Posted on 02/14/2020 7:06:16 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Last year, Alabama passed a law banning abortion except for situations in which the mother’s life is at risk. A federal judge found the bill unconstitutional and the Alabama Attorney General did not appeal the decision. Nevertheless, on Thursday, State Rep. Rolanda Hollis introduced a counter-bill requiring that all men over fifty or who have had three children must get a vasectomy. The bill is silly and fails to make a convincing pro-abortion case.
Under existing law, there are no restrictions on the reproductive rights of men.
This bill would require a man to undergo a vasectomy within ne month of his 50th birthday or the birth of his third biological child, whichever comes first.
Hollis explained that she wants to highlight that it’s wrong for Alabama ever to foreclose the possibility of abortion for unwanted children, especially in cases of rape or incest:
This is to neutralize the abortion ban bill,” Hollis said. “The responsibility is not always on the woman — it takes two to tango. This is to prevent pregnancy and the abortion of unwanted children and to help men become accountable as well as women.
“You don’t think about what women have to go through as far as incest and rape, but you want them to carry a kid out of rape or incest so let’s neutralize it,” she continued.
Hollis further explained that men should not tell women what to do with their bodies:
“I'm pro-life and I'm pro-choice and what I mean by that is I don’t believe in abortion as a birth control, but I believe if a woman is raped or there’s incest or health reasons, then they [should] have a choice,”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
If you notice the wording....it’s men who produce 3 kids, or reach 50. They didn’t even say that it had to be with one woman.....it could be with 3 women (1 each).
My hunch is that the Supreme Court would be interested in the Constitutional side of this. I doubt if it’d be allowed to stand. Course, it might shock some folks that you might have 3,000 young men per year in the state....volunteer to get the ‘free’ service.
I live in Alabama. I just got married again a month ago. I am 63 and my wife is 61. She had a hysterectomy years ago. I have two biological sons.
Will this crack-pot bill require me to get a vasectomy?
Can I have a third child with a willing surrogate mother?
Can I adopt a third and fourth child?
Can I still collect $200 for passing “Go”?
< sarcasm
Seriously, I resent the hell out of Commie Rats wanting to tell me what I can do, what I can’t do or what I must do . . and that includes Bloomberg telling me what size drink I can buy. . .
How about free vasectomies, castration after rape or incest conviction, and sterilization with the abortion procedure?
Thank you. You said it better, and far more courteously, than I was about to.
ROLANDA NEEDS HER TUBES TIED IN A BOW AROUND HER NECK.
How about a rumor that “vasectomy” means “castration”? I’m sure that most black men, and many black women would get very upset at that idea. And the only thing she could do would be to try to explain the difference, which wouldn’t work at all.
“Why not our gonads?”
I’m over 70. I take the bill as a kudos.
Problem is I have no idea what further bills want to cut. Do we cut off hands of murderers, fingers of hackers...this could get ugly. And what do you cut off with people with aids that are still active in the street? That bill is a real slippery slope.
This sounds more like sharia law than Constitutional. But it’s not new. Ohio never had an official sterilization law, this does not seem to be for lack of interest in the state. There were five attempts to bring a sterilization statute to the law books in Ohio from 1915 to 1963. The closest any of the laws got to passage was a 1925 law that passed both houses but was vetoed by Governor Alvin Victor Donahey. Two bills in 1939 didn’t make it out of committee. The 1963 bill, probably one of the last attempts by a state in the US to pass such a measure, died in committee as well. I have no idea what they are thinking.
rwood
The best thing to do is for the Speaker of the Alabama House to move this bill to the floor today and proceed to a roll call vote.
Let the Democrats themselves reject it - or own it.
WOULD FUDGEPACKIN PETE GET A VAS. HE WANTS TO START A FAMILY WITH CHASTEN, JUST VISUALIZE PETES FIRST LADY WITH BALLS AND A BEARD PLUS CHILDREN RUNNING AROUND THE WHITE HOUSE. WOULD PETE AND CHASTEN BOTH HAVE TO GET A VAS IF ROLANDA’S LAW WAS PASSED IN INDIANA?
That mugshot! “Where boners go to die.”
Yep. Plus, someone who demands the right to kill their baby shouldn’t be able to force me, or anyone else, to pay for it either. Abortion is not health care, no matter how they whine, twist, and rage about it.
There is absolutely no equivalence between her crack-addled bill and not being able to kill an unborn child.
Peach
This is a good case of something that would go down a slippery slop of unintended consequences. Sterilization would be done for a multitude of sins and men would fight to keep their “ammo.”
“Chasten” . . . what an unbelievably misapplied and inappropriate name for one who is serially immoral. . . .
“Hollis further explained that men should not tell women what to do with their bodies”
Humm. Yes we should.
Don’t take your body and rob a bank. Don’t use your body to kill your father or mother or husband. Don’t take your body and kill the baby inside your body (or son or daughter outside your body!)
Furthermore, your child is genetically distinct from you and is therefore NOT a part of your body. Ok. Done.
Ouch !
This is about abortion?
Reading the title, I assumed it was a tranny thing being upset about menopause/ERA/nature/reality versus males being able to reproduce decades longer...
Oops, forgot to add “Diana Moon Glampers Lives!”
Bring it up and force a vote.
Tony Randall spawned children at 77. He married his intern who was 25. Many of us - I’m 70 - could probably sneak one past the goal if we got lucky. Ironically, the probability of a female having the plumbing to conceive at 50 is very low.
The bottom line of this bill is that only males less than 50 with fewer than three children need apply. This cuts women off from potential mates who have reached the maturity and wealth one can accumulate by 50. This a good mate market. Not to mention the rich sugar daddy market.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.