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, "[T]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.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Want an abortion? Get a note from a dude..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15055
This bill is egregious. No offense to Ohioans, but when I lived there and covered politics as a reporter, I found a good bit to be offensive in this way.
As an aside, when my husband got a vasectomy, he had to get my approval before the doctor would do it. I found that equally sad, but apparently it's pretty common to require wives to sign off on men's reproductive choices.
The one thing I have learned is that the people on either side of the "give men a choice!" argument (the ones who think a man should be able to forbid an abortion and the ones who think a man should be able to sign away responsibility or even compel an abortion) don't really give two figs for the "rights" of these men. Certainly, I can pretty much guarantee you that Rep. Adams has never researched child support laws and stats, and doesn't really care about Joe Schmoe who wants his wife/girlfriend to continue a pregnancy. He cares about preventing abortion, and punishing women for having sex, and dresses it in "equality"
The other side just pretty hates women, period.
I'm offended by this as a woman and as an Ohioian, but as an Ohioian, I'm also offended that while the state is facing a near insurmountable budget crisis and record-high unemployment rates, Rep. Adams has the time to introduce useless, sexist, and discriminatory bills that have no chance of passing a Democratic governor's desk.
The vasectomy approval is not, as far as I can tell via Google, law. It was probably the policy of the individual doctor.
OMFG! I live in Ohio. I am definitely sending him a furious e-mail. This bill treats women like morally bankrupt dependents and I can't believe he had the "balls" to introduce this today.
P.S. I just e-mailed this to him:
Dear Representative Adams,
As a voter in Ohio, I am seriously concerned about House Bill 252, which would require the biological father's consent before an abortion can be done. I have read that the bill would apply to any abortion and would require written consent before it can be done. Feministing.com reported that you have told various newspapers that "in cases when the mother does not know the identity of the father, the abortion would be prohibited."
This looks mysteriously like an attempt to morally police women and I consider it a slap in the face of all Ohio women. This bill completely denies Ohio women's autonomy and seeks to punish women who are often the victims of domestic abuse, incest, rape, or systematic mistreatment by men who view them as objects. I think this bill is objectifying because it takes women's adulthood away, by requiring a man to give written permission for a procedure that involves the woman and the woman alone. I am embarrassed that you represent my state. This bill is regressive in the worst way and I urge you to reconsider these insulting regulations.
A very well written "go fuck yourself" without actually using the words.
:)
Femme, I had to take out the "Ohio" bit, but I copied+pasted the rest of this. Hope that's okay!!
Yeah I think I might do that too. Good job!
"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."
AAAHHHH!!!!!
"'There needs to be responsibility for actions,' Adams said. "As someone who is pro-life, this is also an attempt and a hope to keep the two people who have created that child together, and I suppose if you just go back to the simple beginning, there is merit to chastity, and to young men and women waiting until marriage."
Sure, because not being able to get a permission slip from your man means he's more likely to marry you. right.
Also, why is it that people kept trying to make sure people they think are irresponsible don't get abortions? Do they really want irresponsible people who don't want kids to be parents?
Sure, because not being able to get a permission slip from your man means he's more likely to marry you. right.
Of course! And married women NEVER want or need to have abortions.
Sarcasm is all I can manage. It's too much otherwise.
"Do they really want irresponsible people who don't want kids to be parents?"
I suspect they care less about the parenting and more about getting people to produce more cannon fodder/members of their favorite demographic groups/etc.
So basically, pregnancy-as-punishment for having sex? WTF, I hate America.
i remember talking to a woman i worked with a few years ago about how when she filed to drop her husband's last name and go back to her original familial name, the papers required her husband's signature. gross.
Really? I did that, and it required nothing of the sort. I paid $50, filled out a one-page form, and then showed up for court. The judge rubber-stamped it. I wrote "philosophical reasons" for why I wanted to change my name. Now, others have questioned it - folks at the insurance company and banks - but the judge didn't bat an eye.
yeah, i'm not sure how long ago she filed and i'm not sure what state she lived in at the time, i believe it was PA or NC.
I'm in Kentucky, so definitely no bastion of progressives. I actually anticipated more from the judge and had prepared myself to explain myself calmly. But really, it was more like, "are you Brandi?" "You want to change your name." "Okay, take this to the clerk and get notarized copies." We still haven't made it official for the children yet (changing their names to a hyphenated option), so I'm not sure how that will go.
I'm in Michigan and checked out what hoops I would have to jump through to either return to my birth/maiden name or hyphenate (I'm not divorcing). What I found (per common law) is that even married, a woman always retains her "birth" name. Mi. Sec. of State confirmed that I only need to go to Social Security first, with my birth certificate - no court/judge's order needed.
So I guess it's OK to get an abortion without telling the father or potential father(s)?!?!? It's all about women's rights and men don't have any when it comes to them knowing if they are going to being a dad? Maybe it is lost on you geniuses, but this decision impacts the father for the rest of his life, so the concept doesn't seem quite as crazy as you have framed it.
Even though it's all about you and you frequently don't let the facts get in the way, remember who gets to pay child support and whatever else is required to bring a child to maturity.
You would have allot more credibility if you would present a little more objective standpoint. I especially appreciate all of the f*** you statements and videos by your group. It's OK for you to do this, but if a guy does it it's hate speech.
You should be ashamed, but I'm not certain you folks have enough character to make it to that state. How about this...if your parents (or whoever paid for your education) had an idea about the kind of idiocy you are spreading they can be ashamed for you. Kind of a stunt person / body double type thing.
I CHALLENGE YOUR CENSORS TO LET THIS THROUGH AS WRITTEN. You don't have the intellectual chops to have a fair discussion on these issues.
If you do, bring it on. If it gets edited out (which I expect it to) I'll get it in front of other groups through different channels.
For the Record - Written and sent 7/20/09 @12:50 PST
Perhaps the points you've raised seem brilliant and unique to you. But I do promise you that many of us have read and responded to all of this before. It gets tiring after a while.
Burn, you are not nearly as intellectually threatening as you think you are. (But you are a lot funnier than I bet you even realize.)
This bill isn't about child support or notification - it's about mandating that women women get a written note before she undergo a safe legal procedure. (From someone whose body will not have to carry said pregnancy to term, no less.) It's about a basic distrust of women - a bill that presupposes women lie about rape, that they should not have control over their own bodies, and that - if deemed "slutty - they should have their rights taken from them.
Love, Us Geniuses
PS. A fetus can only have one father, no matter how many exclamation points you use.
I know, I'm humbled to have the right to be enlightened by you and your sisters. The depth of your insight is awe inspiring. All of you are so bright and thoughtful. It's amazing. Thanks for basically not addressing anything that I wrote.
Appreciate you geniuses stepping up to the fact that the father in this circumstance has NO RIGHTS. At least we have that out of the way and your true motives are clear.
