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.
Gary T:
“You keep harping on how it is a man’s responsibility for the child the couple creates, but you never say it is also a woman’s responsibility.”
______________________
My bad, but I didn’t think that needed to be explained. Kinda goes without saying for most.
____________
Gary T: You wouldn’t even think,
“The mom should not get custody, just because she is the mom, she has to make an effort to get custody.”
_________
I really appreciate you telling me what I think, but with all due respect, I am going to take my own crack at this one… I actually do think what you just said. Mom has to make an effort, too. Did you not see my comment up thread about getting dad child support and sole custody? That’s what happens when mom (substitute dad) doesn’t make the effort. Most cases fall in the middle of mom and/or dad making at least some minimal effort, which boils down to how much time mom/dad gets.
________________________
Gary T: Jeesh. If he HAD full joint custody, then there wouldn’t even be an issue of “child support amounts”.
Already you have a presumed scenario of child support payments from the dad, even when he has full joint custody.
_______
You don’t understand the policy behind child support, or the meaning of joint custody (which is not the same as equal or 50/50 custody in my state). First of all, the two concepts are intertwined. The policy behind child support is essentially that the child should have the same amount of financial support as if the parties had stayed together. It takes into account the income of both parents and the theoretical costs of the child based on that.
So, your statements/hypothetical above are oversimplified and depends on the circumstances of the parties. For example, “joint” custody (50/50) does not automatically equal no child support ordered. If the parties incomes are the same and equal physical custody is awarded, typically no child support is the outcome.
___________
Gary T: If the mom had full joint custody, would she be paying lower child support payments? No, because that is what it is all about, each parent equally taking care of the child.
__________
Wrong, equal care of the child is not what this is about. It is not as simple as you purport. For example, If mom has “full joint custody” (50/50 custody) she may be paying lower child support amount if her income is higher than dad’s.
_______
Gary T: You DO NOT view it as presumptive equal parentage as a matter of law, or parenting rights.
_______________
If you mean presumptive 50/50 physical custody split by “equal parentage” then your right that I don’t think that. That is not the law, as it shouldn’t be. The reality when 2 parents don’t stay together is that their rights with respect to that child (e.g., physical and legal custody, financial support) must be determined. And the legal standard for custody is what is in the best interests of the child.
This post/information will all probably be lost on you, however. Based on my few posts, you evidently got my “world view” and “biases” figured out.
Since you disclosed, why don’t you tell us more about what the court basis was in not allowing you visitation after all those tries?
Beldar,
I assume you are from the Netherlands???
My family here in Sweden is Dutch… 🙂
you asked about the Pro Choice movement….
Pro Choice just means that women should be able to CHOSE
whether she will carry a fetus to full term and have a child…
That women would have the RIGHT to CHOSE to have an Abortion….
The Pro-Life are the ones who feel that if a woman gets pregnant,
that she should have to carry the fetus and have the baby, should the fetus
make it to full term…..
Part of the issue is that women in the USA use the Pill most often….
Fact is… there are other forms of Birth Control that are far more effective….
The Depo-Shot… VERY effective and needs to have a shot every 3 months…
IUD Spiral….. lasts 5 years and is VERY effective..
The Arm Implants… that last 5 years….
In the USA, until recently, they would not allow a woman who had not given Birth to a child, to get an IUD….
In Europe, IUD is a very popular form of Birth Control…
The Pill is just too sensitive…
other medications can weaken it, and make it less effective….
It has to be taken EVERY DAY, at the same time everyday…
and because many Americans are so uptight about sex, they
don’t plan well, and don’t know how to demand Condom use….
This goes for men and woman….
a LOT of sex shaming going on still…
By the way… I LOVE the Red Light District…
We walk through there a lot and have breakfast at The Waag…
The women working the cathouse here in Den Haag think that the guy in the photo back in Missouri legislature is gay. They ought to know. Is he?
Oh, and how come men are too dumb to wear a rubber in America and women are too dumb to demand it?
We went to the red light district in Amsterdam the other day on the way to Den Haag. There was a Pro Choice poster up on the wall at one of the houses of large reput. The poster said we could choose any of the woman in the house. If we did not like any we could leave and choose elsewhere. It also said that we had to pay. I do not get the nuances of the Pro Choice Movement in America. Is this some Barry Goldwater thing about a Choice not an Echo?
happypappies wrote: “As a Christian, it is not up to us to judge and punish and force this woman to our wills because their is a viable fetus in her. It is her body. Not her husbands.”
The Christian concept actually is that her body is not her’s, but her husband’s, and her husband’s body is not his, but her’s. That is the Christian concept of marriage.
