Not "Pro-Life" but Pro-Dude

An Ohio Congressman (guess which party?) has re-introduced legislation that would give the father the decision-making power in obtaining an abortion. As the law currently stands under Roe v. Wade, fathers are left out of the equation when a woman considers whether or not to take her pregnancy to term. Representative Adams wants to change that. In the legislation he introduced last week, House Bill 252, the biological father's written consent is required before an abortion can be done.

Adams called the measure a "father's right bill" to protect the interest of fathers who are given no say in the abortion process. Additionally, the bill provides for criminal penalties for women seeking abortions who do not obtain consent properly.

"Providing a false biological father would be a first-degree misdemeanor the first time, which means not more than six months and jail, and a maximum $1,000 fine," Adams said. "And on the second occasion, providing false information would be considered a fifth-degree felony."

While this proposed legislation is outrageous, I'm actually pretty pleased to see anti-choicers showing their true colors. Because, when couched in the language of "pro choice" a false impression can emerge that opponents of women's choice are invested in the life of the fetus. Of course, if that were really true, there would also be scads of legislation providing programs and aid to women and their un-aborted children. Look around, where is the legislation?

As the entire emphasis is on what occurs within a woman's body, the life of the fetus is clearly not really the interest. Instead, Rep. Adams bill is focused on the will of the man, the father, the impregnator, over the actual human being who must carry the child within her womb, go through painful labor and then make the extremely difficult choice of whether to raise the child herself or give it away.

The focus of Adams bill is slut-shaming. It is very similar in nature to former bills which tried to define the moment of "life" at when the sperm hits the egg, rather than the more psysiological marker of implanation in the uterus. Because sperm-ing is all about thz menzs whereas implanation occurs solely within a woman's body.

In the world-as-it-actually-is (called "reality"), woman who find out they are pregnant very, very often do go to the father first with the news. Discussing the situation with the other person involved is what we do as human beings. Even scared, confused human beings! It is only when there is something negative in the relationship, abuse, a break up, a rape, etc, that a woman determines not to tell the father. Believe me, the decision to tell or not tell the father does not slip anyone's mind.

We don't need laws to get sexual partners to communicate over a pregnancy because that already happens. And so, this law is not about confering. It is not aimed at getting sexual partners to communiate. Instead, it is about the man deciding what will be the fate of a woman's body. It is the man's literal control over the woman's body. This same desire for control is what is behind forcing burquas over woman's bodies, forced marriages, child brides, honor killings and keeping girls out of school.

I do not believe this bill has any chance in passing, much less becoming law. And so, I think it's a positive thing. It is better for undecided citizens to see the anti-choicers' openly displayed feelings of women-as-chattle, belonging to a man. This is the real issue they are concerned with, not the cluster of cells that may or may not become a person someday. The woman is a person now, and her sexuality and agency are what anti-choicers are deparate to curtail.

I love this bill in the same way I loved the anti-contraception legislation introduced in the Bush era. Because if you want to bring down the number of abortions, what is better than contraception, aka, not getting pregnant in the first place? Why wouldn't those against abortion embrace contraception? It's the most rational solution to not getting pregnant!

I am not against children, pregnancy or babies. At all. What I am against is manipulation and forcing people into choices that may not be best for them. Each person should have the opportunity to decide for themselves what is best. Period.

Hat tip to my lovely sister Maria.