MO Rep. Stacey Newman Proposes Bill to Restrict Vasectomies

RFT ^ | March 2, 2012 | Paul Friswold

[NYer]

Representative Stacey Newman.

​Well, well, well. The birth control debate has finally come to our swimsuit areas, gentlemen. Yesterday Missouri State Representative Stacey Newman (D-St. Louis County) filed HB1853, which would only allow a man to have a vasectomy when doing so would protect him from serious injury or prevent his death.

Ah, the legislation's on the other set of genitalia now.
Rep. Newman -- whom I'd like to nominate for Hero Squad right here and now -- has been frustrated with the recent political debates over birth control access and reproductive health. The legislation is her pointed way of combating the idea that family planning is something only women have to worry about.

If passed, HB1853 will insure that vasectomies will only be performed in medical facilities licensed by the Department of Health and Senior Services, such as a hospital, ambulatory surgery center or similarly designated health facility. Vasectomies will be legal and safe, and the back-alley ballsnipper that so many indigent men are forced to seek out when they want to get their junk switched off will become a thing of the past. For too long, men have butchered themselves using weed-whackers, small chainsaws and footballs to the groin so that they could no longer father children they didn't want to be a father to. HB1853 will bring us to a more enlightened age.

Also, it could conceivably cause one of those right-wing bible-fondlers who are so certain that they have the authority to dictate what women can do with their bodies to choke on both indignation and irony. Bitter, bitter irony.

Rep. Stacey Newman, you got a great big pair of brass balls. Never change.

[DoughtyOne]

What bugs me most is the idea of doing one wrong thing as a protest of another arguably wrong thing.

Taking a life is wrong.  Getting a vasectomy is not wrong.  They ARE NOT equitable.  My example what to highlight the absurdity of your position.

You are taking a medical decision and turning it into a political decision.

It sounds like the protocol of that particular physician’s practice was probably put in place (peter piper picked a peck of pickled peppers too) in order to satisfy the doctor that the wife’s assent isn’t just a whim.

Listen closely bud, you being of sound mind do not have to get anyone else's sign off to obtain medical care.  Anything to the contrary is as unethical as it can possibly be.

Under today's HICVA guidelines, your medical care isn't only personal, the physician can't even give the information to your spouse if you tell him not to.  Information concerning your body is owned by you and you alone.  A violation of this confidence is not only grounds for dismissal, it's grounds for suspension losing your medical license, and actionable in a court of law.

That this is nothing something forced upon his practice by the government.  I'm rather certain you are right here, because this goes against current government guidelines.

I say fine for the physician for being so ethical about it, and this does not stop other physicians from having looser policies.  What is ethical about a physical telling you you can't get medical services without another human being's permission?  You have seriously convoluted what is ethical with regard to medical care.

You don’t know what this physician thinks about spousal rights. It might be that if he were a gynecologist he’d also want the consent of a husband of a married woman in order to tie her tubes if it was not an emergency.

You are confusing the morality of being open and honest with your spouse, with some fantasy mindest that says a physician is bound to be the arbiter of medical permissions by spouses.  You're living in the land of make believe here.  I may not want my wife to get her tubes tied, but ultimately it's her body and since I don't get sign off on it, it's none of my damned business.  If you don't have a better relationship than this, it's the least of your problems.

If your mindset is reasoned then a spouse has sign-off on you getting heart surgery, liver surgery, an apendectomy, or any other care.

Example:  You're heart is not getting enough oxygen supply.  You need a heart bypass, and if you don't get it, you'll probably die in a short period of time.  Your wife has a not reasonable fear that you will not survive your surgery.  She doesn't want to lose you, so she doesn't want you to take the chance.  Your mindset is that she can deny you that right.  TOTALLY WRONG!

Not you or anyone else has the right to determine what I as a person opt to have done medically.  You don't have the right to classify certain things in a different category, that must be signed off on by a person's spouse.   You may wish you did, but that is merely make believe.  Any phsycian that tries to deny you medical care based on your spouse having to know or sign off, i2 way over the line with regard to ethics.

[HiTech RedNeck]

God has the right to say this, and I believe He has said it in 1 Corinthians. Argue with God and try to shoot Him all you want. I am just the messenger.

[DoughtyOne]

First Corinthians has 16 chapters and hundreds of verses.

If you would like to point to one or perhaps a few verses to make your case, I would be happy to look at it/them.

I’m not exactly sure why you object to a vasectomy so much. Is it better to expose your wife to taking birth control pills for decades? Is it reasoned to think adults in a faithful marriage should have to use condoms for decades?

