Proposed Bill Would Require Women To Ask Men's Permission To Have An Abortion

LJ_Reloaded

バクスター の
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Posts
21,217
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/17/missouri-abortion-bill_n_6342282.html

A bill proposed by a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri would require a woman seeking an abortion to obtain notarized consent from the baby's father, even if he is physically abusive toward her.

The bill's sponsor, State Rep. Rick Brattin, told Mother Jones that while the bill has exceptions for rape victims and to protect the life of the mother, women in domestic violence situations are not exempt from having to ask the father's permission. "What does that have to do with the child's life?" Brattin said. "Just because it was an abusive relationship, does that mean the child should die?"

In explaining the bill to Mother Jones, Brattin channeled Todd Akin, the former Republican congressman from Missouri who, during a failed 2012 Senate bid, said that women who are victims of "legitimate rape" have mechanisms in their bodies that prevent them from getting pregnant. Brattin said his bill would require a woman to be able to prove that a "legitimate rape" happened in order to avoid having to ask for a man's consent for the abortion.

"Just like any rape, you have to report it, and you have to prove it," said Brattin. "So you couldn't just go and say, 'Oh yeah, I was raped,' and get an abortion. It has to be a legitimate rape."

Brattin introduced the bill on December 3 for the next legislative session, but it has not moved yet in the Missouri House. He said he was inspired to change the laws around abortion consent because he was required to obtain his wife's consent before having a vasectomy.
BULLSHIT ALERT
Mind you there are a lot of cases of institutionalized discrimination against men. For instance male victims of rape are punished with child support if the rapist has a baby. Most states say the husband must pay for the wife's infidelity if it results in a baby. Men who are victims of violence get arrested by cops because of primary aggressor laws which say in any abuse situation it's the man's fault.

But this claim that a husband HAS to obtain his wife's consent before getting a vasectomy

is bullshit.

I didn't just go on HuffPo's word. I checked, and checked, and called, and called, and there is no actual law in Missouri that requires this. What happens is physicians ASK the husband to get a note from their wife

which is bad enough, mind you

but it's not a law.

And nowhere, under any circumstances, is it my policy to endorse a revenge law that slaps bullshit restrictions upon women to get back at bullshit restrictions put on men. It's my policy to advocate for the abolishment of laws that infringe upon the legitimate freedoms of men.

That is to say if there was some law requiring men to get permission from their wives for a vasectomy, my response is not to do the childish shit that Rick the Brat did, but rather, to abolish the law requiring the wife's permission for a vasectomy.

BUT THEN THERE'S NO FUCKING LAW REQUIRING A WIFE'S PERMISSION FOR A VASECTOMY

BUT YET REPUBLICANS DON'T CARE THEY'RE JUST DRINKING THIS IDIOT KOOL AID ANYWAY

IT'S OBAMAPHONES ALL OVER AGAIN BUT FOR WOMEN
 
Here's the relevant section of the bill:

13. No abortion shall be performed or induced unless and until the father of the
206 unborn child provides written, notarized consent to the abortion, except in cases in which
207 the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced was the victim of rape
208 or incest and the pregnancy resulted from the rape or incest. If the father of the unborn
209 child is deceased, the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced shall
210 sign a notarized affidavit attesting to the fact. No physician shall perform or induce an
211 abortion unless and until the physician has obtained the written consent required in this
212 subsection. The physician shall retain a copy of the consent or affidavit in the patient’s
213 medical record.

Basically, if the husband (or boyfriend) is abusive to his wife (or girlfriend) he still has the ability to prevent the woman from having an abortion.

Plus, we all know how frequently women report rapes.

So yeah this is a bad bill. Because it places another hurdle for women to clear in order to get a completely legal medical procedure.

You would understand this if you weren't a complete and total coward.
 
This is definitely a bad idea. It's as bad as requiring a girl to have consent from her parents before getting an abortion. In either case, if the pregnant female has a decent relationship with her husband or parents, they will discuss it and come to a decision. The only thing either of these ideas would do is force women and girls to have children they don't want. :eek:
 
Here's the relevant section of the bill:

13. No abortion shall be performed or induced unless and until the father of the
206 unborn child provides written, notarized consent to the abortion, except in cases in which
207 the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced was the victim of rape
208 or incest and the pregnancy resulted from the rape or incest. If the father of the unborn
209 child is deceased, the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced shall
210 sign a notarized affidavit attesting to the fact. No physician shall perform or induce an
211 abortion unless and until the physician has obtained the written consent required in this
212 subsection. The physician shall retain a copy of the consent or affidavit in the patient’s
213 medical record.

Basically, if the husband (or boyfriend) is abusive to his wife (or girlfriend) he still has the ability to prevent the woman from having an abortion.

Plus, we all know how frequently women report rapes.

So yeah this is a bad bill. Because it places another hurdle for women to clear in order to get a completely legal medical procedure.

