One More Step Towards Losing Our Rights

[joreth]

Ohio is kicking around a bill that will require any woman wanting an abortion to get the permission of the father first. No permission? No abortion. Unsure who the father is? You'll have to make a list and get paternity tests from all potential fathers. Victim of rape or incest? You'll have to provide a police report first. The article is here: http://www.recordpub.com/news/article/2327981. 

Abortion law would give fathers a say State legislators propose change; opponents blast bill as 'extreme' 

Mike Hixenbaugh

July 30, 2007

By Mike Hixenbaugh
Record-Courier staff writer 

Several Ohio state representatives who normally take an anti-abortion stance are now pushing pro-choice legislation - sort of. 

Led by Rep. John Adams, a group of state legislators have submitted a bill that would give fathers of unborn children a final say in whether or not an abortion can take place. 

It's a measure that, supporters say, would finally give fathers a choice. 

"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 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." 

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. 

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." 

With the proposal, men would be guaranteed that voice under penalty of law. First time violators would by tried for abortion fraud, a first degree misdemeanor. The same would be the case for men who falsely claim to be fathers and for medical workers who knowingly perform an abortion without paternal consent. 

In addition, women would be required to present a police report in order to prove a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. 

As is the case whenever abortion is the topic, sharp opposition has come from members of the House, along with multiple activist groups. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Activist League and the Ohio Right to Life Society have both spoken out against the legislation. 

"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," said NARAL Pro-choice Ohio executive director Kellie Copeland. "It is completely out of touch with Ohio's mainstream values. This measure is a clear attack on a woman's freedom and privacy." 

The proposal came less than two weeks after Rep. Tom Brinkman proposed legislation that would ban all abortions in Ohio. Brinkman, a Republican from Cincinnati, was one of eight representatives to co-sponsor Adams' bill. 

With the recent liberal swing in Ohio state government, neither bill is likely to come to fruition. However, Adams' less extreme proposal has an outside chance of becoming law - a law that would have a major impact in Portage County and surrounding areas. 

Portage has been among the leading Ohio counties in abortion-to-birth ratios since abortion was legalized in 1973. Since 1996, about 20 percent of Portage County pregnancies have been aborted - the seventh highest percentage in the state according to information from the Ohio Department of Health. The total comes to more than 4,300 abortions in 10 years. 

Cuyahoga County has the highest abortion percentage with more than 30 percent of its residents' pregnancies being terminated. Summit County is also near the top of the list with a 21 percent termination rate.
Mackura doesn't think those numbers are likely to change anytime soon, though. Precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court indicates that, even if Adams' bill passed, it would likely be ruled unconstitutional by the courts.
"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.

"Currently, even in a marriage situation, a man has no right to even be informed of an abortion. But if a woman doesn't have an abortion, men sure have a lot of responsibility then. It's really not fair."

I have a SERIOUS problem with this. Now, first of all, let's get clear that I am discussing ONLY the idea of a woman's right to abortion. I am not discussing anything about the rights and fairness of going the other way - keeping the child. Clearly, our nation's system for that is also flawed.

But let's discuss this first. A man and woman have sex. This sex results in conception of a fetus. True, it took the genetic material from the male to create this fetus. But it is the woman's health and physical well-being that is at risk here. It is her body that will nourish the fetus for 9 months. It is her body that will undergoe physical, biological and chemical changes that will forever change the makeup of her body from this day forward. True, some women get their "shape" back after giving birth, but their hormones have changed and it is unknown at the outset what changes will take place and whether or not she will be one of the lucky ones who can force he body back into the shape she chooses.

I am absolutely appalled at the idea that another human being can control what I do to my own body. Debate about when a fetus becomes a person aside ... the fact is that this fetus/baby/human is still a part of MY body until I remove it, either through the natural process of childbirth or some other method.

Let's through out a few "for-instances". What if a woman has a one-night stand with a stranger? The father can't be located and now she's stuck carrying his child. What if a woman is married to a pro-lifer and she gets pregnant but a complication with the pregnancy results in the fact that she WILL DIE if she carries to term? And her husband is so right-wing that he refuses to give permission to abort because of his "morals" that abortion is wrong. Now faced with death, the woman isn't so sure that abortion under these circumstances is morally wrong and she wants to save her own life. Her husband, however, has just condemned her to death. What about abusive relationships? A woman who remains in an abusive relationship might feel she cannot bring a child into that environment out of fear of what her husband will do to the child. And, of course, she has not filed any police reports ... maybe it wasn't even rape because she welcomes the sex but he beats her when they're not having sex. If she can't abort in secret, if she has to tell her husband, he doesn't give permission and she is now committed to bringing into this hostile environment an innocent baby. Telling her to get out is all well and good, but the fact is that women live in these situations every day.

Now, I'm not saying that the fathers have no right to an opinion and I believe it is wrong to keep a pregnancy a secret from the father. If a woman is willing to go through the pregnancy and give the child up for adoption, I think the father should be allowed to be first in line for the adoptive parent if he chooses. What I object to is the government giving another person the right to make life-altering decisions about MY body. I think the women who abort in secret when they have no life-threatening reason to do so are just flat wrong. But I believe it is still their choice to do so. I also think people who drive without a seatbelt are just flat wrong, but if they want to risk their own lives, it's their life to risk.  So a guy wants to raise any kids that result from a union with a woman and she doesn't want to carry the child to term. Sorry, sucks to be the guy. Maybe men should choose partners who have the same outlook on what to do in the event of a pregnancy and then there won't be a problem.

I am clear from the front. I will not carry any child to term. I do not want children in my life, but even more than that, I do not want to be pregnant. If I were to ever change my mind on the raising children issue, I have always claimed that I would adopt, rather than have my own. Any man who secretly desires children or has a problem with abortion should simply choose not to have sex with me. Based on our population growth, it's fairly simple to find women who wish to carry children to term. 

Ijust can't express enough how outraged I am at the idea that I need someone's permission to do something that affects MY body and not his.  I don't even care that all my partners would give permission because I choose my partners carefully.  I would inform them, because I *believe* it's the right thing to do.  But it's MY BODY.  Contributing genetic material does not give anyone the right to tell me what to do when I am the one who has to carry it, nourish it, and it is my health that will suffer.  The father is not affected physically in any way by the creation of a child.  They may be emotionally affected, but I may never recover from the stress and damage that a pregnancy will inflict upon my body.  That should be my choice, and my choice alone, to go through that affliction or not.

I like this analogy I found on an OKCupid blog. The subject matter of the analogy might lead one to dismiss it because it seems so not-serious, compared to the idea of creating life, but I still like it:

Oh, by the way, if you ever ask me for a cup of sugar to make a cake? And I provide it? Yeah, um, that makes the cake my property. If you want to throw it away, you're going to need my consent.

"But what about all that time I spent making the cake? What about the fact that I went out and bought all the other ingredients?"

Nope, fuck that, I provided the sugar.

Comments

[james-the-evil1.livejournal.com]

Great analogy.
And this's another BS attempt to "peck away" rights piece by piece. It's the favored strategy of these idiots.

[debxena.livejournal.com]

I'm appalled.

It's funny - I've always been pro-choice, and although I don't want children (at all, ever), I also know that if I were to become pregnant, my choice would be not to abort (barring serious medical issues for myself or fetus).

But this? This makes me mental. Aargh! Fetus is in my body. Therefore it is my choice. No one else's.

(Love the analogy. Perfect!)