Ohio HB 287: "NOW's the time for dad's rights"

An excerpt from this really well written article:

"Kim Gandy, president of NOW, had this to say about 287: "If a woman wishes to include a man in her decision about whether or not to continue a pregnancy, she may do so. But the state cannot mandate that she do so."

I've always found it to be curious that feminists are fully in favor of State interventions into private/family life when it suits their ideology - VAWA, the DV Industry,the Family Courts, etc.

But when a "woman's right to choose" is at issue, the State suddenly becomes part of the Evil Patriarchy.

The State currently mandates that men have no legal rights in reproductive choice.

And, the State can UN-mandate that, should enough pressure for reform be brought to bear on the manginas in Congress.

Kim Gandy really pushes my buttons because she is such an illogical opportunist lacking any sense of integrity, masquerading as a gender freedom fighter.

More than any other largely fictional organization,(try to get them to publish their actual membership figures), NOW has defined gender equality as a zero-sum contest with prescribed winners and losers.

That is the very opposite of equality of opportunity; but NOW does not seem to notice this trivial philosophical matter.

I'd love to hear how a legal-minded person interprets this.

A few thoughts...

"(C)(1) A pregnant woman seeking to abort her pregnancy shall provide, in writing, the identity of the father of the fetus to the person who is to perform or induce the abortion."

Snicker, yeah right, I can see it now. "Uh, I dunno, some guy named Hank who I fucked one night drunk in the back of his pickup. I think he has a tatoo."

This...
" (G) It is not a defense to a violation of division (B)(1) or (2) or (C)(2) of this section that the woman does not know the identity of the father of the fetus. "

...while well-intentioned, will really do no good whatsoever if/when the little slutbags actually don't know who the father is.

Bearing this in mind...

"(J) Whoever violates this section is guilty of abortion fraud, a misdemeanor of the first degree."

...then getting pregnant while fucking a complete stranger while drunk (unless you get ID) will be a misdemeanor. This will never fly.
Also, what is the punishment for a misdemeanor? $50 fine? 3 hrs of community service?
I love the term 'abortion fraud'.

The principle alone is worthwhile, even if there are flaws.

Roy has picked out the Gandy quote: "If a woman wishes to include a man in her decision about whether or not to continue a pregnancy, she may do so. But the state cannot mandate that she do so."

I stalled at that point too. What a supercilious, arrogant, patronising sexist concept: that a woman may condescend to include a man (who just happens to be the prospective father) in HER decision making...

But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Might that prospective father also, without the state mandating him to do so, choose to include "a" pregnant woman in his decion as to whether he will acknowledge the child as his own, and whether he will choose to pay 18 years of child support to her? And if not, why not?

It's a great article that neatly dismantles all the prejudice, hypocrisy and double-talk under which the likes of Gandy have tried to bury this issue for too long. Get down to the bare facts and see what you have: an utterly one-sided, unfair, unprincipled, unjustifiable piece of gender bigotry whose time should be called right now.

Civilisation: man's greatest, and most unappreciated, gift to women

"...then getting pregnant while fucking a complete stranger while drunk (unless you get ID) will be a misdemeanor. This will never fly."

Given that this is already a crime for men, where they will be forced to pay an undisclosed sum of money should pregnancy occur; I'm fine with this. Let women have at least a little responsibility...

On the downside, though, I could see rape allegations going up as a result of this.

"I'm fine with this. Let women have at least a little responsibility..."

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with it, too. I just think its going to be tough enough to get this bill passed.

Personally, I think it would be appropriate to give the father the option of suing for (the fetus equivalent of) wrongful death if the woman commits abortion fraud.

That would nullify any 'my body, my choice' arguments. Her body would not be on the line, just her pocket book.

You are completely right that this idea is currently unenforceable legally.

It would require that a woman sign an affadavit identifying every donor of sperm that she accommodated during the period of time that she was possibly getting pregnant; and then mandatory DNA tests for all the dudes who "got lucky." (Try finding them, because she never got their addresses while screwing them at the club....)

In the event that the potential daddy is ever identified with DNA evidence, she will already be too far along in her pregnancy to opt for an abortion.

All her attorney would have to do is ask the court for one more "continuance," and she's dilated at ten centimeters and the father is on the hook for 18 years of child support.

Reliable male birth control. The only real answer.

"requires a pregnant woman to get the consent of the baby's father in order to obtain an abortion"

- simply because, if this were to be "true" or legal, it would immediately open the door for a nearly identicle scenario - that being ..."requires a prenant woman to get the consent of the baby's father in order to proceed with the full term of the child".

We can't have that. Not when women are free to abduct and entrap today by withholding information or deceiving their partner in to believing they cannot become pregnant. There is good money in that behavior.

oregon dad

She doesn't need an excuse to delay, she already has the right to carry the baby to term on the daddy's dime.
If she goes for the abortion without finding daddy first, then she is in violation and would be committing abortion fraud. I believe this will be deemed 'cruel' and thus, won't fly.

