Oklahoma Election 2026: June 2026 Archives
It's pretty cowardly to attack someone on social media with false claims, block the target from seeing or responding to the attack, and include a misleading half-quote from a post without linking to it. But that's Colleen McCarty, who wants to Republican voters to elect her as Tulsa County District Attorney.
Here's what I wrote, the final paragraph of my article about her participation in a protest against a personhood bill. She quoted the last clause (in bold), without the conditional clause, and accused me of attacking her child and thus violating a principle of campaign decency.
But note that Colleen McCarty's signs say nothing about IVF. They exalt her desires above the interests of her unborn child: "WHAT'S BEST FOR ME IS WHAT'S BEST FOR MY BABY." Her T-shirt declares that she should have life-and-death authority over her unborn child, who is merely "A CHOICE": If McCarty chooses one way, that belly bump is a baby, but if McCarty chooses the other way, her unborn child is just biohazard waste to be dismembered, extracted, and either incinerated or sold for parts.
The point, clear enough when quoted in full, is that McCarty's daughter was made in the image of God and endowed by her Creator with certain unalienable rights, and those rights aren't dependent on Colleen McCarty's decision. She was always a child, never just "A CHOICE." The personhood bill was designed to acknowledge and protect the unalienable rights of the unborn; Colleen McCarty's protest sign said "NO TO PERSONHOOD."
(I would link to the attack, but I'm blocked from her Facebook campaign page, so I can't get to it.)
She also claims, falsely, that I paid for an ad in Urban Tulsa Weekly to print a retraction because I couldn't afford an ad in the Tulsa World. The only newspaper ad I ever bought was a Whirled ad when I ran for City Council in 1998; the ad was a waste of money. (Or maybe I just thought about it and decided it would be a waste of money.)
In my 23 years of writing, I've been sued once, over a newspaper column. I posted a retraction (for free) on my website, and the suit was dismissed. I am told that McCarty claims I was utterly disgraced by this one lawsuit in 23 years of writing.
Prior to passage of the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act in 2014, defending against a SLAPP lawsuit was a costly battle where "the process is the punishment." A defendant, even in the right, would be inclined to settle rather than risk months or years of costly litigation, particularly against a deep-pocketed corporate plaintiff. The Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act, our anti-SLAPP law, was passed unanimously and signed into law in 2014. State Rep. John Trebilcock authored the bill on my suggestion, modeling it after a robust Texas statute.
If you've read this website for any length of time, you know how careful I am to provide links and backup for everything. One of the benefits of a website over print and over many social media platforms is the ability to use as many hyperlinks as needed to provide references for a story. I do my best to be fair and accurate, but readers can click the links and judge for themselves whether or not I've fairly characterized the information. You can be Bereans and "see whether these things are so."
I've gotten grief over the years for being too wordy, too nuanced, and for taking too long to get something published. I see other writers happy to dash something off without doing the research and send it to their mailing lists, only to have to backtrack. I see people using sensationalistic and misleading language, putting quotation marks around paraphrases. That's not my way.
When I began writing this series on Colleen McCarty, documenting aspects of her past that should alarm a conservative Republican primary voter, the initial response, mainly through her supporters online, was post-hoc rationalization. If you're a parent, you'll be familiar with this strategy: When Mom and Dad finds out you did something unacceptable, the kid comes up with a plausible explanation that makes the facts seem less outrageous. Ideally, it's an explanation that isn't easy to disprove, one with no paper trail that might contradict it.
So we were told that her law journal papers and Twitter threads and press releases and commercials weren't really her opinion; she was just a worker bee (with titles like Founding Executive Director, Policy Counsel, and Deputy Director) following the Board of Directors' orders. We were told that she only donated to Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign to try to stop corrupt Hillary Clinton, not because she liked his radical policies. Why, she wasn't even a Democrat in 2016, we were told. (In fact, she was a registered Democrat from 2007 to 2024.) She didn't attend the anti-personhood rally, it's claimed, because she's pro-choice (even though "A CHOICE" was written on a T-shirt covering her unborn child) but because of IVF (even though it wasn't mentioned on her T-shirt or the poster she was carrying).
I was told that if I would only meet with her, she could convince me of her alibis, but I find a candidate's documented and public statements more credible than what he or she may tell me privately in pursuit of my vote.
It appears that the alibis and rationalizations have fallen flat with the voters, so now she's trying to shoot one of the messengers. It won't work. The evidence is all there for anyone to read -- links to articles and videos still available on the live web and captured by the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine.
Many other Tulsans have been independently digging through McCarty's record and posting their finds, X users like attorney Kevin Adams, Joan Lee Pettimore, Snarkio, and OklaHombre. They've covered things I haven't gotten to (yet), like McCarty's name on an Oklahoma Appleseed Center / Oklahoma Equality Law Center lawsuit against Ryan Walters and the State Board of Education, attacking rules that require schools to use a child's name and birth sex in school records, instead of trans-name and trans-gender. Kevin Adams found this quote from McCarty in an Oklahoma Appleseed Center press release about the suit:
"Walters and the State Board have repeatedly denied the existence of transgender students, insisting their genders are merely a fabrication of the 'woke left'," said McCarty. "This signaling from the board makes it clear their intent is gender discrimination against our client under Title IX which is supposed to prevent schools and educational bodies from discriminating on the basis of gender."
There's plenty of other material out there, and you can do your part in helping to educate your neighbors and friends. Instead of linking to me when you post on social media, link directly to the original material and make your own comments. Instead of standing behind one person that she can isolate and attack, Rules for Radicals-style, stand together as a swarm of truth-tellers that she can't stop.
Colleen McCarty's entire campaign is built on deceptive language and misleading words. We can't put someone like that in control of local prosecution.
PREVIOUS ARTICLES on Colleen McCarty:
Subscribe to this blog's feed: