Guess the state!

[theweaselking]

New proposed abortion law: No abortion without written permission of the father.

If you don't know who the father is, you have to submit a list, and get them all checked until you find the right one, and then get his written permission.

Rape or incest? You need written proof of such from the police, instead of the father.

Comments

[post-ecdysis.livejournal.com]

Ah, good. Ohio men will finally be given a choice: quietly agree to your girlfriend/mistress's abortion or be publicly investigated as an alleged date rapist. How grateful they must be to the conservative wing of the Ohio legislature for offering them such power.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Oh, don't worry. They'll clear that right up; just need to get rid of that silly little conceit that there is such a thing as spousal rape in a committed relationship.

(On a more serious note: girlfriend/mistress? What about wife?)

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Wife, you are admitting that you had sex with.

Mistress/girlfriend, you are not admitting to - but if she wants an abortion, you need to go on the public record as admitting paternity and allowing it, admitting paternity and denying it (and THAT'S going to get her pissed off in a right hurry) or denying everything, meaning she has to file a police report and charge you with rape to get that abortion.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Wife and girlfriend, I hope, you can both admit to.

But as I read that article, married women pregnant with their husband's child are no different. They need to (a) get his written consent for an abortion or (b) charge him with spousal rape, which means married men whose pregnant wives want an abortion are in exactly the same boat as all the other Ohio men post_ecdysis was talking about.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Again, you've missed the point.

Married man. Wife not pregnant.

Married man's OTHER WOMAN pregnant.

Married man must either admit to fucking other (not-wife) woman, completey with legally mandated paternity test if he denies it, or must be charged with rape.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

You've missed *my* point. And we read the comment in different ways.

post_ecdysis's comment was that men would be given a choice of agreeing to their girlfriend's or mistress's abortion or being charged with date rape.

Since "girlfriend" generally implies an openly acknowledged relationship which does not require anyone to be married to a third party, while "mistress" does the opposite, and since the men he spoke of weren't specifically described as already married, I took it as pointing out the fact that men (of unspecified fidelity and marital status) would need to quietly agree to abortion or face criminal charges.

(I am getting the impression that you read girlfriend/mistress as "term for illicit relationship", while I read it as "term for non-married relationship". Not sure, though.)

I didn't assume that the men in question would necessarily need to Confess to Being with The Other Woman, since I see no reason to assume that someone with either a girlfriend or a mistress (as opposed to someone who specifically has a mistress) is necessarily cheating.

So I just wanted to point out that while men who are married to the woman-who-wants-an-abortion cannot be charged with *date* rape (as I understand it), they can still be charged with *spousal* rape, and are in the same "agree or face criminal charges" boat that post_ecydsis described.

[silmaril.livejournal.com]

*drops to the floor laughing* I would be willing to bet that the moroniots who drafted that bill never thought about that aspect of it at all.

(Yes, that's me laughing at silver linings in an effort to bring my blood pressure down.)