If would-be mommies face a civil suit, I'll bet they find daddy quick enough.

I'm so glad that some people agree with what I said. I'm pro-choice, but I believe the choice should be both the parents', seeing that it affects both parents. Giving only the woman the option is truly supremist. Imagine if the situation were reversed, and only the father could choose if the baby lives or dies. People would be outraged! Well, some are also outraged at giving just the woman the choice. I really hope this bill passes. It would be a huge step in the right direction, though there are some wrinkles that need to be ironed out, as you guys pointed out.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

While I do agree that a prospective father should have some say whether or not his partner gets an abortion, I don't think this will be practical to enforce. As some have already pointed out, what if the woman does honestly not know the identity of the father and has no way of finding out (i.e. a drunk one night stand)? What if there is more than one potential father? What's to stop a woman from getting one of her male friends to claim they had sex, and that the baby is his and he gives his consent so she can get her abortion?

If a woman cares more about becoming not pregnant than the wants of the prospective father, why then would she not claim she was raped by him?

Let's say that a woman wants an abortion and the father doesn't. The father is identified, no rape claim is made, but she doesn't want to be pregnant, nonetheless. It seems to me that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she may not make the best life style choices for the baby. She may start drinking more, smoking more, falling down stairs more, etc. and nobody can stop her. These could all result in miscarriage/birth defects/etc. I could see this happening as a means of revenge to the father for making her stay pregnant. Or, what's to stop her from running off to another state and having an abortion, and then claiming miscarriage?

is Ohio is one of the many states where a married man must get permission from his master (wife) to get a vasectomy? these "permission" laws are recent additions to the feminist arsenal of abusive laws. i understand that these legislature/lawyer minions, weak kneed as they are, are totally whupped; but, surely they didn't insist laws be passed to give women control of their balls (even though they don't need to reproduce imho).

why is this never mentioned when the discussion gets on abortion? her body, her decision. his body, her decision too?

i am totally suprised amerikan men don't have to wear dog punishment collars now. don't give the masters any ideas, right? maybe once the "it" gets in office. they will have to have several colors to match their metro-outfits. hey, if they don't care about their balls or having equal rights to their kids, why should a collar be an issue? maybe they could look like ties to save face, if they any left.

That point has been brought up a couple times in our discussions on abortion. One of the articles posted on this site dealt with male post abortion syndrome. It wasn't long until that point about vasectomies was made.

I think it's ridiculous that in some states men need their wives' permission to get the procedure done. Like u said, they're his balls, so why should his wife have any say in it? Just like conversely, if his wife got pregnant, he would have no say in what she did with the child. I say his body, his choice!

A double standard as ridiculous as men needing permission from their wives to get a vasectomy, while the wives can kill their children without so much as even telling them, deserves to die a quick painful death.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

i'm fairly sure all the states around me require it, except Ga.

i have had my posts erased almost everywhere i mention this, but here.

we were talking about this and male birth control (MBC) at work when some guy called me a liar when i brought it up, and two guys listening corrected him, from experience. everyone there (even women) were appalled. but then the excuses began. never fails. well women need thisz and that. PATHETIC.

if no one knows about them and yet when they find out are appalled, who the heck wanted them passed? even more important, who pushed to have them passed? even more important, why did not one (so called) man complain as they were being passed?

it seems that most men haven't a clue what laws are being enacted against them every day. and these half men in office will do whatever NOW wants.
if they will make laws about their own balls they will bend over anytime, and do.

I googled for any law regarding permission from a spouse or partner prior to a vasectomy. there may be individual clinics that have a position, but there is no law.

Please provide a link if you know of one that shows there is a law.

oregon dad

not a lawyer, thank God.

however, i googled at work and found several places in medical journals and procedural advice sites plainly stating that wifey's permission is required. some i looked up at home:

Stony Brook School of Medicine

"it is beneficial if both patient and his wife are present ...and sign consent for vasectomy together"
also
a consultation session includes " signing written consent by patient and his wife".

Male Reproductive Clinic, P.A. "At some point, you and your wife will be required to sign a vasectomy consent form".

i also saw a blog where a woman says she had to sign such a form for her husband's vasectomy.

i have also met several people (in my varied travels) from varied states that admitted to having to to get the wife's written permission. i will research it further. either way, legal or not, lotsa doctors are not performing this procedure w/o this consent form signed, by husband AND wife. sort of defacto legality based on doctors fear of lawyers?

to be continued

I have already googled it and the closest thing to a requirement was based upon individual clinics or physicians requirements.

But no "law" requiring permission from a spouse.
If you Dr. suggests a consent for, ask him why.
If he still insists, indicate to him that it is of concern only to you. Then say "my body, my choice".

oregon dad

If your wife were to get a boob job done, would she need your permission? Then ask the same question regarding an abortion. That should shut him up.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!