Want an abortion? Get a note from a dude.

[BurtWorm]

From Feministing:

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Feministing/~3/KA_nzvOvbgY/016804.html


|||Today 3:10 PM|Jessica

File this under paternalism-gone-amok: An Ohio bill would force women to get men's permission before obtaining an abortion. Sound familiar? That's because Rep. John Adams from Ohio tried this same thing a couple of years ago.

Rep. John Adams, a Republican from Sidney, wants to change that and the legislation he introduced today, House Bill 252, would require the biological father's consent before an abortion can be done.
The bill would apply to any abortion and would require written consent before it can be done.

Like a note from your parents for school, except you're an adult now (minus the rights and bodily autonomy). But here comes the kicker - and this part of the bill was around last time as well:

Adams told the newspaper that, in cases when the mother does not know the identity of the father, the abortion would be prohibited.

You know, because if you're a slutty whorebag, you should be punished with a pregnancy you don't want. No, seriously. Adams said, "here is merit to chastity, and to young men and women waiting until marriage."

And what about rape or incest? There are exceptions, but if this bill is the exact same one from 2007 - women would have to present a police report "proving" they had been raped before being able to procure an abortion.

So yeah, this bill is basically an all around fuck you to women.

Here is Rep. Adam's contact information if you'd like to let him know what you think about his proposed legislation. I know I'll certainly be writing.

To support pro-choice efforts in Ohio, check out NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Wouldn't that mean *three* signatures if you're under 18 and there's parental notification?

Mom, Dad, and boyfriend . . .

[Kalyke]

2. Women of Ohio (and elsewhere) need to start invoking the 13th Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Women cannot be slaves to unborn fetuses or men as a result of the 13th Amendment. And, since sex isn't a crime, there can be no punishment.

Idiots.

[Xithras]

10. You know, I actually tried that one once...

He pointed out that the Constitution only prohibits involuntary servitude, and that agreements in which you voluntarily place yourseld into temporary servitude where you are not able to retract that consent for a certain period of time aren't that uncommon (certain types of contract employment relationships, the military, etc). His position was that, by consenting to sex, the woman is also consenting to that servitude should pregnancy occur.

If you're going to try the 13th amendment argument, just be aware that a reich wing counter does exist and they'll argue it with you.

[CTyankee]

15. As long as it doesn't interfere with the holy penis' rights to f*ck

well then, it sounds just about right...

[Iris]

24. yeah - 9 months for women - 18 years of child support for men

[ejpoeta]

3. yeah, because why should women be able to do anything without someone else's permission!!

how ridiculous. and frightening!!!

[bluestateguy]

4. Hah?

So if a 13 year old girl is impregnated by her loser 8th grade boyfriend--with the baseball cap on backwards, etc.--that assclown gets to decide if she has "permission" to keep the baby?

[Odin2005]

5. Pro-Life my ass, more like pro-Misogyny.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

17. They're not "pro-life" -

they're "anti-choice."

Don't buy into their language, which is misleading. Use the correct designation: anti-choice............

[Odin2005]

19. Uh, that was the point of my post.

Hence "Pro-Life my ass". :hi:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

20. I know, but

you put it as "pro-misogyny," which is also what they are.

It just doesn't roll off the tongue as trippingly, does it, as "anti-choice"?

That coopting of the language, that the anti-choice bunch did so quickly as the pro-choice people let them get away with it, has always pissed me off. We're ALL pro-life, dammit, save for the chronically suicidal among us, so that phrase is meaningless.

Yeah, we're on the same side, I knew that....................

:hi:

[Odin2005]

21. The "Culture of Death" BS meme rankles on my nerves.

I've noticed they seem to like trotting out the extreme utilitarian views of the late ethicist Peter Singer, who claimed that infanticide and other horrible things were OK but killing animals is not, as "typical liberal ethics". :puke:

[blogslut]

30. I prefer

Forced Birth.

