TN GOP Bill Would Give Fathers (Including Rapists) Veto Power Over Abortions | Hemant Mehta | Friendly Atheist | Patheos
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Hemant Mehta February 13, 2021
A bill in Tennessee would require women seeking an abortion to get the permission of the father first. If he says no, she can't have it.
It's a gift to sexual predators across the state. Naturally, it's the brainchild of Republicans.
State Sen. Mark Pody has previously filed bills to reject marriage equality, ban abortions after a heartbeat is detected, and tried to make the Bible the "Official State Book."
Now, SB 494 (and HB 1079 in the State House, sponsored by State Rep. Jerry Sexton ) would give men veto power over a woman's body, forcing her to give birth if he decides he wants her to cause her pain against her will.
At the hearing, if the man can prove that he is the biological father and that there is a "reasonable probability" that the woman would obtain an abortion, the court shall issue an injunction prohibiting her from terminating the pregnancy. Proof of parenthood requires only that the petitioner acknowledges paternity. A DNA test is not required.
If the woman violates the injunction by obtaining an abortion, the court may hold her in civil or criminal contempt. There are no exceptions for rape or incest.
Congratulations to rapists all across Tennessee. Pody and Sexton, both of whom are Christians, decided to reward you for your future crimes.
This is what happens when a "pro-life" mentality overrides common sense, basic human decency, and any modicum of respect for women.
The bill, if it became law, would almost certainly be deemed unconstitutional, but that doesn't matter to Republicans because they will pass anything in the hopes that a conservative super-majority on the Supreme Court would eventually give them the victory they want.
Tags
Who is online
89 visitors
Is it any wonder that the once Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln is now known merely as the gop?
Well, there's another unconstitutional (and just plain stupid) bill.
So my question is....if the woman is forced to carry to term, does she have to get her rapist's permission to put the baby up for adoption? Or are they going to actually enforce child support payments for a change?
This is what blows me away about this law. From what I have read, all the 'petitioner' has to execute a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity that is not subject to being rescinded or challenged.
So hypothetically, some rich dude can claim to be the baby daddy and the woman CANNOT challenge his claim. Sure he is on the hook for child support BUT he can effectively control the lives and bodies of as many women as he can afford...
Ain't patriarchy grand!
it sucks
I would assume so.
And now we have Solomon's Dilemma. Force a woman to raise a child she never wanted or give it to its rapist father?
Hmph, some "choice."
iF yOu mean nonsense, i'll have ya NO, i'll insert mine where ever change isn't accepted
The republican war on women marches on..
and it's still a week away...but it's been Marching on and over women from the beginning and won't end
I am betting that if any one of those old farts would get their side nooky pregnant, there is no way they would say no to an AB. In fact, they would demand it.
They're mentally and morally diseased.
What more could you want out of a party...?
The christian hold on the GOP makes it plainer everyday that their yearning to inflict power over women derives from the power the Islamic Theocracies possess over half of their populations.
I fail to understand how any reasonable, thoughtful woman would align themselves with the GOP. I make this statement with full knowledge of knowing that not all women are reasonable or thoughtful. Such as Rep. Boebert and others, to clarify my point.
It's unconstitutional on its face in multiple ways.
The republican war on women marches on in the year 2021. Only if these 2 subhuman men and all men who "order" women not to have an abortion agree to be castrated
I don't know how a exemption for rape would work, it would have to be an exemption under the claim of rape because there's no way our legal system could try and convict a rapist in under 20 weeks. I think this whole thing is stupid attempt to cause trouble while framing it as making things fair for men, I don't think it will work. Since they're not likely to ever be able to stop women from having abortions they should make it at least partially fair for men by allowing a man to abort his responsibility for the child. Since abortion rights give women a "get out of jail free card" it's only right to provide men the same option even if it's by a different method, why should a woman's freedom of choice infringe on a man's freedom of choice. If a woman has the right to terminate her parental responsibilities so should the man, why should a woman's right to choose include the ability to enslave a man for 18 years. What about Men's freedom of choice, Our bodies our choice, nobody should be forced to labor against their will to pay for someone else's freedom of choice.
When the man gets pregnant, the he will have a choice. But you conflate child bearing to child rearing. Those are two separate issues with their own laws regarding parental responsibility.
Is the man the one getting pregnant?
While I completely agree with your statement, I have also seen [many times] women manipulate the system to get a LOT of money from the "father" and that money often never ends up going to the child's well-being, welfare, and daily care of said child.
When my ex and I divorced, I made it a point to keep Friend of the Court out of our child-rearing responsibilities. My lawyer was going for the jugular and I refused to sign the paperwork until he fixed it. If I'd have signed it blind, my ex would've been broke and unable to be a productive and loving father. Any time money was needed for our daughter, he paid at least half. I've never asked him for money, but he's offered it in many instances.