“The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.” (1Cor 7:4)
davidm2575
happypappies wrote: “As a Christian, it is not up to us to judge and punish and force this woman to our wills because their is a viable fetus in her. It is her body. Not her husbands.”
The Christian concept actually is that her body is not her’s, but her husband’s, and her husband’s body is not his, but her’s. That is the Christian concept of marriage.
“The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.” (1Cor 7:4)
That’s romantic davidm2575 but its between the husband and the wife there isn’t it if you are going to start following Paul’s epistles…….which as a woman……a Presbyterian one, I question anyway. They were written for a different time and people and I am not a Fundie so it doesn’t matter to me what it says in First Corinthians. That just looks like Romantic Twaddle. I don’t think that Paul was Divinely Inspired every time he opened his trap. He was a human being.
Don’t you remember me? lol. You won’t be able to pigeon hole me with the Bible. I think most ancient texts have a lot in common. More than most Religious People are willing to admit. Or shall I say Spiritual.
My point is that God gave us Free Will and that would be taken away. He also is the Judge. Which is why so many are against Capital punishment. 🙂
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:
There are lots of reasons why women choose not to carry a baby. I would carry the baby and did as I have pointed out in this blog before as my beliefs would hold this as true. However, my beliefs also tell me to judge not and if another woman is in charge of her own body and for some reason is unable to carry the baby to term, whatever that reason may be. It is HER body.
As a Christian, it is not up to us to judge and punish and force this woman to our wills because their is a viable fetus in her. It is her body. Not her husbands.
I find it interesting that one of these Creationism People would be the ones who would put the ownership role on the woman if he impregnates her.
This is not the 19th Century, it it the 21st century and if your senses are outraged, let the God you believe in or the Unknowable Known sort it out because it’s her body. Should she die because of the baby and give up her life as she knows it if she is weak minded for whatever reason? Are you, another human being, the one who is qualified to make the judgement of who is more important in this situation.
DBQ, did you really just compare an unborn child to a car? And your initial comment included mom having the baby against dad’s wishes, and threw in the”trickery” by mom on dad. I never insisted on the latter scenario, but nice try.
And your initial comment I was responding to said nothing of joint custody. That right is there for dad and I am all for it. But he has to make an effort. He shouldn’t get de facto joint custody just because he is dad and wants a lower child support amount. He has to give a shit and take an active roll in supporting that child early on, and not just financially.
And BTW, the pull out method has never failed me in 18 years. And I have two youngsters as a result of intentionally during that method on two separate occasion. Have to be disciplined. 🙂
@ Juris.
Women have multiple birth control options. I know, I used some of them. Using birth control, they can have all the sex they want without fear of becoming a mommy. That is their ‘choice’ It is also their ‘choice’ to not have protection. They also get the unfettered choice to kill their unborn child.
Men don’t have all those choices…and the ones that they have are far from being effective. Condoms fail. Get fixed…permanently. Would you suggest that to a woman. Get FIXED. Become sterile? Really. Why would you think that is a good option for a young man. Pull out…..um…yeah… the old Irish method. Ask how that turned out to the woman with 9 kids. /facepalm.
If you insist that a guy who was tricked into becoming a father will have to pony up for the next 18 years, then I insist that he be given joint custody as well.
You are making him BUY the car, shouldn’t he get to drive it also?
I realize we are talking about innocent children here and don’t mean to be flippant. However, we are also talking about fairness.
Yes Juris, when I read that “women can have sex with impunity” I almost spit out my tea on the keyboard laughing. Oy. What is the absolute worst kind of male apologist? A female one.
Juris:
Even when I pointed it out to you, you STILL have a sexist, discriminatory POV on men, women, their relationships and the children they produce.
You keep harping on how it is a man’s responsibility for the child the couple creates, but you never say it is also a woman’s responsibility.
You keep pointing out all the things he could do not get the woman pregnant, but ignore all the things she could have done as well. You lay the responsibility for the child upon the man entirely, and ignore any responsibility to the woman.
You say: “That right [for custody] is there for dad and I am all for it. But he has to make an effort. He shouldn’t get de facto joint custody just because he is dad and wants a lower child support amount.”
You being a legal advocate should see the defect in that statement, as it presumes SO MUCH that hasn’t been stated.
It is how you just view the world; like a fish in water, you just don’t see the water anymore.
You wouldn’t even think,
“The mom should not get custody, just because she is the mom, she has to make an effort to get custody.”
Jeesh. If he HAD full joint custody, then there wouldn’t even be an issue of “child support amounts”.
Already you have a presumed scenario of child support payments from the dad, even when he has full joint custody.
