Anti-vasectomy bill offered in response to Missouri contraception vote

• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-03-06 04:59

  JEFFERSON CITY | Female Democratic lawmakers have come up with a tongue-in-cheek response to last week's Missouri House vote objecting to the Obama administration’s mandate that health insurance policies include birth-control coverage.
  
  They introduced a bill restricting vasectomies.
  
  “If we are going to seriously restrict access to birth control used by over 98 percent of Missouri women and widely used since 1960, then it’s only fair we legislate men’s access as well,” one of the bill’s sponsors, Democratic Rep. Stacey Newman of Richmond Heights, said in a statement.
  
  The anti-vasectomy bill reads in part: “In determining whether a vasectomy is necessary, no regard shall be made to the desire of a man to father children, his economic situation, his age, the number of children he is currently responsible for, or any danger to his wife or partner in the event a child is conceived. A vasectomy shall only be performed to avert the death of the man or avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the man.”
  
  Nine women co-sponsored the bill. No men were asked sign on in support.
  
  The fierce and emotional debate playing out across the nation over the contraception issue has included its fair share of symbolism. The Missouri House vote last week was a non-binding resolution, but it still sparked a protest from seven female House Democrats who said they were denied their chance to speak against the bill.
  
  In Washington, D.C., Republicans caught flak for holding a public hearing on the contraception issue that included testimony from an all-male panel. Democrats responded with a “hearing” of their own that featured one female witness.
  
  Republicans have argued that federal mandate violates a constitutional right to religious freedom, since many religious groups object to the use of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.
  
  Democrats counter that the issue was really about women’s health, not religion, and that women deserve access to preventative care.
  
  Newman’s bill is similar to anti-vasectomy legislation filed in Georgia after an anti-abortion bill was debated in that state’s Legislature.
  
  Yesterday, a push by Republican U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri to repeal the federal mandate was defeated by Democrats.

  
  
  http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/anti-vasectomy-bill-offered-response-birth-control-vote/
  
  TL;DR
  Bill says the only time a vasectomy would be legal is if it would save the man's life or avoid a "substantial and irreversible physical impairment" of a man's major organ
  great
  first you're against contraception such as condoms, now vasectomies?
• TA wrote on 2012-03-06 05:01
  It's obviously just an absurdity to make the other side feel stupid.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-03-06 05:03
  Well, at-least they're doing something that will effectively catch a lot of attention?
• Elena wrote on 2012-03-06 05:05
  Or how about you just let both men and women have their respective methods of regulating their bodies.
• paladin wrote on 2012-03-06 05:06
  Its good to see some members of our gov wont take this stuff lieing down
• truefire wrote on 2012-03-06 05:10

  Quote from BobYoMeowMeow;797365:

  http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/anti-vasectomy-bill-offered-response-birth-control-vote/
  
  TL;DR
  Bill says the only time a vasectomy would be legal is if it would save the man's life or avoid a "substantial and irreversible physical impairment" of a man's major organ
  great
  first you're against contraception such as condoms, now vasectomies?

  
  
  You're misreading it. They're playing devil's advocate to point out the foolishness of anti-contraception, not seriously saying vasectomies should also be largely outlawed.
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-03-06 05:11

  Quote from TA;797368:

  It's obviously just an absurdity to make the other side feel stupid.

  
  
  from all the absurdities going on with U.S. politics
  the cat can't tell if this was a joke
• truefire wrote on 2012-03-06 05:15

  Quote from BobYoMeowMeow;797391:

  from all the absurdities going on with U.S. politics
  the cat can't tell if this was a joke

  
  
  But it's in the article itself. :p
  
  "No contraception? What next? Shall we prevent men from choosing whether or not to spread their seed in the first place?"
  
  If the article really wanted to go there, just to get past that whole issue of sarcasm and the internet, it might have also said:
  
  "You know, life begins at ejaculation."
• TA wrote on 2012-03-06 05:25

  Quote from truefire;797399:

  But it's in the article itself. :p
  
  "No contraception? What next? Shall we prevent men from choosing whether or not to spread their seed in the first place?"
  
  If the article really wanted to go there, just to get past that whole issue of sarcasm and the internet, it might have also said:
  
  "You know, life begins at ejaculation."

  
  
  ahahaha!!
  
  They should criminalize masturbation too, because all the millions of lives that are lost every single time. That'd be great!
• Chiyuri wrote on 2012-03-06 05:26
  Because the governement has a say in what an individual does with HIS/HER body?
  
  Kind of sad.
• Cannibal wrote on 2012-03-06 05:33

  Quote from Chiyuri;797427:

  Because the governement has a say in what an individual does with HIS/HER body?
  
  Kind of sad.

  
  It's... well, the best way to describe it would be a "joke". Making fools of the people who want women only to use birth control if they absolutely need to, whether it be for health problems or something else, instead of as a contraceptive.
  
  I think it's funny though.
• ZazieTheBeast wrote on 2012-03-06 06:04

  Quote from TA;797426:

  ahahaha!!
  
  They should criminalize masturbation too, because all the millions of lives that are lost every single time. That'd be great!

  
  
  glad now that i am not the only person who thought of this while i read article
• Meikeru wrote on 2012-03-06 06:26
  And this is why I love my state. Our representatives can make a good joke.
• Malogg wrote on 2012-03-06 14:26
  I think it's fairly obvious that this was intended as a joke, to upset the opposition. I found it pretty funny.
  
  

  Quote from Meikeru;797527:

  And this is why I love my state. Our representatives can make a good joke.

  
  
  Omg, we're state buddies.