The type of cr@p getting posted on this blog would get a guy in serious trouble if he said the same thing about a women. I particularly appreciate p*nis comment from Ms. Evann. Good material for the future. Kinda sounds like "Hate Speech". What to you girls think? I'm sure you'll give me a fair call on that issue.
Finally Jessica - concerning the one father thing, I think I understand that kids can only have one father. I'm not as smart as you, but I get that. I don't know how much you've lived yet, but if you have some real life experience you would know that it's not always certain who the dad is, hence my comment.
Let me know where you went to school, if they can make me as smart as you I'm going back. Although I understand my plumbing lowers my IQ, maybe I can get admitted under affirmative action. Somebody has to bring the GPA down to balance it with all of you gifted and opinionated female types. Think they'd let me major in Women's Studies? My life would then be complete.
If any of you sisters can take time away from studying for your BA or MA in Women's Studies (or doing personal emails on company time) try growing up and having more than one bigoted perspective on reality.
Shit, I think this is a guy I once dated.
Trust me, you were never that lucky.
I think I just vomited in my mouth.
But I LOLed! Someone's trying so darn hard to get banned and getting his undergarments all twisted that he can't.
I would laugh maybe if anything this guy would say was the least bit original. But sigh...it's not meant to be...
Lol, sorry for feeding the troll folks - I should know better, but sometimes my snark gets the best of me.
Oh Jessica, no need to apologize on my account at least. While the troll might not have gotten a laugh out of me, you're awesomely witty and clever response did :)
I think I love you because of the one father + ! remark...
Actually it's interesting you say that. I read the posting guidelines in the "About Us" section of the site. Basically, if you don't like what you're hearing the poster gets banned, so I guess I'm at your mercy. Now I won't sleep tonight.
The great thing is that you folks have given me better material than I could have made up. I guess it's true what they say about the truth being better than fiction.
Finally Kahri - I'm a commando kind of guy, so I'm safe on the twisting of the underwear thingy, but thanks for thinking of me. I'm blushing.
Wow, I'm so glad my husband is not this afraid of women.
Wow, now I'm almost positive this is a guy I once dated.
Alas, he got away. It's so hard to find a passive aggressive man-child who's afraid to actually curse, and instead puts asterisks in place of letters.
Tis better to have loved and lost, I guess....
:P
hahahaha.
That's all I have to say.
Ps. I accidentally pushed "like" on one of Burn's comments instead of "reply." I rescind my "like".
Sorry, 'cuz, shit, this sounds like Joe "The Plumber".
It was SATIRE you dumb piece of shit.
How does an abortion effect the life of a man? My father doesn't know about the abortion my mother had and I'm pretty sure he doesn't know the difference. Please explain to me about how abortion effects the paterfamilias.
Burn: If you and your other male cohorts would like to carry the baby to term, by all means, have at it. Then when lawmakers introduce bills that directly affect you, your body and your health, then you can complain about your "rights" being infringed upon.
Maybe Burn watches lots of porn and thinks if 2 guys are having sex with a female at the same time, there's a high probabality that they will impregnate her at the same time, each contributing half a sperm.
Your argument seems to be that child support affects the father for the rest of his life, so by that logic it would be worse to HAVE the child without notifying him than it would be to abort the fetus without notifying him.
Either way, that isn't the point. The point is that this is a decision about HER body, not his. You shouldn't need your spouse's permission to have any procedure done on your own body, and your spouse (let alone some random person you had a one night stand with) should not have the right to force you to go through dramatic bodily changes and risks against your will.
Even if we accept that in most cases its good for the potential father to be involved in this decision, what about the cases where the potential father is abusive or gone? I think that in most cases if a woman is involved with the potential father she should discuss options with him, but I absolutely would not try to mandate it in any way because there are so many different situations where that would be a bad idea.
It only impacts the father the rest of his life if the child is actually born and he is then required to support it. Otherwise, it only 100% affects the pregnant woman. Call me crazy, but I've never known a man to experience gestational diabetes,preclampsia,fistula,or psychotic post partum depression. Wonder why that is? I have a hunch it's because no matter how much you want it to be true, the pregnancy does NOT affect the man/father as much as the pregnant woman. Never has, never will. That is the reason it can never be as much his decision as hers.
So, tough shit.
If you say Tough Shit can I say KMA without getting in trouble? I don't want to be out of line or anything. The last thing I want to do is make you mad at me. I want to make sure you guys still love me and want me coming around...Please don't be angry.
So... Why are you still coming around? What was your goal in posting here at all other than to abate your own anger? (Which, never the less, still seems unabated.) If you don't like what you see here, go to a blog that supports your own world view. I don't go to such blogs and post angry, patronizing comments there because I know that I a) would be unwelcome and b) wouldn't be changing anyone's mind. In fact I find comments written the way you have written yours actually reinforce the views you are blasting. I read opposing views and try to stretch my world view, but I do so respectfully, knowing that I am on their turf.
Your tone and belittlement of not only the readers of this site but women in general has made any intelligent, rational debate with you impossible. So please, save yourself and everyone here some time and use your anger to start your own blog.
It is clear that Burn is very afraid and disdainful of women. A dime a dozen, unfortunately.
"Even though it's all about you and you frequently don't let the facts get in the way, remember who gets to pay child support and whatever else is required to bring a child to maturity."
If you have an abortion, no one has to pay child support or "whatever else is required to bring a child to maturity." Most mothers are pinned with these costs after an absent father fails to come through with his end of the bargain.
My mother married my father after he told her that he didn't want her to have an abortion. Six months after my birth, he beat her within an inch of her life and she left him. When I was 10 years old, I asked why I had no brothers or sisters and she told me that shortly after leaving my father, she found out that she was pregnant again, but because my father had fallen short on so many promises he made to her, she chose to have an abortion so that he couldn't hurt any more kids. My dead-beat father hasn't paid a lick of child support or other expenses related to my upbringing, not even after my mother's recent passing due to cancer. Can you imagine how hard that would have been if my mother had two kids to support on her own just because my father didn't want to feel responsible for an abortion?
I actually LOL-ed at this. I don't normally waste my time with replies to people who are so clearly not actually interested in an intellectual discussion, but this particular "what about teh menz?" post reminded me 1) why I'm a feminist and 2) why sometimes, you just have to laugh at people.
"Even though it's all about you and you frequently don't let the facts get in the way, remember who gets to pay child support and whatever else is required to bring a child to maturity."
If you have an abortion, no one has to pay child support or "whatever else is required to bring a child to maturity." Most mothers are pinned with these costs after an absent father fails to come through with his end of the bargain.