If the mom had full joint custody, would she be paying lower child support payments? No, because that is what it is all about, each parent equally taking care of the child.
Just face it, you are a radicalized feminist when it comes to child custody.
You DO NOT view it as presumptive equal parentage as a matter of law, or parenting rights.
As such, your view and opinions on the matter are mal-informed and do not respect equal civil rights.
Your ideological starting point is an anathema for parents, people, human rights, and the best interests of the children, and you are so used to thinking in stereotyped ways, you don’t even see how evil it is.
“There is no reason that the man should be ‘on the hook’ for the next 18 years for something that he has no control over creating…”
Yes there is – he was one of two people that caused a child to be created. Last I checked, a man has every bit of control over creating… to name a few (1) don’t have sex (2) use a condom (3) get “fixed” (4) my preferred but not scientifically proven – PULL OUT.
“Women can have sex with impunity.” Really? Not if they don’t believe (or can’t bring themselves to go through with an) abortion.
“Why should men have to be on the hook when the woman decides to exercise her rights which then trample all over his”
For the third time, and everybody say it with me…because he is one of the two people responsible for creating the child.
Good policy puts responsibility on those responsible for the results. Dad should not be off the hook just because he shot a wad inside a woman because it felt good. Actions have consequences and when dad rolls the dice by getting busy without protection, he is just as responsible as mom for that child.
JAG, Your 8:43a comment is a breath of fresh air. I think you are unique in your views regarding support, however. Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt it
I am 100% behind the sentiments that JAG posted. If the woman decides against the man’s wishes to have a child or tricks him into being a party to the making of a child…..usually by pretending to use use birth control and getting pregnant —ooops…..on purpose. There is no reason that the man should be ‘on the hook’ for the next 18 years for something that he has no control over creating and which he has no control over ending.
All the marbles are in the woman’s control and he is nothing more than a living ATM. An indentured servant for 18 years.
And what happens when mom makes that decision to have the baby relying on dad’s promises that he will be there with financial support, but only to run off in the third tri-mester after having gotten a taste of what pregnant women can be like? Then what? She cannot abort then. The burden is then on her to prove that he made those promises?
Life sucks. Actions have consequences. Relationships don’t always last….even ones that started off great can turn sour. People need to be more careful with whom they have sex. Use birth control. Men use condoms. What we really need is a vasectomy that is easy to reverse. Women can have sex with impunity. Why should men have to be on the hook when the woman decides to exercise her rights which then trample all over his?
He should NOT have to pay Child Support for a child that I DECIDED
to have…. when I was the only one who had the choice of having that baby…
___________________________________
justagirl, simply put – bad policy. Our tax dollars already support enough of other people’s kids.
And what happens when mom makes that decision to have the baby relying on dad’s promises that he will be there with financial support, but only to run off in the third tri-mester after having gotten a taste of what pregnant women can be like? Then what? She cannot abort then. The burden is then on her to prove that he made those promises?
Again, dad is in the best position to prevent himself from being in a situation in which he impregnated a woman and doesn’t agree with her decision to have the child, and the direct result of having to help in providing for that child. Therefore, the burden should be on him.
seamus’s point hammers home the conclusion that requiring a biological father’s consent is absurd.
hehehehehhe… Nick… now, I would say THAT is a merry Christmas……. 😀
HHMM… I would either real… or REALLY GOOD surgeon…. 😀
Hey Nick…. Thank YOU so much… Merry Christmas to YOU as well.. 🙂
I will check it out…. 🙂
And, JAG, Your 8:43a comment is a breath of fresh air. I think you are unique in your views regarding support, however. Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt it.
JAG, Merry Christmas. I am requesting a switching of gears. There is a new thread posted today by JT about a female Mexican psychologist murdering her husband. Please look @ the photo and give your opinion. Real or fake?
This guy needs to watch a few episodes of Maury Povich to realize how difficult the law might be to implement. “The tests are in, and Dontrell, you are NOT the father….etc etc etc”
Personally…
I am 100% Pro-Choice…
With that choice comes Responsibility….
If I am with a guy that I do not love and I get pregnant…
then, I should have the choice to not have to carry that fetus to term…
after all, it is MY body, My Life.. MY choice…
However…. If I do decide to carry that fetus to term….
I should also give the men the choice of whether he wants to be involved or not…..
His finances… His Life ….. His Choice…
He should NOT have to pay Child Support for a child that I DECIDED
to have…. when I was the only one who had the choice of having that baby….
And before anyone gets all excited about my comments here; it really doesn’t matter. I don’t support any decision to use abortion as a means of cleaning up one’s irresponsible behavior. The rest of it is simply B.S.