Ohio Rep. Wants Men to consent before women have abortions

[samplegirl]

Ohio Rep. John Adams


July 22nd, 2009, 5:40 PM EDT
Ohio Republican (of course!) state Representative John Adams has introduced a bill that would require women to get written consent from the men who impregnate them before they could get an abortion. Providing false information would bring criminal penalties against women.

In the case where the father isn’t known, House Bill 252 would compel the woman to provide a list of names of people who may be the father in an effort to determine paternity. The bill also would make it a crime for women to lie about who the father is, and make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions without the father’s consent.



The bill would force a woman to have a child if the father does not agree to an abortion.



Ohio Right to Life supports the bill, which lays out penalties for women who don’t comply.


“Providing a false biological father would be a first-degree misdemeanor the first time, which means not more than six months and jail, and a maximum $1,000 fine,” Adams said. “And on the second occasion, providing false information would be considered a fifth-degree felony.”



What about penalties for men who provide false information to get women into bed in the first place?



Men lie to women? 4 SEX????????????????????????

[virgogal]

1. My body,my choice. Period.

[Kurska]

2. As long as the man is willing to have the child transplaneted into them I don't see the problem.

I mean it's not like this law would lead to turning some women into unwilling baby carrying devices or anything.
:sarcasm:

[undeterred]

3. I'd say consent is implied in ejaculation without a condom.

If a man doesn't wear a condom its no longer "his" to decide what happens to the pregnancy.

[Kurska]

4. Or atleast in the choice not to use protection. n/t

[TheMadMonk]

15. Then also "not his" for child support purposes unless a bona fide relationship...

...existed at the time of conception.

[undeterred]

18. If the child is the genetic offspring of a man

he has to pay child support, whatever the relationship. If he can't afford to bring children into the world he should be making sure that he isn't.

[TheMadMonk]

20. Even if the woman obtains the sperm under false pretenses?

Let's take the not too uncommon scenario of a married woman. Her husband has had a vasectomy, so she isn't on the pill. She has a one night fling, or a "momentary lapse of judgment". Or perhaps hubby does the math and figures out he was in Memphis or on the other side of the planet at the time conception must have taken place. Or maybe the kid turns up with flaming red hair or an impossible blood type.

So hubby walks away from the marriage, he does his duty by any kids that are his, but he refuses to acknowledge the cuckoo in his nest, which I believe is fair enough. Now, what gives the mother (or state) the right have to seek restitution/support from a bloke she picked up in a bar, or inveigled across her threshold with a filmy negligee and crooked finger?

Let's play let's play a little more. The father is above the age of consent, but below the age of majority. He can not legally enter into a contract or assume a debt. Can/should the mother have his parents forced to assume the financial burden his actions created? Can she wait for him to reach his majority and then seek to have him made liable for the results of his actions as a legal minor?

Between one in four and one in three children are born as the result of cuckoldry. And in all probability in the majority of those cases the cuckolding male knew what he was getting into or had reason to suspect that the situation was not entirely on the up and up, in which case I have no objection for him being made to "pay to play".

What I object to is situations where there is bad faith on the part of the woman, and the (a) man is expected (and legally obligated) to cough up even when his actions were in good faith. Yes the child is entitled to support, but I do not believe it should be at the expense of a person who is in all (most) other senses a victim of fraudulent behaviour. Let the state pay "reasonable" support and seek to recover that money from the mother after the child has reached their majority.

[Liquorice]

22. What gives the mother the right to seek child support? If the man in the bar

is the child's father, he is financially responsible for the child. The mother and/or the state should seek support on behalf of that child!

[TheMadMonk]

23. What gives the mother and/or state the right to dump the burden,...

...on the first of a list of six who does the right thing and acknowledges that it COULD be possible whilst simultaneously denying him the right to obtain the proof that what COULD be actually IS? In a lot of places around the world she must consent before he can obtain a sample from the child that would prove or disprove his paternity. On her say so alone, a man can be accused, tried, judged and penalised with no recourse whatsoever.

Or we can return to the scenario of the 16, 17, 18-20something year old walking bag of hormones offered free sex, no strings attached. Except a few weeks later: "Whoopsie, here you go m'laddio, like it or lump it, you got a kid, cough up." some(oft)times with the addendum, "Good luck actually exercising/obtaining any of your paternal rights, since you weren't in any recognised relationship when you did the deed."

As a matter of fact, the way a lot of these laws are oftimes writen, those lucky dog thirteen year olds, who get to bonk a hot teacher, can be hit for child support later in life, despite the fact they are technically/legally/factually rape victims.

If it's just two stupid adults then I have no objections whatsoever to him being made to "pay to play".

What I object to is men being forced to pay when there is demonstrable bad faith on the part of the woman; when it is demanded that he meet all the parental obligations, whilst simultaneously being denied any parental rights; when he is forced to pay up on the woman's say so alone, whilst not being permitted to prove or disprove his paternity without that woman's consent; and when he is has absolutely no avenue to recover payments made in good faith (or under duress) when it later transpires that the child was not his.

[undeterred]

26. There should be no child support

expectation unless it is genetically proved that the man in question is the parent. The womans sexual behavior is irrelevant. I believe that's the way it is in our country, the United States.

