An Ohio Bill Requires Women to Get a Permission Slip from a Man Before Having an Abortion

What is happening to a woman's right to choose? Ohio republican representative John Adams has introduced a bill that if passed, will require all Ohio women to obtain written notice from the father of the fetus before an abortion can be legally performed.

Supporters of the bill claim that it gives fathers a say in whether or not an abortion can take place. However, the wording of the bill specifically places the final decision solely with the father. The bill does not say that the father must be notified about an abortion. The bill
 specifically says that, "no person shall perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman without the written informed consent of the father of the fetus". The father must put in writing that he consents to the abortion in order for the abortion to be legally performed under this bill. This gives the father of the baby the sole choice as to whether or not an abortion will be performed. If the father of the baby does not put it in writing that he agrees with the abortion, then the woman's right to choose is taken away and the abortion cannot be legally performed according to the wording of the bill. This bill takes away a woman's right to choose and places the decision solely with the man.

The idea that the bill gives the father rights is a clever disguise. This propaganda is very manipulative. Generally in America when we hear that a bill will enable individuals to have rights we are collectively in favor. The general school of thought is something along the lines of: restricting rights is bad, more rights are good. This bill takes away women's rights and hands them off to men. This bill is not a progressive step in the right direction.

The proposal of this bill is demeaning and dangerous for all women. It is amazing that in 2007 we have a man sitting in a position of power in the government who is actually proposing that women need to obtain a written permission slip from a man before having an abortion performed. Some of the degrading ideas within the bill include:

 
Comments 1 - 10 of 36 Next >>
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

Ohio does have some extremely socially conservative elements it seems. Reading some of the responses to your well written article I can tell you right now that Chadd and Jim go after anyone who does not expressive their right wing ideology. I have seen them around here for quite a while and it never fails.

Posted on 11/01/2007 at 1:11:00 PM

How long might it take, Chadd, to get a special dispensation. Would not it be better for a woman to take a pill when the cell has not even attached itself to the womb (and hopefully not inside the fallopian tube) than to spend months haggling with her rapist for permission to abort? Lawmakers have to take into consideration all kinds of potential situations before creating them. You are very adament about freedom of speech and people being lawfully allowed to call people names and I called you a miscogynist because you sound like one.

Posted on 09/08/2007 at 12:09:00 AM

Chadd: I was not trying to dance around the subject. There is no sense trying to have a conversation when we both are convinced we are right. No child choose to fornicate with her father. It is sick to expect a child who was raped by such a man to allow him to have the final say on making her bear his seed. You will never agree with that, but as stated you could be raped but never impregnated so lack compassion for a female, especially a child.

Posted on 09/08/2007 at 12:09:00 AM

Men can have rights in deciding whether or not to have children when they can carry one in their bodies. This is sick! How in the hell did this monster get elected???

Posted on 08/13/2007 at 11:08:00 PM

No, I did not say that your ex would have the right to force you to have an abortion. In what bizarre world do you get that from my posts? I said that a man should have an equal say in aborting the baby as you - if you want to kill it, you need his permission. You can dance around the issue, you can (admittedly) try to change the subject, but this all comes back to the fact that you want to deprive a dad of a kid without his say in the matter, and that's wrong. If you are so concerned about rape, put in a requst for special dispensation in those cases - making it only legitimate fathers who have a say. But the point still remains, the dad you fornicate with has every bit as equal a say as you do, and should have absolute veto power over your desire to end his child.

Posted on 08/13/2007 at 11:08:00 AM

Chadd, The man also impregnanted several of his nieces as soon as they became able to bear fruit. Like at 13 or 14. He would not allow them to terminate their pregnancies, and they were so controlled by him, they would not have known about how to do so. You believe those young girls do not have a right to choose, much like their father/uncle/grandfather, did not think of the girls as human beings with rights. Because there are men like you that are adament in controlling females, bills like that get passed, that harm strangers that you do not even know. So, let us talk about something else. Peace.

Posted on 08/13/2007 at 10:08:00 AM

Chadd, the reason I desired to change the subject, is because you and Jim are stuck in your way of thinking. There is no chance to have a mature, professional level discussion with people like you, hence no point in having the conversation. The woman that was raped, finds out 6 or more weeks later, that she is indeed, pregnant, would have to go find the rapist, under this law, to get his permission to terminate the pregnancy. There was a man out here in CA that not only raped his daughter, he raped his daugher/grandchild who produced for him yet another daughter/grand/greatgrand daughter.

Posted on 08/13/2007 at 10:08:00 AM

Chadd, when one is making laws, one must consider all the circumstances involved that the potential law would involve, not just a handfull of people. A female found out she had uterian cancer the same time she found out she was pregnant. The doc could not start cancer treatment, because it would harm the embryo. You believe that her husband should tell her she can not kill the embryo and must allow it to develop, full term. It also means a female with an etopic pregnancy would need her husband's permission to save her life.

Posted on 08/13/2007 at 10:08:00 AM

He Chadd: I was attempting to change the subject. According to you, my ex-husband would have had the right to force me to terminate my pregnancy, under your "man has equal rights to make a females choice for her". Such a bill gives a rapist the right to forbid the female to take a "morning after pill" that would ensure, if his sperm connected with her egg, producding a microsocophic cell, that even xray machines can not, that such a cell would be flushed from her body.

Posted on 08/13/2007 at 10:08:00 AM

Hi, Alyce, my name is Chadd as you seem to already know, and I'd appreciate you not espousing positions I don't hold. What part, exactly, does my belief that a man has every bit of right to say whether or not you can kill his child as a woman have to do with lynching? You're the one adamantly opposed to people having rights - you're diverting the issue, your refusal to abort your three kids has nothing to do with the topic, because the bill doesn't say a man can force an abortion. It says that you don't get to make decisions that effect him without his say. So let's stop both the name calling, and the swaying off topic.

Posted on 08/10/2007 at 9:08:00 PM

Comments 1 - 10 of 36 Next >>