Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Ohio Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion: What Century Are We In?

Ohio Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion: What Century Are We In?

COLUMBUS, Ohio — An Ohio lawmaker has introduced a bill that would prevent a woman from having an abortion unless she gets written consent from the biological father.

The proposal by State Rep. John Adams, R-Sidney, has stirred up controversy across the nation, 10TV's Kevin Landers reported.

"What does the father have to say in the abortion of his child? He has nothing to say (under current law)," Adams told 10TV News.

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.

"That child should be born, not killed," Adams said.

The proposal has created a fire storm among pro-choice advocates.

Pro-Choice Ohio issued a statement saying Adams' bill is "completely out of touch with Ohio's mainstream values. The measure is a clear attack on a woman's freedom and privacy.... It does absolutely nothing to reduce the need for abortion."

The group Feminists for Choice released a statement saying "...this is ridiculous. It's just another mechanism for demonizing and isolating women who have sex."

Planned Parenthood vows to fight the legislation if it becomes law.

"It would require written informed consent of the potential father," Gary Daugherty, executive director of Planned Parenthood of Ohio, told 10TV News. "The (U.S.) Supreme Court has already spoken on the issue. It is clearly unconstitutional."

Adams' bill is not considered likely to gain approval in the Democratic-controlled House.

Watch 10TV News and refresh for additional information.

Ohio legislator's bill requires man's permission for abortion

by: Pam Spaulding

Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:00:00 AM EDT

Damn. This lunacy is as bad as those bills declaring fetal personhood. A Republican state legislator John Adams of Sidney, has submitted a bill that would require a woman to obtain the permission of the man who impregnated her before she could receive abortion services. The language of the bill is beyond insane.

As written, the bill would ban women from seeking an abortion without written consent from the father of the fetus. In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would be required to submit a list of possible fathers. The physician would be forced to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort. Claiming to not know the father's identity is not a viable excuse, according to the proposed legislation. Simply put: no father means no abortion.

...With the proposal, men would be guaranteed that voice under penalty of law. First time violators would by tried for abortion fraud, a first degree misdemeanor. The same would be the case for men who falsely claim to be fathers and for medical workers who knowingly perform an abortion without paternal consent.

In addition, women would be required to present a police report in order to prove a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

So otherwise, a rape survivor would need to find her rapist and see if he's willing to sign off on the whole deal. Jesus H. Christ.

"This extreme bill shows just how far some of our state legislators are willing to go to rally a far-right base that is frustrated with the pro-choice gains made in the last election," said NARAL Pro-choice Ohio executive director Kellie Copeland. "It is completely out of touch with Ohio's mainstream values. This measure is a clear attack on a woman's freedom and privacy."

AJ at Feminists for Choice:

I’ve said this time and time again. If men were the ones that got pregnant and had to carry a child for 9 months, abortion procedures would be safe, legal, accessible, and fully funded. This bill simply goes to prove that sentiment. It is a slippery slope decision that seeks to deny women autonomy and control over their own bodies. And here’s the kicker: if you don’t know who the father is, you will be denied abortion services. Because you know, those slutty sex demons should be punished for their lack of purity with a forced pregnancy. This is just ridiculous. It’s yet another mechanism for demonizing and isolating women who have sex. The message here is pretty damn clear, if you have sex and don’t know the father, pregnancy is your punishment. Is it just me, or is using a baby to punish a woman flat out un-ethical?

Do your part and get involved. If you are as outraged as I am about this proposed legislation, contact Republican John Adams, and let him know how you feel. Regardless of whether or not you are able to change his mind, at least let him know what a giant douchebag he is.

On my Facebook page, Blender Terri said:

"contact republican john adams and let him know how you feel."

Even if I could produce a turd that large, I doubt fed ex would let me ship it to his office.

Posted by jeannesager on July 20th, 2009 at 9:30 am

Ohio Law Would Give Men Final Decision in Abortion

A Republican lawmaker in Ohio has re-introduced a bill that would give a man the final choice on whether the woman he got pregnant could have an abortion.

Dubbed the “father’s right bill,” it would give the man the right to stand up and say he doesn’t want the fetus he contributed DNA to to be aborted. But it says nothing about then forcing him to be a good father or provide financial stability.

So yeah, way to go Ohio, if this bill makes it through to law, you won’t just be pulling a woman’s right to choose what happens to her own body (be it having to go through pregnancy or not), but you’ll be sticking a mother with everything that comes with pregnancy and putting none of it on the guy. Woohoo - score another one for progress.

OK, sarcasm done with.

I’m sure this will be met with a fair amount of “Oh, but now she can give the child up for adoption, so why should the guy be held responsible?”

Because that’s not actually what’s behind the bill (again, a bill, not a law). Its sponsor, Rep. John Adams (who has reintroduced a bill first put forth in 2007), has stated publiclythat this is an attempt to “keep the two people who have created that child together.” In other words - he’s trying to force a family unit out of pregnancy rather than the other way around. He’s not aiming for adoption, he’s aiming for one big happy.

And realistically, that isn’t the way the world works. If it did - how do we account for all of the divorced parents out there? According to most studies, children don’t keep people together (the most oft-repeated stat figures half of all of America’s children will see their parents divorce at least once).

Throw in the fact that Adams’ plan would prohibit an abortion in cases where mothers don’t know the identity of the father (and bringing forth a fake would carry jail time), and I’m still trying to see how this could possibly be anything but punishment for the women involved. There’s a clear message here of “you made your bed, now lie in it.” But it’s focused solely on the woman, who has a federally protected right to make a brand new bed, and again lets men off scot free.

This isn’t about babies or fetuses, folks. It’s about a return to the patriarchal order where men are handed the right to dictate the way a woman can live her life, and she’s stuck with it.

Related Posts:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Fair Use Notice: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.