You would understand this if you weren't a complete and total coward.

so essentially LT took a horrible law for women and turned it around and made men out to be the victims because some doctors ask for a note?
 
so essentially LT took a horrible law for women and turned it around and made men out to be the victims because some doctors ask for a note?
You've got the worst reading comprehension problems of any oxygen-thieves guild member that has ever stolen oxygen for their own fraudulent use in the history of oxygen thieves ever.
 
You've got the worst reading comprehension problems of any oxygen-thieves guild member that has ever stolen oxygen for their own fraudulent use in the history of oxygen thieves ever.

so you didnt say


But this claim that a husband HAS to obtain his wife's consent before getting a vasectomy

is bullshit.


despite the law being nothing about it?

or

I didn't just go on HuffPo's word. I checked, and checked, and called, and called, and there is no actual law in Missouri that requires this. What happens is physicians ASK the husband to get a note from their wife

which is bad enough, mind you

but it's not a law.

which you then admit it has nothing to do with the law.. but you keep talking about it as if it's somehow relevant.. and never once mention the actual law?

And nowhere, under any circumstances, is it my policy to endorse a revenge law that slaps bullshit restrictions upon women to get back at bullshit restrictions put on men. It's my policy to advocate for the abolishment of laws that infringe upon the legitimate freedoms of men.

see what I mean? literally nothing you just posted has anything to do with the law.. just how men could have been victims to this law.. but werent

That is to say if there was some law requiring men to get permission from their wives for a vasectomy, my response is not to do the childish shit that Rick the Brat did, but rather, to abolish the law requiring the wife's permission for a vasectomy.


which is entirely irrelevant to the law.. in fact has absolutely nothing to do with the law.. just your outrage over something that was proven false.. and yet you still have no anger over what is in the law.. just over what could have been in the law

my comprehension is fine... but you have literally said nothing relevant to the law except how it theoritically could have affected men... and said nothing about how it actually affects women

so yes.. you made a thread about how men were the victims .. to a law... that doesnt do anything to them
 
so you didnt say





despite the law being nothing about it?
You didn't read this part in the actual story which was printed right here in the OP did you?

He said he was inspired to change the laws around abortion consent because he was required to obtain his wife's consent before having a vasectomy.
You missed that part, didn't ya?

In short, this saying applies to you:
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • tumblr_inline_ngumryQ8Dp1s2ww1d.jpg
    tumblr_inline_ngumryQ8Dp1s2ww1d.jpg
    48.5 KB · Views: 59
You didn't read this part in the actual story which was printed right here in the OP did you?


You missed that part, didn't ya?

In short, this saying applies to you:
attachment.php

I did... but then you went on to discuss something completely unrelated to the law...in an attempt to garner sympathy for a problem for men ( that apparently doesnt exist even by your own admission).. and you literally never mention women again in the context of the actual law

if you want to discuss the law.. discuss it

not diminish it by getting us to empathisize with a problem that doesnt exist
 
His point, that like most points, you failed to grasp was that the impetus for the law was flawed, and even if not flawed, he still would not support the law because "they did bullshit to us" is not a valid reason for legislating.
 
Of course it should require both parties consent. Of course, it should also require the unborn child's consent, which of course is impossible so it should simply be illegal.
 
I did... but then you went on to discuss something completely unrelated to the law...
That something was A PART OF THE ARTICLE. I am discussing THE MISCONCEPTION THAT DROVE THE REPIG DUDE TO WRITE THIS LAW.

Does this register at all inside your pea sized brain?
 
His point, that like most points, you failed to grasp was that the impetus for the law was flawed, and even if not flawed, he still would not support the law because "they did bullshit to us" is not a valid reason for legislating.
That's what I'm trying to explain to her. Fucking ay.
 
so essentially LT took a horrible law for women and turned it around and made men out to be the victims because some doctors ask for a note?

Yup. He thinks it's "easy" to get something like that signed. Like it's a fucking permission slip to go to the museum. I'd say he's being willfully ignorant but we both know he's a fucking moron.
 
then why was your post almost entirely about vasectomies
Because I was MOCKING the dude's REASON for coming up with the abortion law.

You should read what query said about my post, he nailed it in one.

1) Rick "the Brat" Brattin was wrong when he said men are required to get their wife's permission for a vasectomy
2) So his entire justification for this abortion law was factually wrong
3) But even if his premise was not factually wrong, it's insane to fire off a law to oppress women in response to a law that oppresses men, if it were to exist (and in this case it doesn't exist). The sane response is to repeal the law that oppresses men. This is why I have spoken out in favor of things like abolishing the draft rather than including women.

I clearly said all of that in the OP.

I was bashing the holy shit out of tradcon Republicans whom I despise on a cellular level as much as I despise radical feminists. Both of y'all are a huge threat to equality and individual liberty.
 
Because I was MOCKING the dude's REASON for coming up with the abortion law.

You should read what query said about my post, he nailed it in one.