[Iris]

25. or anti-sex

[Tangerine LaBamba]

27. or "anti-pleasurable-sex"

God forbid it should be fun, and you do know that's why they hate people like us:

We do it for fun, not for procreation.

Drives them insane......................

[Iris]

29. yes - adjectives are important!!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

41. I call them anti Woman

because to me, it's so much more than choice; it's a matter of life or death for women.


fucking reich wing christian conservatives with no concept of life outside their gated little minds. They have no desire to relieve suffering; they don't even thing of what ethics mean. They're just patriarchal authoritarian control freaks, scared of life and convinced that squashing everyone under their jackboot of jeezus-love will prove how righteous they are.

fuck them on their little happy rapture island floating above a flaming sea of screaming friends and relatives burning in the "you're not like us" circle of hell.

(that was a poster a previous office mate had-- I kid you not. A happy concert of strapping young saved folks on a pretty little island, in the middle of an ocean roiling with the twisting bodies of the unsaved. How hateful! How sick!)

[sakabatou]

6. Once again, the pro-life movement shows itself as anti-woman.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Can someone in Ohio propose a bill that would require all males to be neutered by age 14? It would

make about as much sense. Or how about requiring all husbands to have a note from their wives before they stay in a hotel anywhere without their wives?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

8. This shit never ends -

it used to be - in Ohio and in Illinois - back in the sixties, that if a man wanted a vasectomy and he was married, he needed the wife's written consent to get the procedure done.

In Washington, DC, a few years after Roe v. Wade became law, I helped a friend get a second-trimester abortion. Because it was second trimester, the law required certain things, one of which was the signed consent of the man involved. Since my friend was married, the pregnancy wasn't her (vasectomized) husband's, we got a pal - who is now a state court judge in another place - to pose as her husband. No one ever questioned us, and the procedure went forth smoothly.

This "consent" bullshit just keeps surfacing and it just keeps requiring good people to rise up and beat it down.

Freedom truly does require eternal vigilance................

[SPedigrees]

11. Yep, I had to sign for my husband to have a vasectomy. He had to consent to my abortion, previous

to his procedure. (Back in the early 1970s.)

When I was single I had to sign a form listing someone as an "emergency call person" before I could enroll in college. What's up with that? Why can a person not be responsible for her/his self? Suppose I had no living relatives... This has irritated me for decades now.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

12. That "emergency call person" thing?

I, too, protested it when I had to designate someone as I was leaving for my junior year abroad.

I was told that it was so the folks at the American embassy would know where to send the body should I die while overseas.

I wrote down the name of my college president.............................................

[SPedigrees]

16. LOL I should have thought of something that creative! Thank you for the inspiration!

[Pacifist Patriot]

31. While the rest of this bothers me to no end, the idea of having an emergency contact person does not

There is no implication of patriarchy since I can list my mom, my sister, my son, my next door neighbor or George Clooney. Emergencies do happen and when there is no idea of whom to notify to get the word out, it can only add to the trauma. I'd forego listing an emergency contact person only if there weren't a single person on this planet I cared knew what happened to me. Fortunately, I'm blessed with friends and family I think would care back.

[SPedigrees]

35. Patriarchy or misogyny are not the issue here. It is the denial of basic autonomy

to which we should all be entitled.

---I'd forego listing an emergency contact person only if there weren't a single person on this planet I cared knew what happened to me.----

Let's say you have no living relatives and no close friends that you would like to burden with such a responsibility. Then what? People should have the option of taking responsibility for themselves. Those who want to list a contact person, fine. Otherwise simply call 911 instead of making an additional call to an "emergency contact person."

[Pacifist Patriot]

40. I guess I think less in terms of responsibility as courtesy.

There are people I think should be notified if I am in an emergency. Likewise, I am very familiar with situations in which people have not specified whom to notify and that simply made a bad situation worse. I don't share the opinion that connectivity with other human beings relinquishes autonomy.

