Female OH Legislator Wants Law Regulating Men's Reproductive Health

And the GOP Masturbation Police arrives, guns drawn, to make sure not even a single sacred sperm is washed down the drain. "SIR ... YOU WILL REMOVE YOUR HAND ... IMMEDIATELY."

Because the government has an interest in "potential human life."

 

So glad this conversation is largely being held among the board's liberals. Because imagine how stupid it would be if those knuckle-dragging, anti-intellectual conservatives got into it ...

 

The "burden" is the same, but the circumstances are different. I already explained how the Court sees them as different.

 

This is not correct. The term "potential human life" has a particular meaning in this circumstance: zygote and fetus. See Roe v. Wade, Section IX.B. ("As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that, at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.") The "at some point" in relation to "the mother" makes it clear that the Court is talking about post-conception.

As I said, under current law, it would not be acceptable to ban a birth control drug just because it has the same effect as the morning after pill. However, that is the necessary conclusion based on Roe and Casey — <i>not</i> based on Griswold. Before Roe, those certainly could have been banned because they were seen as "abortifacients."

 

You think franklin lincoln is a liberal? LOLZ!!!!

 

It was kind of humorous to have Justice Scalia note in his "parade of horribles" that the logical conclusion of Lawrence v. Texas is that states can't ban ... masturbation. (Oh, the horror!)

"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices." Lawrence v. Texas (Scalia, J. dissenting), Section I.3.

 

For your quote it says, "Potential human life."

If the GOP had its way, both the sperm and the egg would be seen as potential human life. This has already come up in terms of stem cell research, with conservatives objecting to the throwing out of frozen eggs.

The GOP would then interpret it as the state having an interest in banning anything that would disrupt the "potential human life." Hence, the tongue-in-cheek legislation banning sperm from going anywheres except a woman's vagina.

 

Oh, Baron, you're a hoot.

 

So you're saying this shit isn't happening?

 

If you're suggesting that the stem cell research issue shows where a non-fertilized egg, or sperm alone, is being targeted, that's incorrect. The issue there has been about only those eggs that have been fertilized — not "the sperm and the egg" separately.

 

But the patients weren't required to view them. If ultrasounds and sonograms already were being done, then why was the legislation passed?

To guilt-trip them.