My mother married my father after he told her that he didn't want her to have an abortion. Six months after my birth, he beat her within an inch of her life and she left him. When I was 10 years old, I asked why I had no brothers or sisters and she told me that shortly after leaving my father, she found out that she was pregnant again, but because my father had fallen short on so many promises he made to her, she chose to have an abortion so that he couldn't hurt any more kids. My dead-beat father hasn't paid a lick of child support or other expenses related to my upbringing, not even after my mother's recent passing due to cancer. Can you imagine how hard that would have been if my mother had two kids to support on her own just because my father didn't want to feel responsible for an abortion?
"Even though it's all about you and you frequently don't let the facts get in the way, remember who gets to pay child support and whatever else is required to bring a child to maturity."
If you have an abortion, no one has to pay child support or "whatever else is required to bring a child to maturity." Most mothers are pinned with these costs after an absent father fails to come through with his end of the bargain.
My mother married my father after he told her that he didn't want her to have an abortion. Six months after my birth, he beat her within an inch of her life and she left him. When I was 10 years old, I asked why I had no brothers or sisters and she told me that shortly after leaving my father, she found out that she was pregnant again, but because my father had fallen short on so many promises he made to her, she chose to have an abortion so that he couldn't hurt any more kids. My dead-beat father hasn't paid a lick of child support or other expenses related to my upbringing, not even after my mother's recent passing due to cancer. Can you imagine how hard that would have been if my mother had two kids to support on her own just because my father didn't want to feel responsible for an abortion?
It only impacts the father the rest of his life if the child is actually born and he is then required to support it. Otherwise, it only 100% affects the pregnant woman. Call me crazy, but I've never known a man to experience gestational diabetes,preclampsia,fistula,or psychotic post partum depression. Wonder why that is? I have a hunch it's because no matter how much you want it to be true, the pregnancy does NOT affect the man/father as much as the pregnant woman. Never has, never will. That is the reason it can never be as much his decision as hers.
So, tough shit.
I actually LOL-ed at this. I don't normally waste my time with replies to people who are so clearly not actually interested in an intellectual discussion, but this particular "what about teh menz?" post reminded me 1) why I'm a feminist and 2) why sometimes, you just have to laugh at people.
"Even though it's all about you and you frequently don't let the facts get in the way, remember who gets to pay child support and whatever else is required to bring a child to maturity."
If you have an abortion, no one has to pay child support or "whatever else is required to bring a child to maturity." Most mothers are pinned with these costs after an absent father fails to come through with his end of the bargain.
My mother married my father after he told her that he didn't want her to have an abortion. Six months after my birth, he beat her within an inch of her life and she left him. When I was 10 years old, I asked why I had no brothers or sisters and she told me that shortly after leaving my father, she found out that she was pregnant again, but because my father had fallen short on so many promises he made to her, she chose to have an abortion so that he couldn't hurt any more kids. My dead-beat father hasn't paid a lick of child support or other expenses related to my upbringing, not even after my mother's recent passing due to cancer. Can you imagine how hard that would have been if my mother had two kids to support on her own just because my father didn't want to feel responsible for an abortion?
I can't speak for everyone, but I paid for my education. I'm not at all ashamed of myself.
Well, clearly, there are a lot of laughably weird assumptions going on in that post-- clearly everyone here's been to college, everyone's got parents still alive, and nobody's got awesome pro-choice feminist parents... I suspect someone's got an authoritarian father-figure fetish... Nice.
Hey Sigmund, appreciate the quick analysis. You know, I bet you could make some money with that skill set. Now that I know my problem I can work on it. Are you available for consulting services? I don't have allot of money, but I'll wear a pro-choice t shirt if you want. Will that work? Please don't keep me hanging I miss you already.
But really, I'm not anti-abortion or pro-choice. I do have a problem with men not having an opportunity to have a say in this type of situation. I also have a problem with everyone so strongly agreeing that he doesn't have rights. Period.
In any case Siggy - I'm afraid I'll dream about you tonight. If I do I'll write it down so we can discuss it at greater length. It's all about fixing me....
The grammarian in me finds particular pleasure in this guy's repeated use of "allot." But is this relevant to the conversation at hand? No, not at all.
Wait... neither is 90% of what Burn writes.
Still it's good to know he's got "more than one bigoted perspective on reality."
I don't like the idea of the father having no say either, but I don't live in an ideal world. Even if we ignore the issue of rights over another's body for a moment (because we know where that discussion leads), what happens if a woman doesn't want a baby and the man does?
Would the man then automatically get custody of the child? It seems that he should, given that he's the one who wanted to have a baby. Mom can pay child support, but Dad gets the day-to-day responsibility for caring for the child. I'm not sure most men who would oppose a woman getting an abortion would want to be the primary childcare provider. They simply want to deny the woman the option of an abortion. That's where the issue gets sticky because ultimately, if there's no abortion, there's a baby.
I don't think the idea of notifying the father of an abortion is all bad, but I don't think it's something to legislate either. In an ideal situation, a woman would discuss her pregnancy with the father, but that decision is - and should remain - up to her.
Fathers do have rights over their children. No one wants to deny fathers parental rights. But the point that you are missing here is that this is not a child. The fetus is inside the mother's body and completely dependent upon her. The fetus cannot breathe, eat, or perform any other vital function without the mother's constant support. While we do not deny that fathers have a right to their children, we do deny that fathers have a state-sanctioned right to decide the future of the fetus - a clump of cells - residing in the mother’s body. Notice no pro-choice argument (at least to my knowledge) speaks to maternal right but rather for the rights to women to control their own bodies. There must be a child to have parental rights.
The reason why men don't get a say in this is summed up quite neatly by that great philosopher of human relations Rod Stewart, when asked if he was planning to have another baby:
"Ask my wife. It's ten minutes for me and nine months for her."
Unless and until you, Mr. Troll-with-serious-misogynistic-streak, can carry a baby and are willing to do so, *you don't get a say.* Period. It's not your body and it's not your business, and if you want your precious bodily fluids not to be wasted, go donate to a sperm bank.
God. Go volunteer at soup kitchen or a homeless shelter if you're bored!
Your "opportunity to say something" about the situation begins and ends with your decision to stick your dick into someone else.
Men make their reproductive choice at ejaculation.
I get it! A woman doesn't agree with you and so you insult her intelligence!
Damn, you're good.
You know it's funny, my father, mother and grandmother are some of the greatest people I know. My grandmother is who inspired me to become a feminist. My father voted for Hillary Clinton and is the greatest feminist-ally I could hope for in a father. My mom said I inspired HER to become a feminist. The three of them paid for my education for which I'm most appreciative and the last way they would ever describe their feelings for me is ashamed. In fact, I'm pretty much bet my entire tuition money on them agreeing with this whole post of Jessica's. Shocking I know.
You want an intellectual debate, but you haven't said anything intellectual yet. (You did take up a lot of space saying nothing though.) Your only point is this: Don't men have rights to the fetus?
Answer: When men start carrying babies for 9 months, abso-f***g-lutely they do! ...Possession is nine-tenths of the law!