[SPedigrees]

47. Connectivity should be optional. You want to connect, fine. Maybe not everyone does.

[Control-Z]

56. I wonder how theses guys would feel

about needing a note from their wife to fill a Viagra prescription.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. What a creep. eom

[SPedigrees]

13. Makes me want to move to Ohio so that I could vote against this John Adams

who is an insult to the name of one of the forefathers of our democracy.

[MADem]

14. And how do they establish who the biological father is?

What a dumbfuck bill on so many levels.

No womb, no vote. Neither the womb, nor the woman, is the property of the biological father. He has no say what happens in, and around it.

Of course, maybe this idiot rep's secret goal is to create employment. Women will have to hire that homeless bum under the bridge to write out a note for them. It'll be a cottage industry for bums...they'll play the daddy for a bottle of 20/20. Sign on the dotted line...

This is profound lunacy. It shouldn't be allowed.

[noamnety]

46. I believe the "biological father"

would be the first entrepreneur to post on craigslist that he'll sign the papers for a small fee.

[notadmblnd]

18. has he ever been to C- Street and who is he screwing behind his wifes back?

nt

[ColbertWatcher]

23. /Thread over. n/t

[KamaAina]

22. That whirring sound you hear

is our second President spinning in his grave, because that pathetic, scumsucking excuse for a human being shares his name.

[LWolf]

26. "Pro-pre-birth life"

is way more about keeping and strengthening our paternalistic society than it is about the lives of fetuses.

And, in the current climate, it is no surprise.

[The Doctor.]

28. The closest the guy should be able to get to making any kind of decision,

is being able to opt entirely out of any paternal claim or obligation pre-viability.

Anything else reduces all women to concubine status.

[Ohio Joe]

32. Sigh....

What a fucktard. If anyone requires any more proof that the so called "pro-life" people want anything more then to control women... Then you are not only a part of, you ARE THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

Thanks OP for the link to write this douchebag, he will be hearing from me.

[question everything]

33. Castrate the SOB ! (nt)

[bluestateguy]

34. That could also lead to deliberatley false rape claims

Think about it: a woman who wants/needs an abortion but cannot obtain the consent of the father could simply make a bogus rape claim against some pigeon who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That way she could avoid the consent issue, and an innocent man would be railroaded for rape.

[Wednesdays]

36. It's like they never learn. This was already decided by the SCOTUS

The "Planned Parenthood" case of 1992. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833

2. Section 3209's husband notification provision constitutes an undue burden, and is therefore invalid.

A significant number of women will likely be prevented from obtaining an abortion just as surely as if Pennsylvania had outlawed the procedure entirely. The fact that 3209 may affect fewer than one percent of women seeking abortions does not save it from facial invalidity, since the proper focus of constitutional inquiry <505 U.S. 833, 838> is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom it is irrelevant. Furthermore, it cannot be claimed that the father's interest in the fetus' welfare is equal to the mother's protected liberty, since it is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the fetus will have a far greater impact on the pregnant woman's bodily integrity than it will on the husband. Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to this Court's present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution.

Reaffirming "Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth" (1976) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=428&invol=52

4. The spousal consent provision in 3 (3), which does not comport with the standards enunciated in Roe v. Wade, supra, at 164-165, is unconstitutional, since the State cannot "`delegate to a spouse a veto power which the (S)tate itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy.'" Pp. 67-72.

We recognize, of course, that when a woman, with the approval of her physician but without the approval of her husband, decides to terminate her pregnancy, it could be said that she is acting unilaterally. The obvious fact is that when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor. Cf. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S., at 153 .

We conclude that 3 (3) of the Missouri Act is inconsistent with the standards enunciated in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S., at 164 -165, and is unconstitutional.


(Nice try, fundies, but your statute has a snowball's chance in hell to stand up in court.)

[kevinbgoode]

37. Next up: Men will require a note from their mothers to masturbate

. . .after all, that sperm was biblically believed to actually be the babies and the woman was merely a beast of burden. A man destroys millions of potential babies each time he...uh....an act of willful murder.

