A reader tipped us off to this story, about an Ohio State Representative, John Adams (a Republican), who has introduced a bill that would require women to get the consent of the father before having an abortion. Now, as Becky Sharper pointed out to me, this would not stand up to a court challenge, being that the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. Still, Adams has fifteen co-sponsors, people who think it’s totally ethical to require the following:
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.
The bill also stipulates that if a woman does not know or refuses to divulge who the father is, she still will not be able to exercise her right to choose. This is not the first time Adams has faced this legislation, and it’s not expected to pass this time either. Of course, it conveniently ignores the fact that abortion will still happen even if it is made illegal, just as it did for years before Roe v. Wade. This bill would, of course, mean that an abortion would be delayed while paternity is determined, hence potentially causing a woman to miss the cut-off period of when abortion is legal. A woman’s uterus should not be subject to the whims of Adams and his ilk, or to be held hostage by a man who has impregnated her. And our bodies should not up for grabs by those who see women as being subject to eminent domain.
This is 100% bullshit posturing to curry favor with the hard-right misogyny crowd. Even the Rehnquist Court recognized that requiring a woman to get permission from her partner was unconstitutional.
And if a judge were to require me to list all the “potential fathers” if I got pregnant, I’d hand them the Brooklyn phone book and tell them to start dialing. Fuck ‘em.
The bill also would make it a crime for women to lie about who the father is…if a woman does not know or refuses to divulge who the father is, she still will not be able to exercise her right to choose. This is thought crime
At the very least, this is some good hard evidence to point to every time someone makes the inane argument that the anti-choice movement isn’t misogynistic, they just really care about babies. Adams might as well have titled the bill House Bill 252: Punish the WHOOOOOOOORES!
It may be intended to whip “the base” into an anti-woman frenzy, but I kind of hope word gets around to others who might be on-the-fence-y about repro rights, because stuff like this is solid proof that anti-choice assholes don’t give a dirty squirt about “babies,” they’re only interested in punishing women who dare to have sex.
ETA: baraqiel beat me to it.
@Rodriguez: Not only is it thought crime, it’s placing the wishes of the father over the wishes of the mother instead of weighing them equally. Gee, it’s almost like Adams doesn’t think women are equals!
yes, I did not mean to minimize the woman’s pov and I especially get that after seeing PhDork and baraqiel’s take, of course that is the main point
@Rodriguez: Oh, I totally didn’t think you were minimizing anything! No worries.
And this right here is why I despise and despair on anti-choicers in places of power. This is thought crime, misogyny at it’s crudest, and treating the sperm donor’s wishes with more weight and respect that the woman carrying the damn embryo.
I’d go with BeckySharper on this: If a judge asked me who the father was, I’d hand him a phone book and simper sweetly as I told them to figure it out for me. Because we silly women can’t be trusted to know whats best for us, or even recall whom we has slept with.
Ya know, because premarital sex makes us whores. Idiotic whores.
Someone on the Jez thread about this suggested naming this asshat and his cosponsors as potential fathers if the law were to pass. This seems like a reasonable plan to me.
@sarah.of.a.lesser.god: Well, I’m sure he’d protest that he ADAMANTLY believe women and men are equals. He’d just explain that Man + Fetus outweighs Woman. I mean, that’s simple math, right?
Because a rapist has a right to force me to have his baby? Seriously, what keeps this bill from legalizing rape?
I swear, this is going to make me puke. And it’s not just the morning sickness.
Hi, I’m a woman, how can I be your personal incubator today?
Really? For fuck’s sake…maybe this makes it crystal clear to anyone who wasn’t sure already that restricting access to abortion doesn’t have shit to do with babies.
Miss Pinot – this goes beyond pre-marital sex. Because the assumption would be that if a woman was married, the father of said fetus would be her husband, but he might not be. Married or unmarried, this essentializes women to one purpose and only one purpose, which is to provide children.
I have no patience for this lunacy.
I’m so sick of this crap. For thousands of years, women have been told “You belong in the kitchen because your biology makes you more suited to it. You can’t wear enticing clothing around men, because their biology renders them unable to control their sexual urges when you do. Women are more nurturing and men are more aggressive because of their biology. You can’t be soldiers or firefighters because of your biology” etc. etc. etc. Well, guess what dudes- your “logic” has come to bite you in the ass: Your opinions about abortion in general and whether individual women choose to have them are irrelevant because of biology. Sorry- I don’t make the rules, nature does.
@elibard: The bill apparently makes exceptions for rape and incest. I say “apparently” because you have to supply a copy of a criminal complaint or a similar document. So if you have been raped but are afraid to go to the police, you’re out of luck.
I’m surprised they would allow an abortion based on a police report, since that’s not the same as a conviction. If this law were to go into effect, the douchebags would come out of the woodwork whining that women were filing false rape reports just so they could have abortions.
Oh, come now, we all know that the fetus is the property of the male who inseminated the woman. I learned that at the clinic, where antis helpfully instruct male companions of patients to “be a man, don’t let her kill *your* baby”. Thanks, Adams and other testosterone-poisoned men, for clarifying the situation.
Male privilege much? And hey, if you don’t like the way biology works, take it up with that God you’re always ranting about.
@mischiefmanager: Not only is the fetus the property of the man, after it’s born, he is free to abandon mother and baby and allow the full burden of raising the child to fall on the woman’s shoulders. Or the man can continue to beat the hell out of his wife and use the child against her when she tries to leave him. Or [insert any number of equally objectionable but sadly plausible scenarios here]. And you know what? John Adams won’t give a flying fuck.
@tallgirl and baraqiel: The thing is, though, that antis won’t understand this as an attack on women. They’ll argue that the proposed law is just trying to “protect male rights” or hold the men financially responsible or some other errant idiocy. I hope that a few people on the fence might see through this, but I’m not confident.
@mischiefmanager: I know. I just needed to blow off some steam.
And get the permission slip filled out by their lovers prior to sex? That way there is no missunderstanding that the woman has the right to choose?
At first I thought they meant we’d have to ask OUR fathers for permission. Which is just as ridiculous as asking THE father.
This is a simply terrible suggestion for a law.
But, it does run closely to another issue I’m kind-of in conflict over. Should a man have the right, before a baby is born, to sign a “I want nothing to do with this baby”?
While men are often whiny, being in a situation where the woman can choose to either:
a) Abort the baby.
b) Have the baby, and make the man pay for support.
It does seem approaching a little one-sided…
The problem of course is having babies is one of the few areas where there can never be equality, until we figure out how to get men pregnant!
It is one-sided, because only one side can get pregnant. Both sides have bodily sovereignty, as they should.