Jane Doe marries the love of her life. He’s everything she dreamed of. They settle down and soon, Jane finds herself with child. Mr. Wonderful finds himself with Jane’s best friend. I wonder, is he expected to pay child support after the divorce is final?
Jane Doe’s sister, meanwhile, enjoys the occasional night out. A few weeks ago she had a one-night stand. In nine months, will Mr. One Night be obligated to pay child support?
A recent Huffington Post headline reads, “Proposed Bill Would Require Women to Ask Men’s Permission to Have an Abortion.” Judging by the comments it might as well have said, “Missouri Adopts Sharia Law.” The article appeared to produce some rather misplaced vitriol. Who would, after all, be angry about a man having an active role in the life (and possible death) of his flesh and blood?
Missouri state representative Rick Brattin certainly isn’t. He introduced House Bill 131. Its intent is to repeal a section of current law (188.027) and replace it with a new section “relating to consent requirements for abortion.” Apparently pages one through six are perfectly acceptable. It’s page seven where Rep. Brattin seems to find himself in hot water. Part 13 reads:
No abortion shall be performed or induced unless and until the father of the unborn child provides written, notarized consent to the abortion, except in cases in which the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced was the victim of rape or incest and the pregnancy resulted from the rape or incest. If the father of the unborn child is deceased, the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced shall sign a notarized affidavit attesting to the fact. No physician shall perform or induce an
abortion unless and until the physician has obtained the written consent required in this
subsection. The physician shall retain a copy of the consent or affidavit in the patient’s
medical record.
One reader likened this provision to the “American Taliban.” Another reader commented, “After that – women will not be allowed to drive, have their own bank accounts, own property, or vote. This is the Republican male **** dream.” And, perhaps my personal favorite, “As a 40yrs old woman, I want smack this kid back into his mother uterus. Shut up kid. Unless you can bare children. This topic will never be up for YOUR debate. Sickening.”
Let’s pause right there. I want to make sure I have this right. If you get a woman pregnant and she keeps it, you’re financially obligated to the child for 18 years. It is against the law for you to force said woman to have an abortion. However, if you want to keep the child and raise it, she is under no obligation to carry him or her to full term. She can, at any time she likes, abort the child. And since this proposed addition to existing law ends the ridiculousness of that, you’re angry?
Wait, what?
Instead of looking at it like a rational adult, you’ve opted to cling to the insane notion that battered wives everywhere will be forced to carry children they do not want. You’re tethering every stupid argument you have to the idea that hoards of rape victims will be forced to give birth. You’re upset that Rep. Brattin voiced the need to validate whether a rape has or hasn’t occurred (not a part of the law, btw. I’ve read it). For the life of me, I can’t figure out why that would be upsetting. Wouldn’t you WANT a woman to report a rape if, in fact, it occurred? Or do you want to shame rape victims into the shadows, sending them off down the dark alley for a super-secret “procedure.” I’m sure that will really aid in their physical and emotional recovery.
You keep talking about this “War on women.” To quote a wise man, “I do not think that means what you think it means.”