After that, any woman who has a miscarriage will be arrested for voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.

[sutz12]

38. But my mom's dead....there goes my sex life.

:evilgrin:

[Iris]

44. perhaps an aunt or a godmother could sign for you?

[Control-Z]

57. Men will never restrict

another man's sexual pleasure. It's about the slutty women. Didn't you know?

[yellerpup]

39. But if the dude signs the note

she HAS to get one, right? What if he doesn't want to think about it, or pay child support, or what if he's not ready to be a father? Can't he just "say no?"

[Prophet 451]

42. *headdesk*

This has to be a contender for this year's stupidest proposed piece of legislation. Leaving the moral grounds aside, this doesn't even make logical sense. If the guy refuses to sign a permission slip, what's to stop the woman simply accusing him of rape? Desperate people do desperate things and if that's the only way she's going to get an abortion, you can guarantee at least some women would take that option. Then there's the basic assumption of bodily autonomy: If we call women adults, then they have the same rights to an abortion as I have to, say, get a tattoo (prior to viability anyway, after that is more of an argument). And then there's the incredible attempt to legislate morality.

No, this is bullshit. And I can't see even a conservative dominated SCOTUS allowing it for five seconds which means it's also unenforceable.

[undeterred]

43. There are some people who think

that anyone who can came a relationship to the fetus- including a sibling or grandparent- should be able to veto the woman's decision to have an abortion. Its worse than not having any rights- someone else has your rights.

[Hekate]

45. ... Because women are just as effing stupid as cows & can't be trusted with our own bodies...

We're so stupid and depraved we'd rip all our babies right out of our wombs at the slightest provocation, sexually addled sluts that we are. The human race would die out if it weren't for the protection of Rep. Adams and his ilk.

Mother of God I hate men like that. :grr:

Hekate

[donheld]

48. Here it is, anybody needing one can use

Please give _________ the abortion she requests

Signed

donheld

[Control-Z]

49. There is only one thing

this bill would accomplish if it were to pass. It would force women into taking dangerous and desperate measures to get an abortion. Yeah. Fuck you Rep Adams, you woman-hating POS.

[justiceischeap]

54. Like going over the state line?

If this were to pass, they could just travel out of state, right? I mean, I understand for some women (if not a lot) this is an extra hardship but it isn't as though they have to go back to wire hangers. Am I being naive?

[Control-Z]

55. Yes, you are

Yes, you are being naive. You call it an "extra hardship" as though it would be just a little extra time off work. And for some women that is what it would be, probably for the women you imagine. But for other woman it far more than just a hardship. Poor women, women with children, teens, teens who are victims of incest and pregnant by their father or stepfather, women who are pregnant by an abusive boyfriend or husband. Basically, a law like this hurts the least able of women, the most desperate women, and women who are already victims in one way or another.

Any time restrictions are placed on abortion, it increases the possibility for tragic endings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becky_Bell">Becky Bell is one example of those consequences. 'Bell became pregnant at age 17, but under a state law in Indiana, minors required parental consent to obtain an abortion. Said to be unwilling to tell her parents about her pregnancy for fear of disappointing them, or go to court to receive a judicial bypass, Bell sought an illegal abortion. Within a week of the procedure, she became seriously ill and died from a massive infection.'

Women will keep having abortions no matter what. Laws and restrictions may force some women to give birth (which is a tragedy in itself), but other women will find alternatives to the safe, legal abortion they're being denied. And some will suffer terrible outcomes, including the possibility of death.

[Liberty Belle]

50. If you miscarry will they be examining the blood? What if everyone sent menstrual pads

to this moron and asked if he personally plans to inspect them all to make sure nobody's trying to cheat the system?

[mimitabby]

51. i wrote to him, thanks

[BolivarianHero]

52. I hope this fucker gets gang-raped...

And by other men.

[BolivarianHero]

53. I hope this fucker gets gang-raped...

And by other men.