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.
RWL, Jim 22, Bailers:
There are several things that bother me about this proposed law. I find having to get signed permission from a man for a decision regarding a woman’s body and life to be demeaning. I feel that it goes back to the days when women had no rights and were considered property of a man or chattel. I also think that if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy without notifying the father, there could be serious issues in the relationship such as domestic violence. If this law were to pass and the man refused to give permission, this man and the state would be forcing the woman to have a child against her will. I don’t feel that this is legal because according to Roe vs. Wade, a woman has a right to a safe and legal abortion.
Anyone else concerned that a State Representative doesn’t know the difference between a legal requirement and a health provider’s individual policy?
It takes two people to make a child, therefore, it takes two people to make the decision. If they can’t agree, then the court will intervene.
If we made abortion illegal then the abortion problem would be solved. There are many couples out there who would love to adopt. If it were up to me, I’d rather grow up an orphan than not experience life at all.
Well Jack, I don’t see any new laws stating men aren’t responsible for child support, nor do I see any coming anytime soon, or winning in any appeals, keep wishing buttercup.
I’m sure Professor Turley is familiar with the “duty to mitigate damages”. Under this concept of law, if a prospective father declares that he does not want to be a father to the child and advocates abortion, he should not be responsible for any future financial responsibility associated with the child beyond that of the cost of an abortion and a doctor visit.
After all, this is all about equality..isn’t it? What honorable woman would shy away from providing support for something that is, after all, solely her decision?
Suck it up, buttercup. You wanted equality. You got it. 🙂
Juris:
More sexist commentary.
It is so embedded in your worldview and language, you don’t even see it.
“If he chooses”, he CAN SEEK to be be a part of that child’s life.
You don’t view it that he has every instant right to be a part of that child’s life without having to “seek” to be.
“If she chooses, she can seek to be a part of her child’s life”
Doesn’t have the same ring to it does it?
The fact is, that’s all he can do, seek to be, because women are granted sole custody by the courts 93% of the time, no matter what the dad seeks.
“If he chooses” not to be a part of the child’s life, that is not a choice either, because child support laws are mandatory, not discretionary, and he doesn’t have the option to “decide to take off”.
Yet the woman has the option to adopt the child off, or just drop it off no questions asked, and have no further financial or other obligations to the child. And the taxpayer now has to support it just the same, but that’s ok now, because it the the woman who decided to have some “fun” irresponsibly.
You know not what you speak, the gender discrimination is blatant and unapologizable, there is no equal protection here, it is bigotry in the law plain and simple.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/24/health/pregnant-brain-dead-woman-texas/
Texas Judge: Remove brain dead woman from ventilator.
Jettexas, I’ve debated this case extensively in the past on this very blog. I wish you would’ve been here then. As I said the people who actually helped write this law testified that the law was MISINTERPRETED. Did you read the Judge’s decision?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/texas-judge-hospital-life-support-brain-dead-pregnant-woman
The law you cited was misconstrued because the hospital was scared that Texas, with their stance on abortion would fine them. The Judge and medical ethicists (who actually helped write the law you speak of ) said that law was NEVER meant to apply to a CORPSE.
Jettexas, there SHOULD HAVE been NO battle over the family’s wished to end life support. The state was found to have acted illegally.
Inga ~ Here’s another source.
FORT WORTH, Texas — A public battle over the fate of a brain-dead, pregnant Texas woman and her fetus ended quietly and privately as she was taken off life support and her family began preparing for her burial.
John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth complied Sunday with a judge’s order to pull any life-sustaining treatment from Marlise Munoz, who was declared brain-dead in November, but kept on machines for the sake of her fetus.
Munoz was removed from the machines shortly afterward and allowed to die. The fetus, which was at 23 weeks’ gestation, was not delivered.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-family-grieves-after-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-is-taken-off-life-support/
Need more? I can do . . .
Inga ~ Wrong!
After losing his wife and unborn baby daughter, and then spending weeks locked in a legal battle to have the brain-dead woman taken off life support, Erick Munoz may now be forced to pay thousands of dollars in medical bills.
Marlise Munoz was declared legally dead after her paramedic husband found her unconscious at their Texas family home November 26, possibly due to a blood clot. But because she was 14 weeks pregnant, doctors refused to take her off life support under a pro-life state law.
After winning a lengthy court battle, Mrs Munoz’s life support was switched off Sunday and both she and the 23-week-old fetus, which was said to have abnormalities because of oxygen deprivation, died at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth.
Speaking with CNN’s Anderson Cooper Wednesday, Mr Munoz revealed that he has been receiving hospital bills at his home, although he is not sure at this time what he will be expected to pay for his wife’s forced medical care
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550352/Marlise-Munoz-case-Husband-brain-dead-woman-sued-pregnant-wifes-life-support-turned-forced-pay-hospital-stay.html#ixzz3MHTFdvbF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
LOL, fish in a barrel.
If the woman miscarried early the embryo will be in much tissue and blood and OFTEN it is when the woman is sitting on the toilet. The woman is n pain and no about to fish around in the toilet to find it. Good lord. I’m not about to argue the realities of miscarriage with men who have never had one.
In other words —
Man: All the responsibility and obligations, none of the rights or decision making authority.
Woman: All the entitlements, discretion, choice and rights, none of the mandatory obligations or responsibilities.
__________________________________________
Gary T, you are making a giant leap there. Since when does a man have “none of the rights or decision making authority?” If he chooses, he can seek to be a part of that child’s life.
And even more of leap to say that a woman has none of the mandatory obligations or responsibilities. Who do you think usually gets stuck taking care of the child by herself after “Dad” decides to take off?
“Right, if the man has no say in whether the child is born or not, he should have no obligation to father it or financially support it.”
He has a say… no one forced him to have sex. Also, when that “man” gets off the financial hook in your world, why should I (or any other taxpayer) have to pay for support because the “man” decided to have some “fun” irresponsibly?
Inga:
Both parents are equally responsible for the pregnancy.
For goodness sake, be more careful with your eggs, I know that sounds harsh but women should not allow themselves to conceive if you are going to choose to abort it.
“”It is impossible to get a person to understand something, when their salary depends upon them not understanding it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/us/pregnant-and-forced-to-stay-on-life-support.html?_r=0
The woman was 14 weeks pregnant when she died. She was not 24 weeks pregnant. She was forced to incubate the fetus for ten weeks against the WISHES of her family. The fetus was NOT VIABLE at 14 weeks.
Just “flush it down the toilet.”
Men seem to have no qualms about spreading their genetic material around. If you can’t come to terms with what biology has dictated and the realitiestha holds, well then for goodness sake be more careful with your sperm. I know that sonds harsh, but men cannot force a woman to do what they want her to with her OWN body.
I had four pregnancies and gave birth to four children, I have four grandchildren. If my daughters would have become pregnant outside of a relationship or marriage and sought an abortion I would’ve tried to talk them out of it. However, as a society we can’t force women to NOT have abortions for ANY reason. Don’t libertarians want less government? Can you imagine how government would need to grow in producing agencies that would oversee women’s pregnancies? We might need pregnancy cops to make sure women who had natural miscarriages didn’t really abort.
Inga ~Its a doctors the sworn oath to keep a life alive. I’m not referring to the brain dead mother, I’m referring to the life of the child. She was 24 weeks pregnant and you state yourself in a previous post, that a baby is viable at 21/22 weeks. That child could have lived. They should have taken the baby and at least try to see if the child survived, as many do. By today’s standards, it wouldn’t pass the threshing floor test.
Paul C. Schulte ~ I know, they want the whole country to pay for abortions now.
Olly ~ What can I say! 🙂