Female OH Legislator Wants Law Regulating Men's Reproductive Health

[BNWriter]

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!!

 

[J-School Blue]

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/bill-introduced-to-regulate-mens-reproductive-health-1341547.html
But this sounds more like trying to get even for those earlier events in a "let's see how YOU like it!" mode.

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.

 

[Bob Cook]

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

 

[deskslave]

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

 

[Baron Scicluna]

"“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.

 

[Bob Cook]

"“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/

 

[Shoeless Joe]

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

 

[Starman]

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

 

[Gehrig]

"“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.

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.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

"“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.

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).

 

[franklin lincoln]

"“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.

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.

 

[Lugnuts]

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?

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

You all are a bunch men. Question for ya.

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

Why, do you want their sex tapes?

 

[deskslave]

"“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.

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.

Actually, if some Republicans had their way, hormonal birth control would be prohibited as it prevents a fertilization that would otherwise occur.

Additionally, you need a prescription for birth control, just as with Viagra. And last I checked, that involved visiting a doctor.

 

[Lugnuts]

You all are a bunch men. Question for ya.

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

Why, do you want their sex tapes?

No, I'm actually seriously wondering if this is a problem.

If someone doesn't NEED Viagra, and he takes Viagra, what happens? (I'm guessing nothing.)

 

[21]

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?

It's a big deal on college campuses and with young men who use it for, um, endurance.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-03-21-viagra-abuse.htm

 

[crimsonace]

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/bill-introduced-to-regulate-mens-reproductive-health-1341547.html
But this sounds more like trying to get even for those earlier events in a "let's see how YOU like it!" mode.

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.

What's the double-standard? Nothing has been banned, and nothing has proposed to have been banned. The similarity would be that society would be forced to pay for condoms for men. The only "kerfluffle" is that the Catholic Church (IMO, correctly) raised a religious liberty objection to being forced by the government to pay for contraception against its will, which is prima facie unconstitutional on two different grounds -- religious liberty and takings clause. It was never banned, it was a third party stating that it shouldn't be forced to pay for goods/services for employees against its will.

 

[Azrael]

Well, there's all that regressive new law floating around Texas and Virgina that requires sonograms for abortion consults.

For which, sadly, and no matter how hard we try, there's no male equivalency.

 

[franklin lincoln]

"“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.

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.

Actually, if some Republicans had their way, hormonal birth control would be prohibited as it prevents a fertilization that would otherwise occur.

Additionally, you need a prescription for birth control, just as with Viagra. And last I checked, that involved visiting a doctor.

1. The argument about what some Republicans want* is irrelevant to whether this is constitutional.

2. Not all restrictions are the same. The constitutionally problematic ones in this proposal are: (a) requirement to see a sex therapist (which is in addition to getting the prescription from the doctor); (b) the notarized affidavit from a sexual partner. Neither would be upheld. The stress test has some validity to be upheld as constitutional.


*(Additionally, you misrepresent the argument that most of that group of "some Republicans" make. Their argument is that certain hormonal birth control pills are believed to prevent implantation of an <i>already fertilized egg</i>, not that it prevents fertilization. That is, they operate like the morning after pill if taken after fertilization. Thus, the opponents want those particular pills to be banned because of their abortive nature, not because the pills prevent fertilization.

That's actually a crucial distinction legally, as well. Before fertilization, the state has no interest in the act. The state only begins to have incremental interest in the potential life after fertilization. Under current law, neither those certain hormonal pills nor the morning after pill can be banned. See <i>Roe</i> and <i>Casey</i>. However, if <i>Roe</i> or <i>Casey</i> were ever overturned, such a ban on <i>certain</i> hormonal birth control pills would probably be constitutionally permissible, even within <i>Griswold</i>.)

 

[Starman]

Well, there's all that regressive new law floating around Texas and Virgina that requires sonograms for abortion consults.

For which, sadly, and no matter how hard we try, there's no male equivalency.

Mandatory colonoscopies for anybody requesting Viagra.