RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Paternal Consent Bill Proposed in Ohio

Eesha Pandit, RH Reality Check on August 6, 2007 - 9:00am
Published under: |
Eesha Pandit's blog | Print this |
Eesha Pandit's picture

Let the battle for "Most Outrageous Piece of Legislation" begin!

A group of Ohio state legislators have submitted a bill that would ban women from obtaining abortions without consent from the man who impregnated her. The proposal comes two weeks after Ohio Representative Tom Brinkman proposed a law that would ban all abortions in the state.

Why, you ask? From the Record-Courier:

"This is important because there are always two parents and fathers should have a say in the birth or the destruction of that child," said [Rep. John] Adams, a Republican from Sidney. "I didn't bring it up to draw attention to myself or to be controversial. In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say."

But wait, there's more, and it's a doozy:

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.

In this brave new world, that one-night-stand or abusive partner can now control whether you become a parent or not. Doctors and medical professionals are private investigators. And a woman's body is definitely not her own.

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.

"I'm really pleased that this has been proposed for one reason - it draws attention to the fact that many men are concerned and care for their unborn children," said Denise Mackura, the director of the Ohio Right to Life Society. "You have no idea how many men call telling me about their girlfriends who plan to abort, asking what they can do to help her. They do want to help and they should have a voice."

Now, this sentiment is one that many of us can understand -- abortion is often a matter of family concern. Yet, if Mackura thinks this is a good move to afford previously marginalized fathers a voice in the process, she clearly fails to consider the severity of the difference between the burden borne by the person carrying the child and anyone who is not. More often than not, the responsibility falls on the person carrying the child to ensure that the child's physical, emotional and economic needs are met. This responsibility is hardly comparable to the potential child support payments that Adams and Mackura repeatedly reference as justification for such a bill. It is also unclear who will pay for the required paternity tests and probable lawyers and court fees if the woman contests the decision.

If you needed further evidence that these legislators do not think women can be trusted: Per this legislation, if a woman wanted to prove that the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest she would be required to present a police report, attesting to those events. The burden of proof once again falls on the victim, letting the perpetrator and the justice system off the hook yet again.

Executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, Kellie Copeland says,

"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 ... It is completely out of touch with Ohio's mainstream values. This measure is a clear attack on a woman's freedom and privacy."

Coming on the heels of a proposal to ban all abortions by Rep. Brinkman, a Republican from Cincinnati and one of the eights sponsors of this bill, the bill seems to have a slight advantage over the all out ban in potentially becoming law. Despite being aware of its strong chances at being declared unconstitutional, supporters of the bill find the dialogue illuminating:

Simply taking a look at this as a possibility is a step in the right direction," Mackura said. "Pregnancy is a unique human condition and obviously a woman is affected differently than a man. As a woman, I can sympathize. However, to completely take rights away from the father is unfair.

It is indeed, illuminating. Though certainly not in the way Mackura suggests. Instead, of encouraging comprehensive sex ed, universal health care, quality education systems and resources for poor women to care for children whose fathers are not in the picture, this bill shows us what "pro-lifers" really think of women: They can't be trusted to make decisions about their bodies and their families; Sex is a matter not merely between consenting adults, but also the state; And the power to control life should only rest in a man's hands, despite the fact that it happens in a woman's body.


Eesha Pandit's blog | Print this |
. . . . .
14 comments
Women lie just as well as men

Innocent until proven guilty, the victims always have to prove the guilt of the perpetrators so as to not incur more victims with fraudulent claims.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 6, 2007 - 11:12am.
If only you believe

VAWA and unconstitutionly formed courts, ideological Policy based Judges ensure the success of Antonio Gramsci's female adopted ideology, just follow the money. True equality is never achieved by the Brock Chisolm idiotology, the subjugation of the male through federal and UN funding by public myth." It is important to remove from the minds of 'men' their independence, religiosity, community and sense of family.', not including the host of communist indoctrinated legislatures and senators.
This is translated through the legal system and federal incentives by legal and social communist/sociolist philosophers,(Public Policy Institutes.'formerly the Anti unAmerican activiities committees) under the guidance of people commerce. When the current crop of third and fourth generations happily go to make 'patriachal disguised commerce' fertilizer, who is going to stop the selection process.
Male created vacuums of peacetime, historically were undermined by the sophistocrat, plutocracies, and the fulcrum was always the sacrifice of egalitarian ideals. Indulge yourself ladies, the bottom of the totem pole awaits you. Check out the true demographics, only the captive have no choice, and most importantly your tenure is only as good as the ubiquotous welfare funding. Being a political gender tool for commerce was always an assured bet. Perhaps even some of you with souls should read GENESIS and review the real original sin. It is better than mein Kampf, trotsky, or womans studies.
As a result of feminism, there will be no retirement, no social programs and no real education, and definitely no commerce, why? Because it costs a hundred fold to keep the system subsidized and those employed by, of and through it. Go get real jobs and start contributing to the economy instead of taking commie styled professional taxpayer funded welfare.
Any one want to write new books titled 'Men are true republicans and woman are natural communists" or perhaps even 'The rise of the TaliMAN.'

Submitted by Anonymous on August 11, 2007 - 5:09pm.
give me a break

Let me get this straight. Abortion advocates now prefer that women make abortion decisions without the involvement of their partner. This is a wonderful way to promote healthy relationships. No wonder so many pregnant women become victims of violence -- because you think the best way to deal with an unplanned pregnancy is to shroud it in secrecy and destroy your husband/boyfriend's child without his knowledge or consent. Brilliant! It's no surprise that more relationships involving abortion end than those where the baby is carried to term.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 6, 2007 - 1:35pm.
Time to allow both parties to decide

Eesha Pandit writes, "In this brave new world, that one-night-stand or abusive partner can now control whether you become a parent or not."

I guess only men are involved in one-night-stands. We all know that only men can be abusive partners. Wrong! It is time to allow both parties to decide if they want to be a parent or not.

Mention was made of "the difference between the burden borne by the person carrying the child and anyone who is not." Do you think she was talking about the financial burden? Perhaps Pandit should encourage the involvement of both parents in the life of their child; something that is disallowed in the 'injustice' system nowadays.

Just as many men spoke out against the double-standard against women in the 1970s, true feminists should speak out against the double standard against men in the 2000s.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 6, 2007 - 5:35pm.
I have some news for "give

I have some news for "give me a break." Women are not property. To even suggest that an adult woman must have written permission before making decisions about her own body is outrageous.

It is utter nonsense to link the abuse and/or murders of pregnant women to abortion. Laci Peterson, Lori Hacking, Lisa Underwood, Jessie Davis, Carol Stuart, Collette McDonald, Stacy Green, Soumia Cullinana, Inna Simonovich, Marjit Panghali, LaToya Johnson, Christine Rudd, Amy Swift, Michelle Young, Demetria Johnson, Si Choy Saeturn, Liana White, Dawn Tusa, Liz Walters, Kazue Hirota, Una Brady, Meena Devi, Twila Wiley, Marilyn Sheppard, Shannoe Broe, Sana Ali, Jennifer Peck, Debra McNeal, Tasha Nowlin, Dawna Wright, Leann Fletcher, Jennifer Blagg, Deborah Randall, Cherica Adams, and thousands of other pregnant women have been murdered by spouses or boyfriends. While these victims varied in age, manner of death, social standing, and income, these women shared a common bond: they wanted the child they carried, and their murderers did not.

The statement, "more relationships involving abortion end than those where the baby is carried to term" was lifted straight from a right to life sight. None of those sites offer one bit of proof that the statistic is true and curiously, neither do you.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 6, 2007 - 6:14pm.
Women are not property

Wow, you must have those names etched on your chest. You forgot to mention the males who by the sum of 23,000 (US) take their lives annually as a last choice of despair in child custody cases alone, a result of your ideological boshevistic style legalized claptrap. Not including the hundreds of thousands who are incarcerated at the whim of female emotional tirades. The millions of men who have to live in basement and hen pecked realities of fear, as a solution to the power of the female and the state. The millions of men who have to take viagra just to get a chemically enhanced boost to get it on, simply because their entitled partners are too gravity challenged to have any self respect, and whose minds live hollywood style or lifestyle channel indoctrinated fantasies.
There is a very good reason why woman allow the great sugar daddy we call the state to pimp them, they may be adults but most behave and act like pubescent school kids.

Worse your indoctrination was easy, what I would like to know is which comic strip do you read, keep up the good fight. I am sure when you realize the yellow brick road you have chosen, does not have a very good ending. Try a visit to downtown moscow and see how well your sisters have faired after 70 years of your female style equality.

As quoted by another poster, I sincerely hope the mad scientist gives me the opportunity to personally choose my right to have a child, which is a gift of life. Then I would only need to buy your eggs, well not yours in particular, I would deem them a little deficient in a desireable department.

There is an alternative solution which may as time progresses become the female reality, men will abandon you, no more chauvinism and you will have equality. Then you really will have to fend for yourselves. After all if the state no longer deems you pimpable, you lose, as well as the true commercial target which appears beyond your comprehension and that is the demise of the population. By the way the state sell by date of a female is when her kids leave home, and there is your only claim to power not the so called adult female. Just the ubiquotous crutch, kids.

www.americanwomensuck.com

Submitted by Anonymous on August 11, 2007 - 2:40am.
In an ideal world, both the

In an ideal world, both the male and the female would be involved in the decisions about pregnancy. This article is not about the value of discussion. It is about a proposed law which would give men the legal right to decide, even if it is against the woman's wishes. I've researched this law, and if it were to pass as written, women with multiple sex partners would have to list every man who could possibly be the father. If the law passes, I suggest women who are subjected to presenting a "permission slip" before undergoing an abortion name every member of the legislature who dares vote for such an assinine law.

