(Sorry for this rant, but if I don't get this off my chest, I'll be muttering to myself for days. Plus, I assure you, the KFOR link is only the most ad-free link to the short Associated Press story.)

The state legislature recently passed SB 1878, better known as the "force the murderous sluts to see they're killing a human being" bill, requiring any woman in Oklahoma who wishes to have an abortion to undergo an ultrasound procedure and be shown the resulting images, all in an attempt to make the difficult decision to end a pregnancy even more difficult. It's a bald-faced, brazen attempt to intimidate women into not having abortions, something that the country agrees by about a 2-1 margin should be only the woman's choice.

But the forced childbirth lobby is pretty powerful. Even though Gov. Henry did the right thing by vetoing the bill, it did little good:

OKLAHOMA CITY - State lawmakers today voted overwhelmingly to override Governor Brad Henry's veto of a bill requiring women to receive an ultrasound examination before receiving an abortion.

The Senate voted 37-11 to override the veto and the House followed by voting 81-15 for the override.

This is the first veto override in the popular governor's two terms of office.

Henry vetoed the bill last night and criticized it for not exempting rape and incest victims. He says the state would be victimizing these women a second time by requiring them to undergo ultrasound procedures.

The bill originally passed the Senate 38-10 and the House, 80-12.

Of course, given the composition of Oklahoma's House and Senate, the override couldn't have gotten that many votes without significant support from Oklahoma Democrats. They don't make the roll call votes easy to find, but they are online on the House Web site and buried in the Senate daily journal (PDF; search for "veto").

Here are the House Democrats who voted to override the veto of their own party's governor and force women in crisis to be pressured into continuing an unwanted pregnancy:

1. John Auffet
2. David Braddock
3. Neil Brannon
4. Mike Brown
5. John Carey
6. Joe Dorman
7. Jerry Ellis
8. Rebecca Hamilton
9. Terry Harrison
10. Wes Hilliard
11. Terry Hyman
12. Scott Inman
13. Lucky Lamons
14. Ken Luttrell
15. Ray McCarter
16. Ryan McMullen
17. Danny Morgan
18. Richard Morrissette
19. Anastasia Pittman
20. Eric Proctor
21. R.C. Pruett
22. Brian Renegar
23. Ben Sherrer
24. Jabar Shumate
25. Purcy D. Walker

Yes, 25 of the 44 House Democrats voted to traumatize pregnant women and make their lives harder. Five representatives were excused and didn't vote—all Democrats. Only 14 Democrats voted to uphold the veto and a woman's right to choose.

And the state party wonders why voters don't get energized over legislative races.

My own district's representative, Ryan McMullen, is on that list. He regularly sends out newsletters to his constituents bragging about how he votes against the Democratic position on a vast majority of issues.

His legislative web page says he's the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Sigh. I will vote for any primary challenger to McMullen who is to his left, which basically means "anybody." However, given that the state Republican house members are people like Sally Kern, any Democrat is better than any Republican. By not bloody much.

In this session, the Oklahoma Senate is exactly evenly divided: 24 Republicans, 24 Democrats. So when you read that the Senate voted 37-11 to override the veto, you know a boatload of Democrats voted against women. They are:

1. Randy Bass
2. Sean Burrage
3. Kenneth Corn
4. Mary Easley
5. Earl Garrison
6. Jay Paul Gumm
7. Tom Ivester
8. Charlie Laster
9. Susan Paddack
10. Nancy Riley
11. John Sparks
12. Joe Sweeden
13. Charles Wyrick

There are some familiar and disappointing names on that list. Fortunately, Andrew Rice is not among them—he voted to uphold the veto. As well he should, because this is a bad bill. Like most Oklahoma statutes, it's badly written, but it intends to let any medical person refuse to perform any abortion-related procedure for "religious" reasons, allows health care facilities to refuse to provide medical services to women seeking to terminate pregnancies (and pharmacies to not serve such women), and requires doctors and hospitals to report bad effects (but not good results) of RU-486.

And, of course, it forces any woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy to state this desire in writing, knowing it will be kept on file for up to seven years, and to undergo an ultrasound examination with "a medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, if present and viewable, and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable".

Ah, but since our legislators don't want to look like they're doing exactly what they are doing—using the force of law to intimdate women into carrying pregancies to term—they've tried to cover their asses:

C. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a pregnant woman from averting her eyes from the ultrasound images required to be provided to and reviewed with her. Neither the physician nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if she refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images.

How generous of them. In case you're doubting that the purpose of this bill is to intimidate women into carrying pregnancies to term, no matter how awful that would be for them, consider this section:

A. It is the intent of the Legislature that the birth of a child does not constitute a legally recognizable injury and that it is contrary to public policy to award damages because of the birth of a child or for the rearing of that child.

This precedes a section about how no one can recover damages because a child has a birth defect, or because an unwilling father was made to pay expensive support for a child he didn't want, because the mother refused to end the pregnancy. But the language, standing on its own like that, is a big dog-whistle to the state courts that women shouldn't be able to recover damages for being coerced out of ending a pregnancy, either. Why? Because "the birth of a child does not constitute a legally recognizable injury," and if there's no injury, there are no damages.

What if the child has a debilitating birth defect that means it will require expensive medical care for decades and never have a normal life, maybe not even being conscious? What if the woman wanted to end that pregnancy but was intimidated out of it, and now wants help to pay those expenses? Or if a father didn't want to be a father but now is on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars of care because the legislature intimidated the woman into continuing the pregnancy? Too bad! "It is contrary to public policy to award damages because of the birth of a child or for the rearing of that child."

All the legislative links above are to the contact pages of the Democrats who voted for this abomination. Feel free to copy the HTML and use it in other places as a list of Democrats who should not get your support in any primary or for any higher office if any other Democrats are seeking the same office. I know I'm certainly not voting for any of these incredibly horrible misogynists if I have any better options.

For the record, all of the votes to sustain the veto in both houses came from Democrats with one lone exception: Representative Doug Cox (R-OKH5). It might have to do with the fact that Dr. Cox, chairman of the Public Health committee, is not just a family practitioner in Grove, and a hospital and EMS board member, but the winner of the the Oklahoma Academy of Family Physicians' 2005 Family Physician of the Year award. (Of course, being a physician didn't exactly give Tom Coburn a clue, but he really is a special case.)

I'm starting to get excited about Andrew Rice, but the state legislature just remains a hotbed of buffoons and demagogues, the people who think Sally Kern was a brave and courageous culture warrior for trying to use the force of law to impose her religious beliefs on others—just like SB 1878 did, which is why Gov. Henry vetoed it. It's questionable that five Democrats managed to avoid the override vote. It's beyond deplorable that 33 elected Democrats voted to uphold this assault on pregnant women. Vote accordingly.