Guys like you spend 15 seconds creating something and then want nine months of rights! And just nine months of responsibilities!
Man, talk about falling for a troll hook, line, and sinker. Everyone should read this: http://forum.landrovernet.com/showpost.php?p=1152447&postcount=62
Burn, what exactly would be the point of being forced to get the father's permission?
If a female is in a good relationship to begin with, he already knows and most likely they decided together.
If she is married to him, same as above.
If they are in a bad relationship or there's no relationship, this would be something he could use to further hurt her and punish her and control her.
If she is a wild-eyed, militant feminist man-hater, penis-chopper-offer (which is probably how you see all feminists), do you really want her having a baby? It might turn out to be just like her! Which actually could be a good thing.
I hope Burn hasn't ruled out the possibility of minor objections to feminist viewpoint of the way things should work, and I'd like to raise one that may have come up before but I've never seen a response to.
It seems like the situation is that, in the event of an accident, the feminist perspective is the woman has absolute and complete control: that is, she can abort it, or she can have it and stick the man with child support. The choice is solely hers, and while I recognize that there is an innate biological situation that makes the situation asymmetric, it still kinda seems like a short stick for the guy given it takes two people to make a baby.
I would never suggest a man have power over the woman's body: the choice of abortion for a woman is, to me, absolute. However, does anyone here think it might be more fair if the guy could opt out of child support: essentially taking the position that if the little critter was living in him, he'd abort it, but since he doesn't have that option and the woman is in charge, at least she goes it alone if she insists on keeping it.
I think you'll find objection to that, mainly because child support is about, well, supporting the child and making sure they are taken care of. Allowing men to opt-out would unfairly punish the child.
There's no perfect solution, sadly, and the system has numerous flaws, but the father is more at fault for the situation than the child is.
actually i've thought about that a lot. in an ideal world i think that the father should be able to opt out of all parental obligations BEFORE the baby is born and BEFORE it's too late to consider abortion, not after. somewhat mirroring the options that women have. But this isn't an ideal world and that would be incredibly legally complicated. What if the mother didn't tell the father that she was pregnant? Then would he still be obligated? uuugh...if only there was an easy way...
I agree that would be ideal. If everyone had easy access to abortion and agreed that it was ok to get one, then it would be easier. We could say that the parents have to fill out some paperwork early in the pregnancy saying who is responsible for the pregnancy and who is opting out, etc. If the father opts out the mother could decide whether she wants to keep the baby by herself or abort it. But its not fair to wait till its too late to get an abortion and then have the father leave.
I actually also agree with you in that at an early stage, a guy should be able to "opt out" (as long as the female has no restrictions on her right to an abortion). Or at any time if he made it perfectly clear (maybe signed something) that he did not want children AND he wasn't married to the female.
I agree that it is an unfortunate situation for the men -- obviously in a healthy relationship they should be a part of the discussion about whether or not to abort a pregnancy, but they never should have the right to veto a woman's decision to abort. But then men are sometimes stuck with children that they didn't plan for, didn't want, and would have aborted had the pregnancy occurred in their own body.
The way out of this conundrum for men is to accept equal responsibility for birth control, 100% of the time they have sex. If you are not ready and willing to support a child for 18 years, you need to do everything in your power to make sure that there is no conception. If you're not willing to be abstinent, then you have to accept that all forms of birth control do have errors, and your partner might decide not to abort if there is an "accident." Obviously women can lie about being on the pill, punch holes in condoms etc if they want to be malicious... but this is obviously not a common problem, and is a risk men must be willing to take if they are sexually active.
you're comparing apples to oranges.
women have the fundamental right to make choices about procreation.
Children have a right to be supported by two incomes.
parents have a right to visit and participate in their children's lives.
There is no "tit for tat." it's just rights. you don't get to cry about your wages just because they happen to intersect with our FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to make choices over our bodies. sorry. it's just not a valid argument in this case. Them's the breaks.
I agree with "rights" over your body, but I don't know that anyone has a "right to be supported by two incomes." You can't just state your viewpoint as a "right" and assume you've won an argument.
it's not my viewpoint, it's the law. child support is the right of the child. im sure if you use the google this will become clear to you, i can't believe i have to even explain this.
Well, no, its not the right of a child to be supported by two incomes. Even if we confined ourselves to the US, what about a child where one parent died? Its not like the state designates another person to put in the second income. What about a child who is supported by zero incomes? There are lots of possibilities for that: an orphan, a child whose parents are unemployed, etc. There's no rule in the US constitution, or any country that I know of, that says a child must be supported by two adult incomes.
I think that if abortion is unrestricted and everyone is on top of their reproductive choices, either parent should be able to opt out really early, while abortion is still easy and legal. If I got pregnant from some random dude and then I decided I wanted to have a kid without telling him, well, morally, that kid should be my responsibility. On the other hand, if he told me he wanted to have a kid and then he bailed when the kid was 1 year old, what am I supposed to do? Unfortunately the law doesn't distinguish. But it could, ideally. We could make a system where that worked. Our current system is unfair to a lot of people. It might be more often unfair to women but it is still unfair to the father a lot of the time. Ideally, everyone should make a choice to be or not be a parent, including men.
i phrased that poorly. a child has a right to be supported by *both parents*. neither parent can legally opt out of providing part of their income to their child. don't believe me? look it up. i really can't believe people don't know this.
Exactly. Child support is not the woman’s right, it is the child’s.
My niece is 20 years old and she has the legal right, until she is 21, to seek child support from her father even though her mother never sought a dime from him.
Well, that is the law. But that's not the point. This is a discussion of the way we think things *should be*, not the way they are. The argument that something is "the law" is always circular: there are many terrible laws. It was *the law* that black people had to ride on the back of the bus, but conversations about what the law should be changed that. Not that this little nitpick is within an order of magnitude of that, only that something being a law doesn't mean it's the right way. Further, something being a law certainly doesn't make it a "right".
I didn't say that its right because it's the law. And seriously, how do YOU define rights, anyways? I mean, you can define them however you want, but in our culture, our laws outline our rights. I was simply pointing out that the way this issue is set up is not built for some sort of tit-for-tat bartering of benefits and burdens. there are 3 separate rights that are in play, and you can't take away from them just because you feel you deserve more benefits, because these are the ironclad basics of what we deserve in this situation.
The problem with this is that it's about providing for the child. Ideally there would be mechanisms in place for single parents (paid paternity/maternity leave, universal or easily-affordable daycare, expansion of WIC, universal pre/post natal health care, etc). However there is not, and child support is about the child. Aso, even if all that is in place the woman still has a right to her body and if she wants the parasitic relationship over, it should be over, no questions asked.
For the record, your clock is slow.
You must be a guy.
Unfortunately, a woman puts her life at risk to carry a baby to term, a man does not.