Nowhere in the article was it suggested that women are not sometimes the abuser rather than the abused. However, statistics overwhelmingly support that men are most often the abusers. 85-95% of all domestic violence victims are female. Over 500,00 women are stalked by an intimate partner each year. 5.3 million women are abused each year. 1,232 women are killed each year by an intimate partner. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women. Women are more likely to be attacked by someone they know rather than by a stranger.

http://www.aidv-usa.com/Statistics.htm

Submitted by Anonymous on August 6, 2007 - 6:40pm.
In an ideal world, we'd use real statistics

85% to 95% of DV victims are female? NOT according to the Centers for Disease Control - http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm - where it is reported that the ratio is more like 3.2 male victims for every 5.3 females, closer to 63% than your 85%.

And while we're challenging gender based stereotypes, let me point out that a child is twice as likely to be maltreated by their mother as by their father. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure3_6.htm.

Both sources are Federal Government websites.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 10, 2007 - 12:46am.
Are you for real or just a gendercidist

try

www.mediaradar.org

and then come back with some real stats, not political/ideological/self appointed ones.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 10, 2007 - 5:06am.
She;s just showing off her college "education"

She probably got her "85% to 95%" propaganda from a poster hanging on the wall in the Women's Studies Lounge at her local university. She accepted it as fact because it fit the "all men are subhuman monsters" template she was being spoon-fed while there.


Universities don't teach critical thinking anymore. They used to teach "Question Authority", but then they decided it was more fun to join the establishment and become "authorities" - "Question Us" doesn't serve their purposes.


She probably believes wholeheartedly that there's an all-powerful, evil patriarchy running everything. She also probably believes that its opposite - an all-powerful matriarchy - must be good because its the opposite of something bad. But, shoving your hand in a furnace is bad. Its opposite - shoving your hand in a bucket of liquid nitrogen - is JUST AS BAD.


To those who discredit the significance of the monetary support obligation when compared to the physical reality of pregnancy, consider this: A typical support order takes about 20% of an obligor's income. In other words, it takes ALL the money he earns during 20% of the time he works. For 18 years. A "work year" is 2000 manhours, 20% is 400 manhours/year during which the man's body is 100% dedicated to supporting the child. After 18 years, his body will have accumulated 7,200 hours of labor exclusively for the child. 72 hours is 3 days. 7,200 hours is 300 days, which is 10 months, which is exactly the number of hours a woman is pregnant. So, his stake in the decision, in terms of the demand placed on his body and his time, is exactly the same as hers.


The difference is that during much of her 7,200 hours, she can do other work and get paid for it, but his 7,200 hours are devoted exclusively to supporting the child. Her 7,200 hours have been genetically engineered (see Darwin) to maximize the risk/benefit ratio. His have not. She gets off light.


Another difference is that, while pregnancy does carry some risk of injury to the mother primarily on the last day of pregnancy, the man's 7,200 hours represent a continual exposure to occupational hazards which could injure him at any time.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 10, 2007 - 11:00pm.
Interesting suggestion:

You write:

"I suggest women who are subjected to presenting a 'permission slip' before undergoing an abortion name every member of the legislature [as a possible father].."

That's an interesting idea, but not original. Women have been fraudulently naming men as putative fathers for decades now. This is just part of the pattern of abuse of the matriarchy, just another example of the willingness of some women to exploit people on the basis of gender.

But, don't let me talk you ladies out of it.. the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and any woman who decides to adopt this strategy and falsely names every male legislator who votes in favor, will do more in one day to persuade them of the urgent need to protect men from false allegations than I ever could.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Instead of arguing about whether a man should be able to unilaterally veto a woman's decision to abort, I wonder where the pro-choice advocates stand on the question of a woman who is considering choosing life and the man is demanding the right to choose not to become a parent. It's not necessary that he compel an actual abortion, just that he have an opportunity to "administratively abort" his paternal relationship and responsibility so that the mother can make HER informed choice whether or not to become a single parent and support the child on her own. (Ultimately, every man, every support obligor, can choose whether or not to support a baby - he finds guaranteed access to implement his choice within the Second Amendment (and the Left campaigns against the Second... hmmmm)). Let's face it, if men could sign a paper and pay a fee to "opt out" of fatherhood, many more women would then choose abortion. Would the pro-choice side celebrate this rise in abortions or would they complain about the loss of this control over men and the disempowerment of the matriarchy?

