the Pro-Life Movement, and against the Abolitionists of Abortion, because she opposes our goal.
In response to a OKGOP plank that said, “We believe that at the point of conception (including invitro fertilization [IVF]), a person is granted the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution; therefore, civil authorities have a duty before God to uphold justice by establishing equal protection under the law for all preborn children. We believe in the sanctity and value of human life from conception through natural death, unless forfeited by capital offense. We believe intentional preborn baby murder is contrary to the Word of God and is murder according to Exodus 23:7.”, Jean Hausheer said,
Maternal murder is also contrary to the word of God. Preborn babies are not viable unless they are medically determined to be as such eg. are located intrauterine. Ectopic pregnancies are not typically viable preborn.
Abolitionists, and the Word of God however, do not apply human rights only to “viable” humans, determined by lab coats who have proven to be wrong about viability again and again. This shows a hint of Jean’s medical worldview: Trust the experts. Shut up if you disagree. Let the doctors do their job. This makes sense, as she was also a proponent of vaccine mandates and masking:
In regards to Biden’s vaccine mandate, she said, “We have seatbelt laws, we also have don’t drink and drive laws, and those are all very sensible. I think it just falls into the same category. And I sense that President Biden has done this because of so much of the difficulty we’ve encountered in healthcare with this very issue.”
This “trust the experts and don’t argue with them” attitude is entirely what’s wrong with our medical establishment when it comes to the issue of ectopic pregnancies. Instead of asking, “How can I best take care of both humans in this medical scenario, and ‘do no harm’ as the Hippocratic Oath requires me to do”, they ask, “How can I get this person out of the hospital bed as fast as possible, and with the least amount of work?” This causes them to assert things like “preborn babies are not viable unless they are medically determined to be as such”, and operate based off of that standard, instead of the standard of protecting human life wherever it is determined to exist, to the fullest possible degree. I shudder to think of the countless “non-viable” lives that have been lost from this smug, ‘I know more than you’ attitude that folks in the medical establishment often possess. I have had friends experience this from doctors who didn’t know what they were talking about, and would have killed the preborn child without any second guesses, had they not gotten more knowledgeable pushback from the parents.
But what do we do about ectopic pregnancies? If you may not know, ectopic pregnancies are pregnancies where the child has implanted outside of the body of the uterus, most often in the fallopian tube, just before it was supposed to enter the body of the uterus. Jean is right to point out, as she later does, that the vast majority of children discovered to be implanted in the fallopian tube are already deceased, and a procedure to remove their dead body must happen. This is not abortion though, and would clearly not be illegal in the event that abortion is abolished. If there is no life present anymore, nothing is being aborted. Abortion is the ending of a living child’s life while in utero. That’s clear in the very etymology of the word, “Abort”, which essentially means “to stop, or end”. Development can’t be stopped or ended if the child is already dead.
What about situations where the child is continuing to develop, is living, and is stuck in the fallopian tube? Well, the profit-motivated medical establishment would love to be able to continue what they are doing today, by simply killing that child and getting the mother out of that hospital bed as soon as possible, saving the most amount of money, and taking the least amount of work. However, abolition bills require a higher standard of human dignity. They say that a doctor is required to do all things reasonable to save the life of both the mother and the child. That’s what God’s Law and the Constitution requires as well.
This issue is continuing to be debated, and more and more literature is being written on the subject, but I do not believe it’s a settled thing that a living child in the fallopian tube is going to die 100% of the time. Medical history has proven that children do often move to a better place in the uterus, or they re-implant themselves in the endometrium. There’s even a case where a tubal rupture occurred, (the fallopian tube ruptured from the growing child) the child reimplanted on the lining of the stomach, developed to a point of external viability, and then was delivered via C-Section. All that to say, an ectopic pregnancy is not a death sentence, and people like Jean Hausheer would like you to believe that it is, because it’s more convenient for her and her medical establishment buddies. But human rights are not always convenient. Life is more complex than that.
Our abolition bills put this issue before a potential jury, where foul play was theoretically suspected, and requires doctors to be held to the standard that they “took all steps reasonable to save both lives”, in order to avoid prosecution. More and more technology and innovative procedures will be discovered as the abolition of abortion forces the medical industry to innovate and treat both lives with equal human dignity. Our laws will force them to better understand what is happening in ectopic pregnancies, and come up with solutions to save as many lives as possible. For now, it is my current opinion that if a living child in the fallopian tube is actively threatening the life of the mother, the doctor at the very least has the obligation to transport that child to the uterus via surgery, giving it the best possible chance to reimplant there on its own, which has proven to be possible, even if not guaranteed.
In response to an OKGOP plank that said, “We support a U.S. Constitutional Amendment protecting the life of the innocent preborn, and we support a State Constitutional Amendment to prohibit preborn baby murder and treat as murder the sale, distribution, and ingestion of abortifacients ending the life of a preborn child. We support the freedom of conscience and the right for those in the medical field to refuse to provide preborn baby murder training and the individual’s right to refuse to perform or assist in elective preborn baby murders or reproductive interventions.”, Jean said,
“non viable ectopic pregnancies are considered true medical emergencies, which if left untreated (as you suggest in above description) can lead to significant fatal death of Mother. In medical training, physicians are required by law (cannot graduate without this training) to be proficient and well versed in D and C procedures for many purposes having nothing to do with abortion, and instead having to do with incomplete miscarriages with retained placental parts. Your verbage does not address these circumstances.”