Fact o' life. Tis not fair, but that's how babies are born. Men do not put their lives at risk so that a baby can be born. Hence, why to abort or to not abort can only be the right of the person who is carrying the baby.
You want a kid? Grow or develop a freaking uterus of some sort, ask the woman to agree to a surgical procedure to remove the thing, and if she agrees insert it in the one you've grown/created. Wala, you can develop a baby and play daddy to your hearts content.
Yes, I think it's absolutely freaking fine to have an abortion without consulting the sperm donor, thanks.
What do you think they'd say if I proposed a bill that said that men would have to get their wife's written permission before getting a vasectomy? And if they're not married they can't get a vasectomy because they should wait until their future wife can be part of the decision.
It IS required in many places!
Can anyone verify this? Where? That does sound like a serious reproductive health/justice issue.
I think it's policy by doctor/clinic. I just Googled and couldn't find any actual laws. But I may have missed something.
Wait, seriously? I doubt it (especially in the states), but can you provide some evidence?
Google it, it's (kind of) true and disturbingly common.
I have yet to find evidence of state law mandating this (which isn't to say it doesn't exist, but I tend to doubt it) but doctors perform the procedure at their own discretion, and many require the "permission slip" for vasectemies (along with age requirements and previous children...). Obviously, since HIPAA prohibits sharing of medical information without consent, if the doctor were to attempt to verify the document's veracity, he/she would be violating federal law, but there is no law saying a doctor can't ask and clearly many do (for both vasectemies and tubal ligations, so in addition to being a broadly feminist issue, it negatively directly impacts both men and women's bodies).
Therefore, assuming there is no state law, the vasectomy permission slips that exist are not quite analogous to this proposed bill because they is based on the neanderthalic attitudes towards marriage/choice of individual doctors, not the paternalistic attitude of the state. Sadly, this is a misguided moralistic tactic that exploits holes in the law to scare men AND women into making uninformed decisions about their choices--not unlike the tactics of crisis pregnancy centers--and is exactly the sort of thing that the federal government should unequivocally prevent.
PS. There are a bunch of state laws that do mandate waiting periods for the childless and other weird restrictions on vasectomies.
Well, then, I agree that that's also wrong, but somehow it sounds slightly less serious when its up to the individual doctor and not the state. I just had a doctor offer me pot on a street corner in California-- obviously they can disagree with each other and you can probably find a doctor to support anything reasonable. Its a bit more draconian when its a state law.
Definately agree that it is less serious than state law, although it looks like this bill has little chance of becoming state law.
Doctors frequently hide behind self-defined "requirements" that they dress up to look like state law or medical ethics standards and many patients go home mislead into believing that these apply to all doctors--which is what causes the widespread belief that these laws exist (as evidenced by commenters statements here and elsewhere). Additionally, in rural localities with overwhelmingly conservative male doctors, finding a doctor that will consent to the operation may be difficult to the point of being prohibitory.
I did notice that my state (Virginia), in addition to having a totally fucked-up paternalistic sterilization law that requires the childless to have a 30-day waiting period before getting the procedure, also has a badass law protecting doctors performing sterilization procedures on consenting adults from being criminally or civilly liable for anything but negligence--meaning that husbands or wives or local prosecutors can't try to take away another individuals reproductive choice in the courts.
im in texas and had to give my consent/permission for my husband to get a vasectomy.
It is not his role as a legislator to promote his favored value of chastity. That is a personal decision that does not belong in the political arena, period.
Daddy, do I need your permission to have sex with my boyfriend?
What's next? This is stupid.
I have to ask if you intended to sound incredibly creepy with that comment.
Not that you're creepy per se, but the mentality that would lead to that sort of permission is.
I think that's her point.
I had to verify that it was intentional and not just a delightful side effect of making some other point. :)
Well,
I guess I should be glad I'm sterile and I don't live in Ohio. Now let me make one thing very clear: if I were raped, I would feel scared, violated, and, yes, angry. I am a Christian, a pacifist and a police brutality survivor, and would never, ever, ever go to the police, even if my life depended on it.
No man owns me. This is my life and my body.
"No man owns me."
yes, this!
This is disgusting.
I sent him a very long letter :)
I can certainly understand the thought-process behind wanting to give fathers responsibility for the child too. I don't agree with it, but I certainly understand where these people are coming from.
I am utterly shocked, though, by the provision that in the case of unknown father, an abortion isn't allowed. Clearly in cases such as those, the father is probably not going to take an interest or take responsibility. Makes no sense. This part really is woman-punishing. I don't know how you could justify it.
To be honest I have trouble understanding this as anything other than old fashioned patriarchy...Is the rationale that b/cs men contribute the sperm they should get a vote (or veto really) too? I just really don't get this idea.
But this doesn't give men responsibility; it gives them veto power. And in the end all that boils down to, is that a woman is legally incapable of making medical decisions about her own body, like she's a child.
This is disgusting.
I sent him a very long letter :)
Sorry about the repeat post... heh
Well, since the senator is soooo concerned about ensuring chastity, he should really go to the heart of the problem: penises. Just chop off all penises at birth, and at marriage men apply for permission to have it re-attached! bingo, chastity ensured! none of this complicated "if you have sex then we will punish you with a lifetime burden of a child, unless your sex partner is a dirty slut like you and agrees on the abortion so you can both continue sinfully fucking"
No no no evann, that won't work because that punishes men. And this Rep. Adams clearly hates and wants to punish women. So this is my proposal: bring back the chastity belt! Only the daughter's father will have access to the key until the night of her wedding. No sooner. Because that would be dirty and wrong.
hmm, very true. but then won't men, in their uncontrollable and animalistic need to fuck, just go gay and fuck each other? perhaps we should require chastity belts AND penis-chopping!
I've read this post three times and each time my headache gets worse. There are more things wrong with this piece of legislation than I can count. All a man would have to do is say 'It's not mine' and the woman is stuck with a child.
I can kind of understand the sentiment here, but considering how easy it is for a man to skip out on fatherhood, this isn't even close to being a good idea. Besides, if the woman has a healthy relationship with the father, he's probably ALREADY part of the decision-making process. If she doesn't, this isn't going to improve things one iota.
"Besides, if the woman has a healthy relationship with the father, he's probably ALREADY part of the decision-making process. If she doesn't, this isn't going to improve things one iota."
Exactly! There is no possible rationale (especially from conservative anti-government types) that society stands to benefit by sticking the law right into the middle of a personal relationship and limiting any party's freedom.
Excepting of course, the belief that all abortion is wrong, which, pathetically, is the rep.'s stated case, and instead of trying to take up the issue up with the supreme court, he is abusing state law to try to ban as many abortions as possible without really caring about good policy. This is not just a flawed belief, it is a horribly conceived bill.
You just touched on what I think could be a main objective to this legislation. This bill is supported by "Ohio Right to Life" whose legal counsel (Mark Lally) was quoted as saying: "If the bill became law, it would be challenged as unconstitutional and could provide the courts with an opportunity to reconsider current rulings."