1) Rick "the Brat" Brattin was wrong when he said men are required to get their wife's permission for a vasectomy
2) So his entire justification for this abortion law was factually wrong


except for the part you never actually mentioned the abortion law.. you cut and pasted something about it.. and then went on and on about vasectomies

3) But even if his premise was not factually wrong, it's insane to fire off a law to oppress women in response to a law that oppresses men, if it were to exist (and in this case it doesn't exist).

which shows my point.. you were still more concerned about how this law could have affected men... then as to how it actually affects women


The sane response is to repeal the law that oppresses men. This is why I have spoken out in favor of things like abolishing the draft rather than including women.





I clearly said all of that in the OP.

no, you clearly did not

you clearly were talking about how bad this law could have affected men

how it actually affects women...is never mentioned

I was bashing the holy shit out of tradcon Republicans whom I despise on a cellular level as much as I despise radical feminists. Both of y'all are a huge threat to equality and individual liberty.

but still didnt actually comment on the actual law itself.. just how it could have affected men


and you still havent.. just how its bad for men.. therefore its bad for women..mansplaining at it's finest
 
except for the part you never actually mentioned the abortion law.. you cut and pasted something about it.. and then went on and on about vasectomies
Ummm I mentioned it in the title. I quoted it in the article. I also addressed it right here in my own commentary:

And nowhere, under any circumstances, is it my policy to endorse a revenge law that slaps bullshit restrictions upon women to get back at bullshit restrictions put on men. It's my policy to advocate for the abolishment of laws that infringe upon the legitimate freedoms of men.
You do understand what I was referring to when I said "a revenge law that slaps bullshit restrictions upon women", right?

For God's sake, woman, tell me you at least read and comprehended that part.

You fucking failed Spanish Inquisitor.
 
Ummm I mentioned it in the title. I quoted it in the article. I also addressed it right here in my own commentary:

so why didnt you mention it again until i took exception with what you said


You do understand what I was referring to when I said "a revenge law that slaps bullshit restrictions upon women", right?

yes I also know what you mean when you said

Mind you there are a lot of cases of institutionalized discrimination against men. For instance male victims of rape are punished with child support if the rapist has a baby. Most states say the husband must pay for the wife's infidelity if it results in a baby. Men who are victims of violence get arrested by cops because of primary aggressor laws which say in any abuse situation it's the man's fault.


( which has what to do with the law exactly?

But this claim that a husband HAS to obtain his wife's consent before getting a vasectomy

is bullshit.

I didn't just go on HuffPo's word. I checked, and checked, and called, and called, and there is no actual law in Missouri that requires this. What happens is physicians ASK the husband to get a note from their wife

which is bad enough, mind you

but it's not a law.

And nowhere, under any circumstances, is it my policy to endorse a revenge law that slaps bullshit restrictions upon women to get back at bullshit restrictions put on men. It's my policy to advocate for the abolishment of laws that infringe upon the legitimate freedoms of men.


so yes.. you were literally telling us it was how you felt this law could have affected men


For God's sake, woman, tell me you at least read and comprehended that part.

You fucking failed Spanish Inquisitor.


I read it.. you're just trying to avoid confronting what you said
 
so why didnt you mention it again until i took exception with what you said
Did I really have to mention it over and over again? Ah yes, I did, because you have a painfully short memory or attention span, or both.

I should really have to say something once for it to stick. If I ever said "revoke women's right to vote" (in which case you know my account was hacked) I'd not have to say it twice.

yes I also know what you mean when you said
Yes, we know you cannot understand the context of a comment. You've already shown you completely lost track of the fact that I commented on the abortion law thing and that the law was MOTIVATED by the non-existent vasectomy law

For God's sake you are seriously broken. Like Made-in-China broken.
 
BULLSHIT ALERT
Mind you there are a lot of cases of institutionalized discrimination against men. For instance male victims of rape are punished with child support if the rapist has a baby. Most states say the husband must pay for the wife's infidelity if it results in a baby. Men who are victims of violence get arrested by cops because of primary aggressor laws which say in any abuse situation it's the man's fault.

But this claim that a husband HAS to obtain his wife's consent before getting a vasectomy

is bullshit.

I didn't just go on HuffPo's word. I checked, and checked, and called, and called, and there is no actual law in Missouri that requires this. What happens is physicians ASK the husband to get a note from their wife

which is bad enough, mind you

but it's not a law.

And nowhere, under any circumstances, is it my policy to endorse a revenge law that slaps bullshit restrictions upon women to get back at bullshit restrictions put on men. It's my policy to advocate for the abolishment of laws that infringe upon the legitimate freedoms of men.

That is to say if there was some law requiring men to get permission from their wives for a vasectomy, my response is not to do the childish shit that Rick the Brat did, but rather, to abolish the law requiring the wife's permission for a vasectomy.

BUT THEN THERE'S NO FUCKING LAW REQUIRING A WIFE'S PERMISSION FOR A VASECTOMY

BUT YET REPUBLICANS DON'T CARE THEY'RE JUST DRINKING THIS IDIOT KOOL AID ANYWAY

IT'S OBAMAPHONES ALL OVER AGAIN BUT FOR WOMEN

the word abortion does not appear once in any of this
 
Back
Top