Considering that she herself is here saying that D&Cs (dilation and curettage) are not abortions, then what are we even talking about here? If someone says, “we shouldn’t intentionally be ending preborn human life”, and that person says, “Yeah but what about D&Cs?”, they aren’t being genuine. They’re trying to trick you. They’re hoping that through their medical snobbery they can trick you into believing something other than what is obvious. A D&C is not the killing of a preborn child. It’s the removal of tissue after an incomplete miscarriage, after pregnancy, or things like that. The platform is saying that they support the right of doctors to refuse to do abortions. She then conflates that with D&Cs, trying to pull some smug sleight-of-hand to make you think supporting that would cause doctors to not do D&Cs. This is not the honest, diligently thinking type of mind that needs to be making laws when it comes to the medical industry, no less the very real lives of preborn human beings.
In response to an OKGOP plank that said, “We oppose preborn baby murder, euthanasia, mercy killings, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and distribution of cloned parts. We oppose the funding of such by any government entity, domestic or international, or any organization that supports preborn baby murder. We oppose the manufacture of human life through the process of cloning or genetic engineering. We oppose any medical scientific experimentation that does not respect the sanctity of human life.“, Jean said,
“I am pro life. Abolition of abortion is unconstitutional as written, and violates constitutional due process, equal protection, and judicial review were it to pass here in Oklahoma. It does nothing to abolish abortion in fact, and instead would serve to shove it underground. As written, it remains unconstitutional and violates my oath as next state senator to uphold our constitutions. Again, I work and heavily support prolife measures.”
Here, Jean goes from her smug inaccuracies of pregnancy, and attempts to employ her inaccuracies of Constitutional law. Go ahead and read the latest abolition bill we have put forward, co-authored by her opponent, Dusty Deevers. Read it here. As you can see, it does only one thing. It applies the law equally to all people. It takes the statutes that criminalize the act of murder and says, “This also applies to the murder of preborn children”. That’s all it does. Jean thinks this violates “equal protection and due process”. Interestingly, the Supreme Court that gave us Roe V Wade also fictitiously invented a “right to abortion” using “due process” as a standard. They said the “penumbras” of the “due process” standard gave us a “right to privacy”, which led to a “right to abortion”. When folks abuse the Constitution, they often abuse it to defend awful, genocidal things.
However, abolition absolutely is constitutional, and it’s required by our Constitutions. The 5th and 14th amendments both require that “no person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”. That means that you cannot deprive any person of life without due process of law. The 14th amendment adds that, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. That means that no state has the right to make a law which deprives preborn children of their equal rights.
The fact that Jean Hausheer reads these amendments and thinks “abolishing abortion would violate these”, is proof to the fact that she is actually pro-abortion. She literally thinks that requiring that life in the womb be protected is “abridging the privileges” of mothers. This is just a pro-choice way of thinking, and she probably completely holds that position, but doesn’t want to be honest about it, because she knows it would make her unelectable. But guess what, she’s already unelectable.
In response to an OKGOP plank that said, “We believe our Founding Fathers based our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and laws on the Bible and on traditional Judeo-Christian ethics and values. We believe these documents are the basis for law, order, and behavior, allowing individuals, including government workers and officials, the freedom to involve God in all activities according to their conscience.”, Jean said,
The government here is NOT the church and the church is not the government either. I believe in our constitutional republic with limited government where ouyr [she misspelled “our” here] rights come from God and are secured by our constitutions–not from one man’s personal theology. We are a nation of Christians, non Christians and people of no faither [presumably she means “faiths”] and are equal under the law. I do no support Christian Nationalism which claim t hey’re defending religious freedom, while pushing their personal agendas that puts their own narrow religious viewpoints above everyone elses. They act as if God himself endorses their behaviors which serve to divide Republicans and they alone decide who is a ‘real’ Republican and who is not. This is false knowledge being used as a weapon.
Here, Jean reveals her ultimate commitment: autonomy. Her opponent Dusty Deevers, however, is committed to righteousness. God defines what is righteous, and he commands our government to operate according to his standard. Jean takes issue with that, because she clearly thinks morality is defined outside of God, or perhaps morality is a subjective construct not to be considered in the actions of state lawmakers. Whatever her position may be, it causes her to devalue preborn people, while claiming to support “equality under the law”. It’s clear that Jean makes her own morality, which means her morality is not consistent at all, and shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the lawmaking powers of the Senate.
After reading all of this, take notice that on her website, she says that she is “100% Pro-Life”. Take a moment to understand what that means. Someone can call themselves “100% Pro-Life”, and be an opponent of the abolition of abortion. That’s why we should all be abolitionists instead.
Thankfully, Dusty Deevers knows what a lawmaker is required to do when it comes to abortion. They’re required to do everything in their power to cause our law to reflect God’s Law, and abolish abortion immediately, without exception or compromise.
If you want to read more about abolitionism, and what makes us different from the pro-life movement, read through the different pages of this website. You may want to start here.