So, aside from trying to "regain" control of our bodies, Adams, the 15 co-sponsors (un-fucking believable), and ORTL WANT to take it to the Supreme Court in the hopes of overturning Roe.
I'd like to add that I've checked out several blogs on this subject and I am appalled and angry by just how many men AND women actually support this. They completely miss the point that biology has given women the womb, which automatically makes it our choice (& ONLY our choice). This is just insane, not to mention scary!
Thanks
this sickens me, and it allows for laws that not only take away women's choices to have an abortion but it makes it okay to write and pass laws not allowing them birth control pills or a tubal ligation or a hysterectomy if it's needed. I'm so pissed off right now its not even funny. I'd like to know how the people in Ohio can overwhelmingly be so stupid to elect these people, remember this is the same state who won't let people park in their own driveways if they are not paved.
Thanks for the generalization that all of us in Ohio are morons. Comments like this aren't helpful at all and do nothing but diminish any work we do to fight against laws like this. Even if this law passes, I doubt it would remain unchallenged for long, and every other state has it's own share of stupid laws and laws the deny people rights.
Oh, Ohio is equal opportunity when it comes to screwing over men and women's rights when it comes to pregancy. (And this bill does not surprise me; my email is sent.)
Let's say it's the other way around - boy doesn't want child, girl does. Girl has baby, puts boy's name (willingly) on birth certificate. Boy pays child support (willingly). On baby's second birtday, girl's lawyer tells girl that under Ohio law, she has all say in visitation of baby. Girl tells boy to stop coming around for no reason. Boy finds out through lawyers that it could take upwards of $10-12,000 to fight for visitation. Boy cannot afford this, loses contact with son, suffers severe depression.
"Boy" is my husband. Ohio's laws just suck all around; they don't trust women to make their own choices, unless they have the baby, then ALL choices are hers, fair or not to the father.
I'd move if I could.
That's really rough. Because laws/institutions/traditions tend screw women over more consistently, it's easy to forget that they screw men over, too. I'm sorry to hear that this happened to your husband, but thank you for sharing it.
i just want to note that what you are describing is just the way our justice system works. You have to go to court to redress a wrong, whether it be a tortious injury, failure to pay child support, evicting a tenant that doesn't pay rent, or a parent that is preventing visitation.
That we have to battle such retrograde nonsense in 2009 from Adams and Burns is nonsense. This so much resembles the type of crap we criticize Saudi Arabia for, that I'm surprised Rep. Adams doesn't pass a law keeping women from the leaving the house without a man.
Thank God we have a Democratic Congress. This BS won't even make it out of committee. btw, I think its better to contact the chair of the committee than to contact this Neanderthal. Someone this stupid isn't even capable of reading e-mail.
There's a Democrat who's signed on as a sponsor which is even more hugely unacceptable. We should contact him too. Rep. Roland Winburn of Dayton, district40@ohr.state.oh.us
Here's the letter I sent to the Democrat co-sponsor. I haven't found the name of the committee chair yet.
The Honorable Rep. Roland Winburn
77 S. High St
Columbus, OH 43215-6111
Dear Rep. Winburn,
I read today at LifeNews.com that you are a co-sponsor of House Bill 252. This is a hateful, if predictable, stunt coming from the Republican Party, but coming from a Democrat its not only hateful, but absolutely unacceptable. I can't believe that in 2009 women still need the approval of men to determine what to do with their bodies. Even more outrageously it forces women to report their partners! This is the type of behavior that we criticize Saudi Arabia for--what's next forcing women to stay at home unless accompanied by male relatives? It shames me as an American that we're reducing women to so much chattel. Frankly, I'd be less offended if you simply supported the repeal of Roe vs Wade than this retrograde nonsense. I sincerely hope that the web site was mistaken in its reporting. If this was a miscommunication, you have my heartfelt apologies.
Regards,
XXX XXXXXX
I wrote this douche an e-mail.
Mr. Adams,
You will most likely receive more than a handful of letters regarding House Bill 252, as I'm sure you were well-aware. I recognize your position in our government is of paramount importance and responsibility; you were elected to represent your constituents -- 51.3% of whom are women -- and not your own views as to what is "right."
That is precisely what HB 252 reads as.
Adult women are more than capable of making their own decisions regarding their bodies and their lives, and I feel silly even informing you of this fact. We do not live in the 1920's and it is time our government (particularly representatives such as yourself, Mr. Adams), finally recognized this.
I am not in high school any more. I do not need a "permission slip" from anyone to have autonomy over my reproductive decisions; by having a man give his "consent," this not only implies that he has authority over me and my body, but that his will/morality is superior to mine. While I do not know what your personal views are, they don't matter -- do not dare impose your own archaic "values" onto your constituents, 51.3% of whom likely don't share them.
It is not law, it is not even unwritten law, that a women has to wait until marriage to engage in intercourse. Keep your religion out of my politics and out of my life, please.
HB 252 states that if the identity of the father is unknown the abortion cannot be performed -- are you aware that this male supremacy in action? It limits the choices of women, objectifies them as human incubators and nothing more, and criminalizes them for attempting to take control over their own lives. No, marriage is no more likely to occur if the father signs a permission slip; this "moral explanation" for this dreadful piece of bureaucracy is transparent and entirely illogical.
I urge you to rethink, reevaluate, and redo this bill. Keep your own 'moral law' out of my government.
Thank you.
Well, since the senator is soooo concerned about ensuring chastity, he should really go to the heart of the problem: penises. Just chop off all penises at birth, and at marriage men apply for permission to have it re-attached! bingo, chastity ensured! none of this complicated "if you have sex then we will punish you with a lifetime burden of a child, unless your sex partner is a dirty slut like you and agrees on the abortion so you can both continue sinfully fucking"
This guy majorly pisses me off!
He's another sexist jerk.
When men can biologically carry a fetus to term, then their opinion with regards to the choices of other people who possess that physical ability will become astronomically more relevant.
How exactly would they know if the woman was telling the truth? I mean, if something like this passed, I could ask a guy friend of mine to sign a note. Are they going to go through the expense of doing DNA testing on aborted embryos? I bet not. It's just designed to add one more obstacle to women's reproductive choices.
I bet Rep. John Adams is an MRA. And I bet he's against birth control and funding for social services and Medicaid for poor people with babies.
Perhaps he is in the wrong country.
Maybe they would do DNA testing only if some other guy showed up claiming he was the father and insisting that they test.
DNA testing on what? Unless you want to add DNA samples to every abortion file.
That, to me, is the most telling point one can make about this stupid legislation. I could have any man come with me to the courthouse and say it was him. The only way they could know is mandatory paternity tests, which would be like a more extreme version of mandatory ultrasounds before an abortion. i.e. a huge waste of money.
