Baby Daddy VETOs Woman's Rights
Sometimes I am amazed at the powerful imagination of those serving in our state legislature. State Representative John Adams (R-Sidney) introduced HB 287, which would require a woman to have the written permission of the prospective father of her fetus before being allowed to have an abortion. Furthermore, if the father's identity is unknown, a paternity test is required so that she may then gain his consent.Little known facts about prenatal paternity testing:
- Can't be performed until at least the 10th week of pregnancy, near the end of the first trimester
- Is an invasive procedure using a long needle through the abdomen to collect fetal cells
- Is expensive- up to $2,000 per test
- Poses a potential medical risk
Under the restraints of this paternity test requirement, many women will be unable to obtain an abortion during the first trimester; likewise, if she is unable to gain the prospective father's permission, she may seek an illegal abortion. In cases of rape, she will be forced to file a police report.
The kooks are pushing for this one to get a scheduled hearing in the upcoming weeks! Act now!!! Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Ohio Action Fund is leading the efforts to fight this legislation-- Donate here and sign the petition against the bill here.
By Annie - 7/16/2008
12 Comments:
I wonder if women will just get some dude to sign the consent form acting as though they're the dad. The bill doesn't say anything about having to prove every paternity, just the ones in question. Hmmm...
Yikes.
What's next? I'm waiting to hear about a bill that says that a woman who's been raped needs permission from her rapist before getting an abortion.
I hate how when the chips are down the right leans so hard on this wedge issue, too.
They know how impractical it is.
Very frustrating.
BTW love the title.
here is the bill.
i had to read over parts several times.
it's a doozy. i am obviously not a lawyer, so i would like chuck's opinion on what i am about to say.
the burden is amazing.
what if the woman provides a list of men, and none of them are the father and she can't think of anyone else it might be?
" (F) If, pursuant to division (C)(1) of this section, the pregnant woman identifies two or more men as possible fathers of the fetus, the person who is to perform or induce the abortion shall perform a paternity test, or cause a paternity test to be performed, to determine the father of the fetus prior to accepting any consent required under division (B)(1) or (2) of this section and prior to performing or inducing an abortion of the pregnant woman's pregnancy. No person shall perform or induce an abortion in violation of this division.
(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."
it sounds like she can't get the abortion, then, at all.
chuck, after you read the bill i would like your opinion.
thanks.
I guess this is what they mean by limited government.
Annie,
Did you see this ad? It's one of the best I've seen in a while.
annie, in answer to you above question, i read this
" (3) No pregnant woman seeking to abort her pregnancy shall provide to the person who is to perform or induce the abortion the identity of a man as the father of the fetus if the man is not the father of the fetus.
(D) No man shall give a consent pursuant to division (B)(1) or (2) of this section as the father of the fetus if the man knows that he is not the father of the fetus.
(E) No person shall cause a man to believe that the man is the father of a fetus for the purpose of obtaining the consent required by division (B)(1) or (2) of this section, if the person knows that the man is not the father of the fetus. "
Bob-- you hit the nail on the head!
From a PPAO Action Fund email:
"If the pregnancy resulted from rape, the woman would be required to provide a police report proving it.
If the pregnancy resulted from incest, the woman would be required to provide a paternity test or a police report.
If the woman chooses not to identify the prospective father (perhaps out of fear for her own physical well-being), her only recourse would be to continue the pregnancy against her wishes or have an illegal abortion, a first degree misdemeanor."
hell, the bones heads could just go legal full bore on this, and make all aspects of fertility, fertility planning, fertility treatment, and birth control a matter of legal consent of both parties.
after all, aren't many forms of birth control options nothing more than pre pregnancy abortion? and if you are having trouble having kids, isn't not seeking the help of a dr pre-coital abortion?
so they could write bills that legally require:
-if the woman doesn't want to have sex and the man does, the woman must have sex.
-all forms of contraception must require legal consent of purchase by both parties.
-woman is having problems getting pregnant and wants fertility treatment? man must whack off in a cup.
-man want woman to have fertility treatment? woman must have fertility treatment.
-woman must have as many children as man wants.
-man has a limp john thomas? man must take boner pills as long as woman is fertile and wants sex.
if the hb287 becomes law and passes court challenges, it would really amaze me. not because of the nuances of the constitutionality of it, but because it is a turd.
The Supreme Court has remained steadfast in their position that it is unconstitutional to require the father's consent (Casey).
Even if this bill passes, it will be struck down.
sm, i would hope so. and welcome back.
which brings up the question of why they are even putting this forward if that's the case?
in my counter list, i was going to add the additional condition of
-if the man doesn't want to have sex and the woman does, the man must have sex.
but i figured it probably wouldn't be an issue.
:)
I was wrong in my previous post, as the SCT's denial of any male right to the child is stronger than I wrote. I should have said that the SCT has continually struck down laws that merely require "spousal notification."
Regardless, they continue to pass it in hopes that it will reach a more conservative Supreme Court. However, it is still way too early for the SCT to take on another abortion case.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home