Jill Morrison and Gretchen Borchelt
Yes you read that right. My fingers didn't slip. Ohio wants a woman to seek permission from whoever impregnated her before she can get an abortion. Sure-we've all heard about paRENTtal consent before, but some legislators in Ohio are trying to require paTERNal consent. The bill would require written consent from the "father" of the fetus.
"FATHER?" Wait a minute – the Supreme Court in 1992 said that it is unconstitutional to require a woman to notify her husband of her plan to have an abortion. In Casey, the court said that the spousal notification law "embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry."
But hey-it's a new Supreme Court, right? I guess if the Supreme Court can ban a type of abortion and justify endangering women’s health in order to protect "the bond of love the mother has for her child." then perhaps paternal consent doesn't sound so insane. Don’t want to mess with those “fatherly” bonds. . .
Next, this group from Ohio might want to bring back the marital rape exemption (See Section G). (You know, the laws that said if you bought the cow you are entitled to the milk forever?) No need to shortchange men on complete ownership of women’s bodies.
Comments