Haha, I love the troll thread. Make an argument (which I think is legit, discourse is good), but then rather than respond to counterarguments, just fall back on sarcasm and petty attacks. Nice.
Anyway, emails are all well and good, but I'm all about phoning. I did a lot of tobacco control, and I learned that a member of congress treats an email as the voice of one constituent, a letter as the voice of 10, and a phone call as 100. I always get nervous calling a stranger on the phone but it makes a way larger impact.
That being said, I've never done that to someone outside of my own state... so question... should I say which state I'm from, or should I tell a little while lie and say I'm from his congressional district in Ohio? What do others think?
Becca, thanks for this note about the efficacy of phone calls. Good to know.
I'm not even from the US, but if I was making the call I'd tell the little white lie because I get nervous on the phone as well and think it would probably be easier.
That being said, it would possibly have more impact if you were honest about your home state and appealed to him as an american woman, and that you care about this bill because you care about Ohioan(?) women- does he? It would let him know that this bill is not going unnoticed nationally.
Phone calls are definitely more effective. If you're nervous about talking to someone, call after hours. You can write down exactly what you want to say and just read it. Most politicians have voicemail, and having a staffer wade through 40 pro-choice messages first thing in the morning is a great way to start the day. :)
Calling or writing the chair of the committee is a great idea, and writing to pro-choice members of that committee is also grand. It gives you an opportunity to feed them information that they can relay during hearings.
are you saying that the troll is being petty or sarcastic, or the feminists? Because I have NO problem responding in a sarcastic way to someone who is NOT arguing in good faith, is coming to stir shit, and is bringing up arguments we have address 1 million times before and expecting us to educate and engage with them.
I think she was referring to the troll since he was the one who brought up the original argument. :) Also thanks to Becca for the tip about phone calls, I might just make one myself in the morning. I bear a bit of a grudge against Ohio anyway as one of their traffic patrol guys basically stalked me and finally found something to give me a ticket for - all for my Jersey plates. Grrrr
Oh, definitely the troll, sorry if that was unclear!!
no probs :)
it's just america and maybe canada that seems to have this, in europe and uk there isn't this. However the system has laws in place that disadvantage both sexes, and disputes in wage at senior level i believe have already been seen to in that the measures have been put into places that the generation that have and are graduating will be equal in power when they get to a senior level.
Any white, ignorant man is villified and in alot of cases rightly so, so the general consensus of the public is that this is wrong.
There is still much ignorance and discrimination of women in alot of eastern countries, but you dont have to put up with that so in comparison to their struggle yours is nitpicking.
How exactly is it "nitpicking" by attempting to stop yet ANOTHER restriction on the choices of women?
Regardless, half the outrage is what the bill implies -- that a man's will is somehow worth more than that of the woman carrying the child.
And frankly, I'm SICK of the "women in Eastern countries are more oppressed" argument. One culture does not trump another. If no one "nitpicks" then no progress is made.
Hey, if you go to the FAQs on Feministing you will be able to read about why they're writing about A when B is so much more important. FAQ is right here at the top of the page; how handy. All you have to do is read it. It is the last Q.
You can always find something worse happening to women somewhere else. This doesn't mean that we should stop trying to stop those who'd hurt women here.
Nitpicking would be getting angry that your manicurist didn't have the right color of pink.
Being outraged that a man introduced a bill to further reduce abortion rights and relegate women to the status of a child or adolescent is justified. Not nitpicking.
uh, the general consensus is NOT that this is wrong. Sexism in the US is rampant, and just because someone somewhere else has it harder doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for equality here, so fuck off with your concern trolling
To sum up: Other people's problems are worse. Quit your bitching.
*eyeroll*
Is this the same person who wrote on a different thread a few days ago that we shouldn't worry about the matter at hand (whatever it was) because we should be glad we don't live in a totalitarian country? Fuck that.
This thread makes me so proud to be a woman.
I wrote Mr. Adams an email letting him know that women, come to find out, are pretty smart and often know what's best for our bodies. It's a weird concept, and one that I thought was logical. Perhaps Mr. Adams will come around someday to that notion, too.
Agreed -- this thread prompted me to sign up and actually contribute (I've been lurking for quite some time now).
Hell yeah, it felt good to give a sexist government rep a piece of my mind. And I'll be doing it much more often. Thank you, Feministing community.
Hi,
obviously, that's a very bad idea for all sorts of reasons. That said, I've always wondered what possible ways to consider the father's (possible) interest/position would be compatible with a "woman's right to choose" from a feminist perspective?
basically, no. this is an area of the law where parity is not reasonable, because we are dealing with a women's right to control her body, and... men don't have any constitutional rights in that area. It's not not comparable, and really i don't think we need to make it "fair", whatever that could mean.
Because no matter what, a woman has a a right to control her body. That's simply the end of the discussion. Any "compromise" would be infringing on this fundamental right. And to take it out of child support, as some suggest, is not fair or right either. Child support is the right of a child, so a father cannot get out of this right either.
It's not also not fair that men ditch out on their children and shirk child support at a high rate compared to women... but that's just the way it works out. it's also not fair if i get a kidney disease and my neighbor, who is a perfect match, refuses to donate his kidney. but our laws protect our freedoms, and sometimes things don't turn out the way we'd like.
evann,
"That's simply the end of the discussion. Any "compromise" would be infringing on this fundamental right."
I do the logic of that argument. So the question is really, are there acceptable ways that would, say, for the lack of a better term, "moderate", the way that right is exercised? I mean, in case the father wants the child, his genetic heritage is affected, and in case he doesn't, he'll still be financially responsible. I think those are sufficiently important reasons to ask for some kind of consideration in the process, don't you think? I just really don't know what it could look like.
"Life's tough sometimes" somehow doesn't quite cut it for me here.
I'm saying "life's tough" because in some instances, like this one, there is no way to "moderate" these rights without limiting them. There just isn't, no one has come up with one.
And a man's finance's and his genetic heritage are not fundamental rights. they're interests, but they don't compare in any way to the rights of a child to receive support and the fundamental right of a woman to control her body. That's not my opinion, that's the law. Fundamental rights receive the strictest scrutiny. I'm not sure what level of a right child support is, but I know for a fact that it is a very respected right in the courts- "best interests of the child" is taken very seriously. financial interests and genetic heritage is just not a fundamental right, not a suspect class, nor a due process right. so yes, any time "finances" come in contact with a fundamental right, it's going to lose. period. that's the law. if you hate that, then argue with the supreme court.
evann,
no worries, won't take this to the Supreme Court ;). I'm just saying that this doesn't seem completely right to me, and if no one hasn't come up yet with a solution that is, with good faith, acceptable for everyone, then maybe we ought to think about this even harder. Thanks, though.
