Mazzei is 100% pro-life; Munson is 100% pro-abortion

On Tuesday, voters in Virginia and Nevada will decide questions that would enshrine a right to abortion in their state constitutions, while Idaho voters will approve or reject a law on the same subject. Missouri abortion opponents are trying to reclaim protections for the unborn that were lost in a 2024 referendum. Oklahomans can be thankful while remaining vigilant in whom we elect to office.

In that regard, I was disappointed to see how many candidates, even Republican candidates, did not respond to the Oklahomans for Life survey. Perhaps they take it for granted that the party affiliation is enough to identify a commitment one way or the other on these issues. The Oklahomans for Life questions are thoughtful and detailed, going beyond sentiment to deal with legislative reality, and they reflect Tony Lauinger's decades of practical experience in turning pro-life philosophy into enacted and enforceable law.

I was even more disappointed to see that Scotty Stokes, Republican nominee for the open House 9 seat, and Carolyn Womack-Bielich, the Republican challenging a Democrat incumbent in House 45, said "no" to upholding these protections in Oklahoma law (quoted from the Oklahomans for Life survey):

• "Oklahoma's Hydration and Nutrition for Incompetent Patients Act protects incompetent persons who have not directed that they be deprived of food and water so they will not be victims of death by starvation or dehydration."
• "Oklahoma's Nondiscrimination in Treatment Act requires that a health care provider shall not deny to a patient a life-preserving health care service the provider provides to other patients, and the provision of which is directed by the patient or a person authorized to make health care decisions for the patient: 1) On the basis of a view that treats extending the life of an elderly, disabled, or terminally ill individual as of lower value than extending the life of an individual who is younger, nondisabled, or not terminally ill; or 2) On the basis of disagreement with how the patient or person authorized to make health care decisions for the patient values the tradeoff between extending the length of the patient's life and the risk of disability."
• "Oklahoma law protects against the involuntary denial of life-saving medical treatment by requiring that if a health-care provider's refusal to comply with a decision made by or on behalf of a patient to receive life-saving medical treatment would, in reasonable medical judgment, be likely to result in the patient's death, then the health-care provider must provide the life-saving treatment pending transfer of the patient to a willing provider."
• "Oklahoma's advance directive (living will) law recognizes the particular importance of food and water. In order to ensure truly informed consent, our law requires a separately-initialed paragraph in an advance directive in order for artificial administration of food and water to be rejected."
• Oklahoma's Uniform Health Care Decisions Act of 2026 contains "safeguards and informed-consent protections whereby a person may express his or her wishes for life-preserving care."

As I have walked through the dying process with my own parents, as I read about horrific outcomes in other states that lack these protections, I am glad Oklahoma has these laws in place. Imagine that your disabled child is at a hospital that refuses reasonable medical treatment, but also refuses to transfer her to another hospital that will provide treatment and care. This has happened in Texas. It shouldn't happen here.

We are called to be shomrei chayim, guardians of life. On Tuesday, we need to ensure that those who make, enforce, and interpret are laws are committed to the strong safeguards Oklahoma already has in place.