Female OH Legislator Wants Law Regulating Men's Reproductive Health

Baron Scicluna · Mar 12, 2012

franklin lincoln said:

Baron Scicluna said:

franklin lincoln said:

Baron Scicluna said:

franklin lincoln said:

Baron Scicluna said:

Gehrig said:

Baron Scicluna said:

"“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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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

Under Current Law
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.
Click to expand...

And the government could argue that because it has an interest in potential human life, they can ban contraceptives, which, conservatives would say, are designed to prevent human life. Which is contradictory to the right of privacy in an individual's sexual life.
Click to expand...

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 — not based on Griswold. Before Roe, those certainly could have been banned because they were seen as "abortifacients."
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

It depends on the type of stem-cell research. Some eggs are fertilized, some are not:

http://intlstemcell.blogspot.com/2011/10/international-stem-cell-corporations.html

"Unlike embryonic stem cells, the human eggs used to create parthenogenetic stem cells are never fertilized and cannot become a human being. No viable embryo is ever harmed or destroyed."

More about the company:

http://www.internationalstemcell.com/

"International Stem Cell Corporation (OTCBB:ISCO) develops a powerful new stem cell technology called “parthenogenesis” that promises to significantly advance the field of regenerative medicine by addressing the significant problem of immune-rejection. Parthenogenesis utilizes unfertilized human eggs to create “parthenogenetic” stem cells (hpSC) that can be “immune-matched” to millions of persons of differing sexes and racial backgrounds."

Inky_Wretch · Mar 12, 2012

The most offensive part of some of these bills are the parts allowing doctors to lie to a patient if the doctor thinks it will prevent an abortion.

Azrael · Mar 13, 2012

I should have specified 'wand' sonogram. Sorry.

This way to the shaming room.

Azrael · Mar 13, 2012

Speaking of which . . .

http://www.doonesbury.com

Baron Scicluna · Mar 13, 2012

It doesn't matter if the eggs are fertilized or not. Each of the eggs can be seen as a potential life.

Hence, the "every sperm is sacred" spoofs.

franklin lincoln · Mar 13, 2012

Baron Scicluna said:

It doesn't matter if the eggs are fertilized or not. Each of the eggs can be seen as a potential life.

Hence, the "every sperm is sacred" spoofs.
Click to expand...

Except no one is arguing that the government should be banning people from destroying unfertilized eggs or sperm. The counter-analogy is inapt.

And, to support this distinction, the court has used the term "potential human life" — which I have used in the beginning — to refer only to zygotes and beyond (post-conception).

The court — unwilling to recognize the zygote as a "life," but willing to recognize government interest, calls it "potential human life." Opponents of the morning after pill, for example, would call it "life."

Baron Scicluna · Mar 13, 2012

franklin lincoln said:

Baron Scicluna said:

It doesn't matter if the eggs are fertilized or not. Each of the eggs can be seen as a potential life.

Hence, the "every sperm is sacred" spoofs.
Click to expand...

Except no one is arguing that the government should be banning people from destroying unfertilized eggs or sperm. The counter-analogy is inapt.

And, to support this distinction, the court has used the term "potential human life" — which I have used in the beginning — to refer only to zygotes and beyond (post-conception).

The court — unwilling to recognize the zygote as a "life," but willing to recognize government interest, calls it "potential human life." Opponents of the morning after pill, for example, would call it "life."
Click to expand...

Which is my point. Opponents of the morning-after pill call it life, and want the pill banned. Some of these states, with these "personhood" proposals, would do exactly that. And they claim there is a "government interest" to do so.

Starman · Mar 13, 2012

MisterCreosote said:

If one was ever in that position, I'd hope one would look at the ultrasound before they made the decision. Getting all the facts, etc.

Requiring that it be done is one thing. Requiring it to be looked at is another matter altogether. One that is better avoided here.
Click to expand...

Who's gonna pay for all these ultrasounds? Ultrasounds ain't free.

If MY TAX MONEY is gonna pay to have ultrasound scanners shoved up va-jay-jays, I wanna see the videos on YouTube.

Starman · Mar 13, 2012

Bill being shoved through by Teahadists in Arizona would expressly allow employers to fire employees simply for using birth control.

The bill, which sailed right through the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee, grants employers the right to ask for proof that contraceptives are being taken for non-contraceptive reasons.

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.

“I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union,” Lesko said. “So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.”
Click to expand...

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/13/fired-for-using-birth-control-it-could-be-possible-in-arizona/

No Vagina Left Unprobed.

Bob Cook · Mar 13, 2012

Starman said:

Bill being shoved through by Teahadists in Arizona would expressly allow employers to fire employees simply for using birth control.

The bill, which sailed right through the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee, grants employers the right to ask for proof that contraceptives are being taken for non-contraceptive reasons.

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.

“I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union,” Lesko said. “So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.”
Click to expand...

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/13/fired-for-using-birth-control-it-could-be-possible-in-arizona/

No Vagina Left Unprobed.
Click to expand...

Maybe government also shouldn't be telling people that they can't take FDA-approved medication as directed. This isn't the Soviet Union.

Magic In The Night · Mar 13, 2012

And Michigan gets in on the act ... I did some looking around and apparently "screening" means showing pictures and information and then having to sign something saying you looked at it. Also sign something saying you're not coerced into the abortion.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/State-House-approves-abortion-screening-bills/-/1719418/9289426/-/coscd/-/index.html

franklin lincoln · Mar 13, 2012

Baron Scicluna said:

franklin lincoln said:

Baron Scicluna said:

It doesn't matter if the eggs are fertilized or not. Each of the eggs can be seen as a potential life.

Hence, the "every sperm is sacred" spoofs.
Click to expand...

Except no one is arguing that the government should be banning people from destroying unfertilized eggs or sperm. The counter-analogy is inapt.

And, to support this distinction, the court has used the term "potential human life" — which I have used in the beginning — to refer only to zygotes and beyond (post-conception).

The court — unwilling to recognize the zygote as a "life," but willing to recognize government interest, calls it "potential human life." Opponents of the morning after pill, for example, would call it "life."
Click to expand...

Which is my point. Opponents of the morning-after pill call it life, and want the pill banned. Some of these states, with these "personhood" proposals, would do exactly that. And they claim there is a "government interest" to do so.
Click to expand...

You were conflating post conception and pre conception. The difference is significant, and that's what I pointed out.

Saying the government has an interest in a zygote does NOT logically require one to say the government has an interest in sperm or unfertilized eggs. That's why comparing the "sperm depository" regulation to the morning after pill doesn't prove anything.

Log in or Sign up

Female OH Legislator Wants Law Regulating Men's Reproductive Health

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

franklin lincoln Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

Starman Well-Known Member

Starman Well-Known Member

Bob Cook Active Member

Magic In The Night Active Member

franklin lincoln Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Female OH Legislator Wants Law Regulating Men's Reproductive Health

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

franklin lincoln Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

Starman Well-Known Member

Starman Well-Known Member

Bob Cook Active Member

Magic In The Night Active Member

franklin lincoln Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches