Missouri Republican Floor Leader Rick Brattin has introduced a bill that would allow a man to stop a woman from getting an abortion by withholding written permission. Brattin is under fire not only over the bill but his description of the condition of confirmation of a “legitimate rape” to secure and exception under the law — a decryption that reminded many of the controversy over the use of the same term by former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.).
The requirement for consent of the male involved in a pregnancy includes an exception in cases of rape or incest. Otherwise, the bill says “No abortion shall be performed or induced unless and until the father of the unborn child provides written, notarized consent to the abortion.”
Brattin insisted that “Just like any rape, you have to report it, and you have to prove it. So you couldn’t just go and say, ‘Oh yeah, I was raped’ and get an abortion. It has to be a legitimate rape.”
There is only one abortion clinic in the state in St. Louis.
Brattin added to the bizarre aspect of this legislation by saying that, as a father of five, his recent vasectomy was the inspiration for this bill: “When a man goes in for that procedure—at least in the state of Missouri—you have to have a consent form from your spouse in order to have that procedure done. Here I was getting a normal procedure that has nothing to do with another human being’s life, and I needed to get a signed for . . . But on ending a life, you don’t. I think that’s pretty twisted.”
I am not an expect of Missouri law but I would be very surprised if there is any law requiring a man to get consent for a vasectomy.
Putting aside the statements, the bill itself appears facially unconstitutional given cases like Casey v. Planned Parenthood, where the Court struck down a requirement that a woman inform her husband if she haves an abortion. There is also the holding in Eisenstadt v. Baird where the Court ruled that “[i]f the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”
Brattin has previously attracted national attention and criticism over his campaign to compel the teaching of creationism in school.
For those who want to see additional challenges in the area, this bill is ill-conceived for those who want to challenge abortion rights. It is likely to amplify past rulings rather than chip away at current precedent. It will likely push those judges or justices on the margin to rally around the core principles of Roe, as the plurality stated in Casey:
The sum of the precedential enquiry to this point shows Roe’s underpinnings unweakened in any way affecting its central holding. While it has engendered disapproval, it has not been unworkable. An entire generation has come of age free to assume Roe’s concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions; no erosion of principle going to liberty or personal autonomy has left Roe’s central holding a doctrinal remnant. Roe portends no developments at odds with other precedent for the analysis of personal liberty; and no changes of fact have rendered viability more or less appropriate as the point at which the balance of interests tips. Within the bounds of normal stare decisis analysis, then, and subject to the considerations on which it customarily turns, the stronger argument is for affirming Roe’s central holding, with whatever degree of personal reluctance any of us may have, not for overruling it.
Require a government-issued photo ID to get an abortion; problem solved. 😉
“Missouri Republican Floor Leader Rick Brattin has introduced a bill that would allow a man to stop a woman from getting an abortion by withholding written permission.” I am terribly sorry that Prof. Turley can neither bring himself to call the man in question the FATHER of the child, nor can he call the child HIS (the father’s) child, as it surely is, every bit as much as the child is the mother’s child as well.
Ross S. Heckmann – you make an point. However, if JT followed your prescription, he would have to acknowledge the father’s paternity rights.
The morning after pill should be sold in vending machines. Solves a lot of problems.
BarkinDog, Rape is excluded.
“Maureen McCarthy
Give me a break! This is just another attempt for men to control women’s lives. Face it guys, those days are gone forever. Women have a right to their own bodies and reproductive health. “Keep your laws off my body””
Maureen,
Not everything is an attempt to control women. There are some legitimate concerns here that a man can father a child but not have any legal say in the decisions that concern him/her. “Keep your laws off my body” is the opposite side of the same sexist laws that controlled and subjugated women in the past. Instead of men making all the decisions, you want men completely cut out of the decision making process. Since the child growing inside a woman is 50% his doing, at a basic fairness level how do you justify not allowing the father any say in the outcome of a pregnancy?
Maureen, How is saving the life and letting a willing father raise it controlling “women’s lives”? The father might be doing her a favor since some time down the road she might regret her decision and develop a relationship with the offspring.
When the woman goes to welfare office to get aid to dependent children she says she does not know who the father is. But they still give her aid to dependent children. How can that be? She can get welfare without consent of daddypoo but not get an abortion?
There is also something facially wrong with the photo of this schmuck who is sponsoring the Bill in Mizzou. Did he come in dumb and go out dumb too? Was he hustling round Atlanta in his alligator shoes?
And what if the woman is married but the husband is not the father of the kid in the womb but the mailman is the father? Does she need the consent of the husband and the mailman? And what if the father of the kid in the womb is the minor son of the mailman? Does she need the consent of her husband, the mailman and the minor son of the mailman? And what if the woman is a coal minor’s daughter? There are a lot of questions raised here about not raising a child.
What if she was walking in Canfield Meadows over there in the Michael Brown neighborhood and got gang raped by a bunch of demonstrators who were in the process of burning the itchBay down? Would they all have to consent?
Maureen,
There are so many current laws, created by a male dominated legislature and courts, that informs not only women on what to do with their bodies, but also men, children, and even animals.
And I promise you that you support or agree with most of those laws?
In other words, you are in favor of some of the male dominated laws, telling women what to do with their bodies? Right?
I am not trying to be mean, but I just want you to see your biases in your own line of reasoning….
Jim22, It’s time for Proteus.
Uh, oh…RWL is right….WW3…not touching this one. Just remember no machetes or machine guns are permitted in this debate. Carry on….
I have long supported this type of legislation. And the reason they want them to prove the rape is because so many women and their enabler doctors have used a variety of dodges to get around “health” of the mother.
Give me a break! This is just another attempt for men to control women’s lives. Face it guys, those days are gone forever. Women have a right to their own bodies and reproductive health. “Keep your laws off my body”
I know this is going to sound out there, but hang with me for a second. I wounder how these laws will change/respond if and when we ever develop something like an artificial womb. Or be able to transplant a fetus from a women to an artificial womb. Then just like women can say they do not need a man, men could make women unnecessary. It would seem that this would be something possible in the not to distant future.
RWL, I guess I would say I would also apply this to dating partners. Both partners should have a say since it is their DNA.
Bailers,
I was informed that, in certain states, a male\female can wave his parental rights, and not have to pay child support? Maybe, I am wrong?
Also, the child support enforcement laws are so weak in this country that a male or female can go years, or even decades, without paying a dime toward child support. Furthermore, the child support enforcement agencies (or even the courts) will not go after the non supporting parent, unless the primary caregiver (usually, the woman\mom) files a request for support. Some females or primary caregivers will not press the issue.
Jim,
Uh oh… Your comments may have started WW3. You didn’t say anything about their martial statuses? Should a single male or dating partners have the same rights as a married partnership? If so, then why? Although I am against aborting a fetus, I am not against aborting a zygote or using other pregnancy prevention methods.
No matter how you feel about abortion, you have to admit there’s an equality issue here. Women can unilaterally decide to have an abortion or keep the baby. So far so good. But if she decides to keep the baby, suddenly it takes two to tango and the man is responsible for child support.
It’s a double standard no matter how you look at it.
In a martial situation perhaps a man should have a say in that decision if in fact he was the father of the child.
I’ve never understood why it is only the women’s decision. It takes two to create life, it should take two to kill it.
They want government off our backs but inside the womb is just fine.