Female OH Legislator Wants Law Regulating Men's Reproductive Health

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/bill-introduced-to-regulate-mens-reproductive-health-1341547.html

On the one hand, I see what she's doing, considering recent events concerning the uproar on women's reproductive health. But this sounds more like trying to get even for those earlier events in a "let's see how YOU like it!" mode.

I have some concerns with the seeing the sex therapist and mandating getting the affidavit from the sex partner (Are they sure this legislator is a DEMOCRAT...?).

OK.....Have at!!

 

That's exactly what it is. I doubt she expects (or wants) this to go anywhere, but it makes a point about the ridiculous double standard on display in the recent contraception kerfluffle.

 

These are popping up (no pun intended) elsewhere, as well they should.

 

Absolutely. Absurd arguments are best torn down by absurd counterarguments.

 

"“I understand some women think my bill is a personal affront,” Wachtmann said. “Protecting the unborn — to compare this to Viagra is not even related.”

Um, actually it is. It protects men's health by giving them the full information they need to make the vital decision on whether or not to take Viagara.

That's what it's all about, right? Full information.

 

Perhaps more to his liking are these bills restricting access to vasectomies.

Missouri:

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/03/02/3465617/female-legislators-introduce-cheeky.html

Georgia:

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-government/vasectomy-bill-goes-viral-1359119.html

Oklahoma, where the same legislation introduced the "every sperm is sacred" bill making it against the law to deposit sperm anywhere outside a woman's vagina:

http://www.thelostogle.com/2012/03/08/constance-johnson-has-filed-another-amendment-this-time-she-wants-to-ban-vasectomies/

 

She's just running it up the flag pole to see if any salutes!

 

Riders like these should be attached to every single one of the Uberclass Anti-Vagina bills when they ram them through the legislatures.

 

I'm not positive here, so excuse me if I'm mis-informed, but isn't it true that under Roe v. Wade the state has an interest in protecting the right of an unborn baby, the bill Wachtmann is speaking about is trying to expand that right?

Doesn't the state have no legal interest right for a man to take a drug to help him have sex.

 

I always thought Roe vs. Wade was based upon a right to privacy for the woman.

I'd say the state has set a precedent in proving a legal interest with Viagra. The FDA has to approve the drug. So now the state is involved in the drug. And with anti-Viagra legislation, the state is expanding their interest in the drug by making sure men are fully informed about the side effects and making sure that they understand the consequences of taking it, not to mention the alternatives to taking the drug (such as abstinence).

 

How about you read <i>Griswold v. Connecticut</i>, <i>Roe v. Wade</i>, and <i>Planned Parenthood v. Casey</i>, and then tell us if you think even those courts would find these to be the same.

<u>Under Current Law</u>
1. The government cannot ban contraceptives simply because they are contraceptives. (Griswold)

Essentially, individuals have a right to privacy in their sexual lives. (Griswold, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.)

However, the government does have an interest in potential human life. (Casey, Carhart, etc.)

Thus, there is a certain amount of regulation allowed for abortion. The same does not apply for contraceptives, nor would it apply to Viagra or "semen-dropping."

On Viagra: If your theory is correct, then the government could do the same in order to buy birth control — which it clearly cannot.

 

Y'all are a buncha men. Question for ya.

Are there a lot of men who don't need Viagra trying to get their hands on it?