Sauce for the gander?

[Econoline]

Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner (D) isn't happy with bills that seek to control women's access to contraception and abortion. She has joined a trend across the nation by introducing a bill that would require men seeking a prescription for erectile dysfunction drugs to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and "get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency." Sex therapists would be required to present the option of "celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.”

"The men in our lives, including members of the General Assembly, generously devote time to fundamental female reproductive issues—the least we can do is return the favor," Senator Turner said. "It is crucial that we take the appropriate steps to shelter vulnerable men from the potential side effects of these drugs.

"When a man makes a crucial decision about his health and his body, he should be fully aware of the alternative options and the lifetime repercussions of that decision," Senator Turner said today. Men will be more easily guided through the process of obtaining treatment for impotence so they can better understand and more effectively address their condition.

Sen. Turner isn't the only legislator to introduce a "Viagra bill" or amendments in response to what mostly male legislators have been proposing around the nation.

In Illinois, for instance, state Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D) introduced an amendment to a bill requiring ultrasounds before a woman can get an abortion that would require men to watch an explicit video about the side-effects of erectile dysfunction drugs. And, Missouri state Rep. Stacey Newman (D) introduced a bill that would allow a man to obtain a vasectomy only when not doing so could cause him serious injury or death.

Some people may take these proposals as jokes. But the problem they spotlight, the war on women's reproductive rights and privacy, isn't funny at all.

[source]

[MajGenl.Meade]

See a doctor immediately if posts last for more than one thread

[rubato]

Econoline:

Now that is a woman with a sense of humor.


yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

I love the first one, especially requiring the affidavit of impotency.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I think they are comparing apples and oranges (except for the vasectomy part).

But there really is nothing that happens to a male that compares to pregnancy in a female.... so carry on.

[Scooter]

Every male legislator who proposes or votes for any limit to reproductive freedom should be required to get a birth certificate for every sperm he ejaculates, and a death certificate for each one that does not end up fertilizing an egg.

[Sue U]

O hai, guess what?

Texas Goddamn
Congratulations, Texas! Abortion Laws To Keep Women Safe Doing Opposite Of That

by Doktor Zoom
Oct 08 10:15 am 2015

Here’s a little something to file under “unintended consequences” (maybe): We already knew that Texas’s terrible 2013 abortion law, HB2, which placed strict new regulations on clinics that perform abortions, caused a lot of clinics to close. Hooray for life, right? Thing is, women still want abortions, because they are evil sex-having sluts, and so the wait times at the state’s remaining 18 facilities providing abortions have increased to insane levels:

In some cases, women had to wait nearly a month to be seen. In others, clinics had to turn women away, since they had no available appointment slots open.

As a result, women are waiting longer to have abortions, resulting in a lot more second-trimester abortions, the kind that “pro-life” people especially detest. The data on increased wait times was compiled by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, which predicts that if the Supreme Court upholds the most restrictive provision of HB2, the requirement that all clinics meet the same building codes as ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), so many more clinics will be forced to close that the number of second-trimester abortions will double, from 6,600 in 2013 to a projected 12,400 annually. That provision of the law is currently on hold until the Supremes make a ruling.

Funny thing: Making abortions harder to obtain doesn’t make abortions go away. As Dr. Daniel Grossman, an OB/GYN and professor who worked on the Texas study, points out:

The increase in second-trimester abortion is concerning from a public health perspective, since later abortions, although very safe, are associated with a higher risk of complications compared to early abortions. Later abortion procedures are also significantly more costly to women.

With wait times already sharply increasing, Grossman predicted a significant decline in the availability of abortion services — which we should point out are supposed to still be legal — in the event of an adverse Supreme Court ruling:

If the non-ASC clinics close, it seems unlikely that the remaining ASCs—especially the ones that already have long wait times—could increase their capacity to meet the demand for services across the state

Sucks to be you, ladies! Guess you’ll just have to have those babies you don’t want to have, because God and/or the Texas legislature wants it that way. And of course we can look forward to more women taking matters into their own hands and risking their lives, or, if they’re lucky, surviving a home-induced abortion and going to prison for it. Or maybe the Court will overturn Roe altogether, and we can return to the glorious days of women traveling to exotic distant lands for abortions.

As of early 2014, Grossman and his team found a little more than one fifth of abortions were performed at ASC clinics. If HB2 is upheld and all the non-ASC clinics are forced out of business, the nine ASCs will have to handle all the abortions for Texas, with women having to travel up to 150 miles to a clinic that’s still open — if, of course, it’s possible to make an appointment.

“We suggested that it would be difficult for those facilities to increase their capacity sufficiently to meet the demand for all abortions in the state, while proponents of HB2 said that there was no reason to believe that they could not meet this demand,” the report states.

Dr. Grossman also interviewed women who were forced to wait to get abortions — if they could get them at all — and discovered that for some reason, they didn’t seem to appreciate what the state government was doing to keep them safe:

“It was difficult seeing these women late into pregnancy who really didn’t want to be. They were so angry at the state for making the decision for them,” he said. “I can only hope we won’t be seeing more bills taking away these rights.”

That last bit just sounds so hopelessly naïve, Dr. Grossman. This is Texas we’re talking about, where freedom is reserved for chemical companies, not some dumb woman who thinks she has a right to decide whether to give birth or not.

[Texas Policy Evaluation Project via ThinkProgress/ Mother Jones / Lucky Girl]

Source.

[Guinevere]

Well duh.