All I ask is for equality: what's "good enough" for men should be "good enough" for women too. In the area of reproductive rights, feminism says that the right to choose to abstain from sex is the only legitimate choice that men have and this is good enough for men. Fine. If so, then this choice alone is good enough for women too. If it's right for men to have no choice about parenthood after conception, then it MUST be right for women to have no choice after conception. But, follow the link to RHRealityCheck's own entry on reproductive rights and pay attention to their description of the right of INDIVIDUALS to determine the number, spacing and timing of their children.

The problem, ladies, with equality is that you really have to argue for equality, equally. It's really hard to justify equality on a selective basis, to say "we want equal pay for equal work" and then turn around and say "we want exclusive control over reproductive and parental rights".

Submitted by Anonymous on August 13, 2007 - 6:04pm.
Paternal Consent for Abortion

I agree with the meat of your argument. However I would never support making what you propose our public policy. The reality is that if the parents are not made to clean up their messes, then the state and its taxplayers are left holding the bag. This is unacceptable.

Both partners of a sexual liason are aware of the possible consequences of sex. To paraphrase the Tennessee State supreme court, "the problem is not the unfairness of the law, it is with the unfairness of nature." Nature has given the womb to women. To them goes the full burden of pregnancy and child birth. To them goes the choice.

It is not fair, but it is one of the truths to our existence. Giving men the power to veto an abortion decision imposes a form a slavery upon the woman. Of course making fathers pay child support is slavery too. Better this option then forcing others to subsidize daddy's behavior.

Submitted by Tom Kuzdas on August 15, 2007 - 2:13am.
You forgot one...

Hey Eesha, you forgot one popular argument against giving men any say in whether or not they will become parents: The man still has the right to decide not to become a father by choosing sterilization or "just say no" to any sex whatsoever. OF course, it would be unconscionable to expect women to accept those limited choices...

I agree that the bill should include an exception for cases of rape - the rapist shouldn't have the right to compel his victim to carry his child. But you complain about the egregious "burden of proof" imposed by asking the victim to file the police report - but isn't it considered a POSITIVE thing, over at the rape crisis shelter, to encourage the victims to press charges? Of course it is, and you know it. MY concern is that this bill, including a rape exception, will become a incentive for women to file false charges of rape in order to qualify, and then they'll have to stand by their false charges or face consequences for violating this proposed law. So, I predict an increase in the number of innocent men (no, that's not an oxymoron) serving hard time for fraudulent convictions - and ironically, the men most likely to find themselves there are the ones who declare their desire to be responsible for their children even if that means raising them alone and aganst the mother's wishes.

I thought liberalism wanted to encourage men to be more responsible for their kids - I guess this illustrates the difference between "being responsible" and "accepting responsibility" defined by others and imposed on their terms - something we never ask women to do.

The good news is that Liberalism is coming back, and Human Cloning will soon become legal. Not far away is the technology of in-vitro gestation. Give me those two things, and no woman anywhere will ever again control my ability to decide to become a parent, and I will need women like bicycles need fish.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 10, 2007 - 12:25am.
So Ms Pandit, These

So Ms Pandit, These referenced impregnated 'hers' are what 'ovens', and subject to the commercial quality of the 'bun'. Forced and privileged entitlement doesn't give a hormone induced homicidal or deranged peepeeless harridan any more moral rights than the one, or multiple overnights deposits. Contraception on demand at any time, either by coat hanger, clinical procedure, or witchcraft is surely a poor excuse for bad nocturnal partner choices. Worse to have every stupid legal excuse in the world for dropping your clats, under whatever devious coercion your deposit makers methodology. Then being entitled to choose whether you liked it in the morning, or up to term.
Give it up, while I am sure your personal experience and ideological oppression was not exactly kosha, most probably the reciprocal standard result of the input and influence of some freaky harridan from the past. Other than your singular and perverse view of relationship reality, what is it you want other than the annihilation of natures true given but most tentative of partners. Failure to understand the basics of jumping into bed with commerce, the state and failed ideologies, is a failure to see that we have been here before many times. Just like historical previous results, is your future outcome going to be any different, other than flying by the seat of the moment in your hormonal rage If you are a female and would even consider a need for a quick fix by abortion, do the world a favor, get sterilized. To think of it, the modern post industrial emancipated female is predictable product. The future is easy to see, when future true female does demand a desire for a bun, you will need a permit, and it will probably arrive with especially preselected with a BOB.

Here is an example of the power of the female delusionist
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KgxwPU0W-Wg

Submitted by Anonymous on August 10, 2007 - 4:23am.