"those lucky dog thirteen year olds, who get to bonk a hot teacher, can be hit for child support later in life"

You're really messed up.

[TheMadMonk]

28. In a lot of jurisdictions, getting that genetic proof requires the mother's...

...permission. At the same time the state's interest is assuming as little of the burden as possible through welfare. I can't speak for certain for states in the US, but here in several Australian states that is the situation. If she names a man and he admits to the possibility that's it.

I was not actually attempting to bring the woman's sexual behaviour into it in the manner it think you mean. Simply that any (the first) man that admits to having sex with the woman at approximately the right time for conception, can and all too often will be held responsible without that genetic proof. This is something I strongly object to.

And what if the mother obtains the sperm through outright deception or perhaps theft? Should the father still be held liable for support?

On the second point. With the "Lucky dog" appelation I was refering to the common response a lot of blokes make when these cases come up in discussions here.

[Odin2005]

33. Oh great, the anti-child support "Men's Rights" BS.

don't want to pay child support? use an f-ing rubber.

[samplegirl]

5. Ohio is full of Republican

assholes.

[havocmom]

6. Tell them a fetus can be implanted in their bodies

and they can be responsible for the children for the rest of their lives.

Then do it. :evilgrin:

[LiberalFighter]

9. Get all of their spouses pregnant.

[katanalori]

7. No fricken way -

I swear, this Country is going backwards. Next we will need a note from daddy/husband to be allowed to have a job, wear a short skirt, or uncover our heads. How do these fuckwads get elected?

[samplegirl]

8. I'd love to know!!

[virginia.fippinger]

10. It's all good if you are a WHITE MAN

Ok, these idiots have been using Sotomayor's comments of being wise Latina as the reason they are against her.
We all know this is pure BS.
Slavery with them has never died, they cannot own African Americans any longer but they surely believe the own "their women folk".
This like so many of the other absolute bazaar musing from the Right are really well explained if you look into The Family and Doug Coe's teachings.
Every one of these idiots really believe they are "the Chosen".

[TheMadMonk]

17. Spot on. And welcome to DU.

:hi:

[PDJane]

11. Nope. Sorry.

He doesn't carry the child, he doesn't care for the child, he can't breast feed the child. No. Period.

Not his choice.

[newfie11]

12. And he can go straight to hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:grr: :nuke:

[kestrel91316]

13. Yeah. Reproductive slavery - it's a GOOD thing, as Martha would say.

[SeattleGirl]

14. Then he'd better be willing to sign over a big chunck of his paycheck

until the child is 18, or is done with college.

[SheilaT]

16. Several years back someone tried

to introduce similar legislation in Missouri. A female legislature promptly started calling it "the Rapists Bill of Rights" and it went down to defeat.

Which is exactly what it is.

Basically, once the act is over, EVERYTHING falls to the woman, and no man should have veto power over what she then does.

I started telling my two sons when they were in their early teens that if they get a woman pregnant, maybe it's not fair, but it's absolutely right that the choice to have or not have the baby, or to have it and give it up, is entirely hers, regardless of what they would want. Her body, her choice.

[TheMadMonk]

21. Not quite EVERYTHING. Once the product of the act is delivered,...

...he is legally obligated to provide financial support for the child regardless of the circumstances under which the child is conceived. And in some scenarios, even if the child is not actually his. Worst case being she picks a name out of a hat, becasue the state requires she name a father as a requirement for obtaining state benefits and he has no avenue of challenge unless he can prove the negative of never having had sex with the woman or SHE CONSENTS to allowing a paternity test.

[SheilaT]

30. I agree that no man should have to support

a child that is not his. I was unaware that a woman had to give consent to allow paternity testing. That's wrong.

Meanwhile, there needs to be just a little more burden on men to use birth control. For every woman who falsely claims to be using protection, there are the same number of men who promise they'll pull out, or are themselves sterile. It does go both ways. Any man who doesn't want to be on the hook to pay child support should do everything possible (including NOT having sex, how's that for a novel idea?) to prevent conception. And not hop into bed with just any willing female.

I apparently need to repeat that it is the WOMAN who gets pregnant, who has an abortion, or goes through pregnancy and childbirth, while a man is subject to none of that.

[Cleita]

19. If men agree to get their mothers' or sisters' permission every time they have sex

with a woman....sure.

[undeterred]

27. Excellent idea.

[theothersnippywshrub]

24. How very republican. n/t

[MrScorpio]

25. What a great way to avoid paying child support

Maybe Johnny boy he some problems in that department?

If not, otherwise he's being a right-wing, misogynistic asshole.

[Retrograde]

29. And the man of course will pay for all the prenatal costs

including a Caesarian at the time of earliest extra-uterine survival, and will undertake the sole raising of the child, right? Right?

I'm with the poster who said non-use of birth control implies consent.

[RB TexLa]

31. I'm suprised there isn't more support for this on DU after reading the thread where so many said

a man has a right to know he has fathered a child.

[Odin2005]

32. Wow, what a misogynistic sack of shit!

:puke:

[Odin2005]

34. Kick to keep this moran exposed.