So, you're asking me if no one else has ever seen this occur? I can't reply with an answer regarding others; therefore, yes it's anecdotal. Yet, relevant to the conversation. You seem to be making an assumption that I believe this bill is somehow a good thing; I do not. It's awful.
That's why I used the phrase "you seem to be"... that's not making an assumption on my part. You rectified the "seem" part with, "I'm not making that assumption." However, in no way am I making an assumption. I pointed out mere appearances.
I have seen [many times] where men manipulate the system and avoid paying child support by moving from job to job so that the court can't catch up with them and garnish their wages. They fail to support their kids most of the year but may swoop in on birthdays or Christmas with presents and act like a dad for a day.
I'm glad you and your ex found a workable solution and he sounds like a good man.
My husband's ex took him for a ride. She got everything in the divorce including their daughter and he got left paying all the bills. Then the slut moved to California far enough away he really didn't have any kind of visitation (we lived in Texas then Arkansas). She used the child support for riding lessons for all her girls instead of putting some away for a college fund. She did a good job of raising her, mostly, but his daughter turned out to be a materialistic brat just like her mother.
Oh I agree. I've seen that too.
When it comes to things for our daughter, yes. Otherwise... not so much.
Good father, then?
For the most part.
He's good at making our daughter, now that she's 17, feel guilty for all sorts of random things. She has met or exceeded his expectations for school, but he can't manage to tell her that he's proud of her. She needed my help with a paper for one of her classes [I'm good at writing, her father, not so much] and it just so happened to be due the week of his birthday. She asked if she could just spend the evening with him for his birthday, but stay with me for the surrounding week because she needed my help. Rather than being an adult and saying, "Sure. I understand," he pouted like a 5 year old, making her feel guilty for asking, and refuses to speak to her now.
I'm sorry he acted like that to your daughter
Me too. I never once said anything bad about her dad to her. Never spoke ill of him in front of her. She learned what kind of guy he can be as she got older. I've pointed his short-comings out to him regarding how he speaks to our daughter and never recognizes her accomplishments. I even pointed out to him that if he never recognizes her achievements, then why should she bust her butt just to please him? I'm just grateful that his wife is a mature, kind, and understanding woman. She's a lot younger, but she's very smart. Although, she's never had kids of her own, she's always treated my daughter like she's her own. I had to remind my daughter that her "bonus mom" was thrown an ornery, hormonal, teenage Gemini and that she needed to be patient and explain things to her sometimes. My daughter's stepmom is often her advocate in my ex's house.
That's good that she got a Bonus Mom. I tried to do right by my step daughter but she slapped my husband's hand away and I had to do the same to her.
I'm sure you'll mansplain it.
When men can get pregnant then they can have a say.
If the choice belongs solely to the Woman then Women can be financially responsible for that choice.
Friend of the Court.
If you've ever dealt with child support or any situation involving financial child support or custody agreement, you'd understand.
It actually does.
Unfortunately and in too many cases the taxpayers become the responsible party.
Most of the time that's exactly what happens. Baby Daddy flies the coop and leaves Mother Hen with all the bills and headaches
The best solution for protecting the fathers right to have his baby if he wants it would be to remove the fetus and either put it in a artificial womb or implant it in a surrogate. That way the woman can terminate her pregnancy without killing the child against the fathers wishes. Maybe we should be working on these technologies so that men's rights can also be preserved.
The father has no such right, as it doesn't exist. There is no way to provide such a right without infringing on the rights of the woman. If the father wants a baby and the woman agrees, no problem. But if the woman wants an abortion, the father is out of luck. Removing a fetus and keeping it viable long enough to gestate in an artificial womb is some sci-fi level stuff, but nowhere near medical technological reality. A similar issue arises with surrogacy, not to mention the legalities involved.
It's being removed either way so it's really about her right to kill the unwanted Baby.
...and there's no baby involved.
A woman has a right to an abortion if she chooses. That's long been established (despite opposition). She is also not required to obtain permission from any other party. That too has been legally established. And there's no baby in an abortion. Regardless, my initial statement is factually correct and stands!
So you are suggesting that the should have to birth and raise her rapists baby?
How about any man that wants "pre-natal" rights just keep their wang in their pants? Men should not get rights over a woman because they have worse impulse control than humping dogs. As for father's - if they can't raise their children with enough common sense to wait until they reach adulthood for such activity, perhaps their parental rights should be examined?
Tennessee women should be able to file murder charges against male masturbators too. Each Kleenex is like it’s own genocide.