Proposed Legislation In Ohio Would Require Women To Get A Man's Permission To Have An Abortion

[ThomCat]

http://consumerist.com/consumer/privacy/proposed-legislation-in-ohio-would-require-women-to-get-a-mans-permission-to-have-an-abortion-285381.php

:wtf:

.....

New proposed legislation in Ohio would make it illegal for a woman to get an abortion without a man's permission, according to the Record-Courier.

Not knowing who the father of the fetus is couldn't be used as an excuse under the new law. Women would have to provide a list of potential fathers who would then be required to submit themselves to paternity testing until a father is found. It would also make it illegal for a man who isn't the father to provide the permission.

What about rape or incest? A woman seeking an abortion would have to provide "reasonable cause" for the doctor to believe the rape of incest occurred, which, in our estimation, would probably mean police reports and charges filed.

Talk about the government getting all up in your private business. Proponents of the bill are saying it's a "men's rights" issue, but fail to mention a man's right not to be subjected to random paternity tests. This is real life, not the effing Maury Povich show.

[gollygee]

1. I wonder how many desperate women will file false rape reports?

My understanding is that at one point, generally the only way a young woman could "convince" a doctor that she really needed an abortion was to give him sexual services.

[ThomCat]

4. Given that filing a false report is a crime

and given that women get a hell of a lot more scrutiny and abuse from the legal system than accused rapists, I'd bet the number will be pretty low.

[Faygo Kid]

2. Un-con-sti-tu-tion-al

The right to make that decision belongs to the woman alone. Period. Unless the new Court gets their hands on it. Still, Constitutional rights inure to the individual.

[ThomCat]

6. You seem to have a lot of faith in the courts.

Given the current 5-to-4 split on the court I don't think we can count on them to judge fairly whether this is constitutional. They'll find a rationale for approving it.

[Faygo Kid]

27. You must have missed the part, "Unless the new court gets its hands on it."

It's clearly unconstitutional, but I agree that the 5-4 fascist court might very well call it constitutional. Tough one even for them. Believe me, I have no faith in anything anymore, not since this madman became president.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Katherine Brengle]

5. The graphic in your sig pretty much sums up how I feel about this.

And as I said in the other thread:

Fuck patriarchy.

[NashVegas]

7. If Enough Women Named, Say, 30 Potential Fathers ....

Imagine the cost of paternity tests. Bye bye bill.

[mondo joe]

8. And imagine if every list of 30 included the governor.

Hm.

[Lars39]

10. And every legislator that sponsored and voted for this bill.

[ThomCat]

9. But she'd have to pay for the paternity tests.

How many women could afford that? And how would that defeat this bill?

[NashVegas]

12. I'm Not Seeing That

In the text.

Regardless, it's an undue burden.

[ThomCat]

13. It's not stated,

But it specifically does not state that that the guy has to pay for it. The doctor sure as hell isn't going to do it for free. It doesn't say that the state will pay for it. So that means the woman would be forced to foot the bill.

[NashVegas]

17. That's Assuming .. and There's No Way It Would Stand

undue burden

[ThomCat]

18. But unless you can find a different source

of funding in there anyplace, it's the only assumption you can reasonably make.

But I agree, it's one more reason why this bill will almost certainly get shot down, and would not withstand judicial review.

[NashVegas]

16. self-delete

wrong place

[KaptBunnyPants]

11. Wow, forced socialized paternity testing.

We can't give lunches to poor kids without some conservatard screaming about Marxism, but figure out a way to tie it into abortion and the freepers line up. So, does the man now owe the woman a fee for carrying "his" child? This law implies some sort of possession of the developing fetus by the man, so unless the woman is paid for this involuntary service I don't see how is could be called anything but slavery.

[ThomCat]

14. Except, it doesn't say that the testing is socialized.

Nowhere does it say that the state pays for any of this. The cost, apparently, still falls 100% upon the woman.

[gollygee]

15. I think you're probably right

If she wants an abortion, in order to be allowed, she'll have to jump through hoops, and that will be one of them. If it's her responsibility to jump through the hoops, either she'll pay or she won't get an abortion.

[hannah]

19. good misdirection

nt

[ThomCat]

21. Could you clarify what you mean?

:shrug:

[Beaverhausen]

20. this is fucked up

that's all I have to say.

[Bluebear]

22. Fine. Any Ohio women, call me. We had a 'night of passion' (wink) & I will sign whatever I need to.

Be well and do what you need to do, it's not my or the government's or Pat Robertson's business.

[cap]

23. worse than that... it sets precedent that a man can dictate a woman's actions

that's why the abortion law is sooo important. It's the precedents applied in other spheres.

[ThomCat]

24. Absolutely!

Which is why sustaining choice needs to be a cornerstone of the civil rights movement.

[Ilsa]

25. Sure. Let's line all the Ohio men up and take their DNA to place on

record. And maybe i will come in handy for a few other ID's as well. :sarcasm:

[ThomCat]

26. I had not thought of that, but it's a good concern.

This would provide an oportunity too good to pass up. Every woman who wanted an abortion, and every guy that got paternity tested would end up in a database somewhere.

[gravity]

28. Well if the man denies the abortion, he should assume full custody and financial resposibility

That should stop 99% of the cases.

But seriously, I can't imagine that this will ever get passed since it is totally absurd, but it just shows you how crazy some of our representatives are.

[ThomCat]

29. Agreed. Any guy who refused to approve an abortion

should automatically be assuming financial responsibility for the woman's healthcare costs during the pregnancy and delibery, and should be automatically assuming financial responsibility for the child.

I don't think this has any chance of becoming law, but I think the supporters for this B.S. should write some real consequences for the men into their absurd bills.

[salin]

30. and a man who doesn't give permission, who turns out not to be the father?

and when - in the legal time for an abortion - a father is not found?

Okay, perhaps nonthinking folks will accept this on face value - start throwing scenarios out that point out all of the ridiculous, and frightening ends - and most folks will turn against this, even folks who want to restrict abortion.

Other unintended consequences - all men said to be "suspected" are required to submit to a test... okay - I can play this game - I would just name a whole lot of rich politically connected rich men - and whether or not there is any grounds, those individuals have to go get a blood test... with the accusation of the potential that the person named might be the father... there is plenty of havoc to be made from intentional, false naming of potential fathers.

I don't focus on the fathers because I sympathize more with the men in these situations - but pointing out a very exploitable hole (per bad consequences) that might be more effective than pointing out the myriad of problems of such a law for women. Sad, that as a woman, that I find arguments to scare male voters to be more likely to prevent such a bill from passing. But over the years I have come to conclude that if the "scare tactic" of the worst case scenario is framed towards males it seems to have more of a universal rejection factor. Sad social commentary :-(