Perhaps you have good reason to encourage one of these things. I can’t possibly see what it would be, but I don’t have a problem with you living your life as you see fit. I just don’t think you should be condemning others for not agreeing with you.

And by going so far as to quote Bible verses in your effort to do so, I think you’re approaching the absurd.

I’m not here to take you, your church, or any religion to task. I have studied the Bible plenty in my life, and I have never seen grounds to buttress what you seem to be arguing for here.

I would encourage you to live your life according to your beliefs, and let others do the same.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I don’t see why you get all bent out of shape over a Christian doctor who takes the admonition that in a marriage the woman has authority over the man’s body and vice versa (use a concordance to locate it in 1 Cor), so seriously that he wants to see the spouse grant their OK in writing for a sterilization procedure. This is his religious conscience right and you would be a big doofus oaf shaking your fist in God’s face with your little “bright and early” trick.

[DoughtyOne]

There is a simple test to figure out if your literal interpretation means what you think it does.

It is your stated position that a spouse should have the final say over what their spouse can do with their body.

If she has ultimate say regarding what you can do with your own body, then she has it both ways.  She can tell you what you can't do.  She can also tell you what you have to do with your body.

She could actually demand you have a vasectomy, and the good Christian doctor could not object.

"Here honey, I made an appointment for you with your doctor tomorrow morning at 9:00am.  Thank God we have a Christian doctor who understands that I call the shots concerning your body.  I called last week and told your boss you needed the day off too.  You're all set."

"Set for what?"

"Oh, just show up.  It'll be a great big surprise.  You're going to love it."

Do you have any idea what you would be a party to signing off on here, the spouse that was about to sue for divorce, and wanted to screw over her spouse in every way possible?

FAIL!  My God would not sign off on this.  Yours might.

[HiTech RedNeck]

This is called a strawman argument on your part.

[HiTech RedNeck]

(And biblically ignorant on your part, too.)

[DoughtyOne]

It’s called reality. You can’t argue one thing without arguing the other. Not good.

[DoughtyOne]

And this from the guy that can’t even find his own texts, in a discussion on a tenet of religion he wants to push.

As a fellow Christian, I would like to ask you to simply agree to disagree here.

I don’t dislike you. I don’t really want to continue to disagree with you on this matter in public.

I accept that you believe what you are advocating, and that’s fine with me. I’m not here to damn you at all.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Not when you keep spouting lies about me and (worse) about God.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And you’re the guy who wanted to get Caesar involved against a doctor’s Christian conscience. Sound like what Judas did to some other prominent figure uh huh?

[DoughtyOne]

:^)

[HiTech RedNeck]

God will wipe the smirk off your face as he dries the tears of those like me.

[DoughtyOne]

Nobody contributes to the final decisions I make about my health care. That will be between me and my God. It will not be between me and my spouse, my physician, or HiTech RedNeck.

If you can’t grasp that, I understand. It’s your right to think what you do. I just disagree.

I disagree with your interpretation of Bible scripture too, if it’s your take that God wants me to allow another human being to make my health care decisions.

In the final judgment, I will be evaluated on what personal choices I make. If I let others make those personal choices for me, I stand the risk of being judged a sinner due to someone else making a decision for me.

God DOES NOT hold anyone responsible for my decisions other than me. He’s not going to give me a free pass if my spouse makes the call.

Get over it.

[DoughtyOne]

You used an absolute here.

So you, not God is the final judge then.

My how Christian of you.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I dispose of any smirks before God has to do so for me. I suggest you follow a likewise practice.

[HiTech RedNeck]

You will crucify a doctor for having a Christian conscience about the matter that is more sensitive to the 1 Cor passage. My how Christian of YOU.

[MaxMax]

We can't have men running around boinking without paying for
raping women then walking away.

I had an ex contact me about her eleven year old daughter. The problem was that
she was born two years after we broke up and I moved out of state. She was still
father shopping and I was told that admission of fatherhood is all the courts
need to slap a 18 year fine on me, DNA be damned.

IMO that's what this is all about, the agenda is creating unwanted children
for the state to control through the courts, all sides.

But that's just my opinion.

[DoughtyOne]

Do you have any idea how bad this looks to others?

“God will wipe the smirk off your face as he dries the tears of those like me.”

You have set yourself up as my final judge. You have determined that I am evil, and God is going to condemn me to death for being evil.

This is a concept that is antithetical to Christianity, and yet you still try to tell me how to live my life as a Christian.

Let me quote a Bible verse to you.

He who is guiltless, let him cast the fist stone.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Arrogance masquerading as Christianity must be rebuked publicly and I am rebuking it publicly.