I know it's shitty to hear the "life's tough" argument, but in this instance, evann is right. There really is no way to explain it besides "too bad." Men can't get pregnant, so men don't have any say in the decision to abort since it will never be their bodily autonomy in question. Even though their genetic material is at stake, it is residing inside a woman's body, and it's up to her whether she wants to discard that genetic material. Once men can get pregnant, then they will have abortion rights.
If you still don't want to hear "life's tough," then imagine what it's like to have been born with the ability to bear children, then have hundreds of people without the ability to bear children create laws that decide under what circumstances you have the right to control your own body. That's pretty fucking "tough" if you ask me.
Then, imagine if this proposed law were to pass, and you got pregnant but didn't want it. You, as a legal adult, would not be able to have a safe, legal medical procedure without another person signing their name. Imagine how fucking awful that would be.
And in your comment lower down that says "maybe we ought to think about this even harder"... No, we don't need to think about this harder. There is nothing to think about. Woman is pregnant, man has no say about what happens to her body. None. Period.
great points! I just don't understand the whole "well we need to keep examining this issue" point of view- because basically, barring amazing medical technologies that can develop a fetus, there is a bright line. any LIMITS you plavce on my body are illegal. I get to decide whether or not to support a fetus. there's just no way to make allowances without a direct carving out of my rights.
You'll also note that this bill provides no support for women who are unable to obtain "permission" for an abortion. In no way are the men required to support them financially or to accept custody of the child once it is born.
I have long thought that it would be nice for there to be a provision for men who want to raise a child, but whose "partners" for lack of a better term do not, but are willing and able to carry the child to term. I could certainly see myself entering into a legal agreement whereby the biological father of my child was awarded sole custody after providing for all expenses related to the birth of the child. (Obviously, not all women would be willing to do this and it would depend on the circumstances. But I don't see why this sort of thing shouldn't be more common if men so truly and deeply long for fatherhood.)
Unfortunately all this bill does is give men another way to control women, and that's just sick.
Soooooo, does this mean he supports the expansion of welfare programs for single mothers and households with multiple children? You know, like free day care, food stamp increases, universal pre- and post- natal health care, universal health care for all children, free check ups for adults, etc?
And I'm guessing he never uses terms like "welfare queen" or rides on women who "keep having kids they can not provide for".
Seriously. I wonder if he believes in the concept of marital rape? Somehow I doubt it.
Seriously. People like Rep. Adams live in a fantasy world where as long as you wait until marriage to have sex, ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IN YOUR LIFE WILL BE PERFECT.
Just left a voicemail at Adams's office. This was basically what I said:
This is a message for Rep. Adams, regarding his support for House Bill 252, which would require a woman seeking an abortion to get written consent from the biological father.
I’m a rape survivor. Fortunately, I did not get pregnant from what happened to me, but I’ve thought many times about what I would have done if I had gotten pregnant. I can’t say for sure that I would’ve gotten an abortion, but I can say that having to jump through a hoop like the one you’re proposing would be one more thing that I don’t think I would’ve been able to do in the aftermath of this incredibly traumatic event in my life. Your bill would force me to get a permission slip from the man who destroyed my dignity and made me fear for my life.
I’m trying not to get angry. I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are acting from a place of genuine concern for families. But from where I sit, you have not thought through the implications of how your bill would affect women like me. I am begging you to think about this more, talk to women who have gotten abortions and find out what they were thinking. Don’t assume you know where they’re coming from. Or that you know what’s best for them. Thank you.
--
If you call, I highly recommend writing out your comments before, especially if you're prone to rambling, like me.
I wouldn't be too worried. It's already been declared unconstitutional to require a woman to notify her husband before obtaining an abortion. This isn't that different, so if it's even passed, it probably won't stand up to legal challenge.
Here's mine:
Rep. Adams,
Ordinarily I don't write to politicians because I am nearly convinced that these e-mails never actually get read. This time I feel compelled to try.
I read some information about House Bill 252, and I must tell you how vehemently I am opposed to it. By forcing women seeking abortions to obtain consent from their male sexual partners, the bill limits the autonomous decision making and free will of women. I am 21 years old. I am no longer required to have my mother sign a permission slip for me to go on a school field trip, and I would be loath to defer to any man to sign a permission slip for an abortion. The bill also explicitly punishes women who have multiple sexual partners and cannot verify the biological father, yet has no bearing on men who have sex with multiple women. This double standard reveals what this issue is actually about-- the controlling and policing of women's bodies.
While your reasoning may be that you "hope to keep the two people who have created that child together" (your words), this hope is idealistic and misguided. It is the women who must bear the physical burden of the pregnancy, and the men involved have no innate impetus to care for the child, and can essentially skip out if they feel so inclined. This situation enables men to punish women, and puts women entirely at the mercy of their whims, which I find profoundly repugnant and entirely unconstitutional.
In a time of economic depression and hardship, particularly in the Midwest, I urge you to put your clout to better use. Please serve the people, rather than seeking to limit their rights. May I suggest supporting our public schools and small businesses?
This legislation makes women jump through so many hoops that it would be impossible if she had to do all of this. If a woman did sleep with a few different guys or even two in a short period of time, got pregnant, this bill makes it HER responsibility to get a paternity test (so she doesn't get charged with a felony or a fine). How long does that take? How much money does that cost? The man has to agree to the test (or would this be a forced procedure like the requirements are forced on the woman?) and has to get it done in a relatively short amount of time, since this is a time-sensitive procedure. If he does decide to sign off on it, *allowing* her to get this done.
A woman is punished for having sex, but what happens to the man? He gets more rights. A woman is ultimately responsible for her birth control methods. She is responsible for her health while she is pregnant, if she decides to stay pregnant. She suffers the potential risks of being pregnant. She can possibly lose out on an income if she does have ANY complications, and assuming she may be low-income, not many jobs will allow you to miss to many days of work if you're sick and in pain during the pregnancy, even if they do offer some leave after the birth. This is all assuming she has insurance and transportation and disposable income for those missed days off work, etc.
There are some great fathers out there and great men who would love a family and love a child. But they don't have the responsibilities that women have in making this all happen. Where in this legislation does the man get punished or fined for not wearing a condom? Where does it condemn him for not being abstinent? Where are the requirements for him to pay for all of this or a fine if he's not timely with signing a consent form? It doesn't say any of that because women bear the responsibility and the blame and punishment for sex and children in this society.
This is wrong on so many levels I can't even write it all out.
We all know "Ohio Right to Life" supports this bill, which I find quite interesting. Their website clearly indicates their position on abortion (murder, violent death of pre-born, yada, yada, yada), but in supporting this bill, apparently if the MAN says to abort, it's no longer murder! Not so interested in saving that fetus anymore, aye? ROFLMFAO!!
As I said above, their intent (& Adams') is to pass the bill, which will quickly be challenged, and (in their wildest dreams) the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade.
I really, really wish other people would stay the hell out of my uterus! Get your own & keep your laws off my body.