Alaska Rep Says Women Should Have To Get Man’s Permission To Obtain an Abortion


Alaska is, apparently, itching to be among the growing number of states in which the GOP is proposing or already requires that women undergo invasive, expensive, medically-unnecessary forced ultrasounds before obtaining an abortion. But one state GOP representative, apparently itching for a grand entry into the ol’ boys misogyny club in the lower 49, suggests women should have to get permission from whomever impregnated them if they wanted to terminate the pregnancy.

Via The Mudflats:

[I]f you’re not fully convinced yet that Alaska is the next front in the GOP’s war on women, you just have to listen to State Rep. Alan Dick. He said that he doesn’t believe that when a woman is pregnant, it’s really “her pregnancy.” As a matter of fact, he would advocate for criminalizing women who have an abortion without the permission via written signature from the man who impregnated her. He stated, “If I thought that the man’s signature was required… required, in order for a woman to have an abortion, I’d have a little more peace about it…”   He didn’t say whether a rapist would be able to send his signature by fax from prison, or not. But he’ll have “peace” and women will require a permission slip for their own bodies.

Think it couldn’t happen?  Ohio tried it in 2009.

Other victories include shooting down some more outrageous roadblock bills such as the “paternal consent” bill introduced by State Rep. John Adams, R-Sidney.  The bill, which gained little traction in the legislature, would have required women to obtain permission from the biological father before having an abortion, and, in cases of more than one partner, the woman must provide a full list of men with whom she had sex.  Women who lied about the identify of the potential father or doctors who aborted without permission from the father would be prosecuted.

The bill was shot down as too extreme.  Then again, once upon a time not allowing exceptions for rape and incest victims was considered “too extreme” too, and now it’s becoming the norm.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • princess-jourdan

    FUCK YOU.

  • divine-oubliette

    SCOTUS already ruled on spousal consent laws -

     

    The Supreme Court, in 1976, reaffirmed that the right of privacy allows women to be free of governmental interference in decisions about childbearing. The Court struck down spousal consent laws that would allow a husband to veto the abortion decision.

    The Court said that when a husband and wife or parent disagree, only one view can prevail, and that it should be hers because she “physically bears the child and is more directly affected by the pregnancy.”
    http://www.choicematters.org/articles/legal-abortion-arguments-pro-con/

     

    There’s also the burden of proof, there’s no way to tell who the sperm donor is until an amnio can be done to get DNA to test. Amniocentesis are performed between the 16th-20th week of pregnancy.

    Since during pregnancy paternity is an unknown and cannot be resolved (in a timely manner), how can the unknown sperm donor have rights? Let alone rights that make the pregnant women an incubator for nine months?

    It doesn’t work. Sorry.

     

     

  • therealistmom

    Actually Senator Alan, DON’T fuck you. I wouldn’t wish sex with you on anyone.

  • kilndriedmeats

    I’m confused about something, and I hope some of the people here will take the time to help me work through my lack of understanding. I swear I am not an MRA troll, but I honestly have a hang-up about the following:

    If a woman has the final say regarding her body – which I completely agree with – and does not need to seek permission from the father before choosing to abort or carry a pregnancy to term, why is the father left with no choice at all?

    If my girlfriend becomes pregnant in spite of our precautions, chooses to abort (again, absolutely her right to so choose), I have no effective say in the matter. I can make my feelings known to her, but that’s all I can do about it, because I have no claim against an individual’s bodily sovereignty. This is as it should be.

    On the other hand, If my girlfriend becomes pregnant in spite of our precautions and chooses to carry the pregnancy to term and keep the resulting child; I as the father am compelled by the laws of my State to pay support for that child until it reaches the age of majority, and will be jailed should I refuse to do so. I still have no effective say in the matter, only this time the State is dictating to me what I must do with the fruits of my labor, which I earn by the sweat of my own body.

    I do not understand how this is not a double-standard. Why does a father, with such obligations compelled by the State, not have the right to make decisions about something so that drasticly changes his own life? I understand the historical necessity for compelling support, but see birth control as something that levels the playing field in a big way.

     

    I apologize in advance if this is something that gets torn apart on a regular basis. I’ve searched around for a good addressing of this and haven’t found a whole lot that isn’t MRA garbage. I will accept my potential shredding with grace – I would rather be right with some assistance than wrong by myself. Thank you everybody in advance for your time and help.

  • prochoiceferret

    I do not understand how this is not a double-standard. Why does a father, with such obligations compelled by the State, not have the right to make decisions about something so that drasticly changes his own life? I understand the historical necessity for compelling support, but see birth control as something that levels the playing field in a big way.

     

    The father does have a choice. He can choose whether or not to engage in sex. Once he has done that, his involvement in the process is over.

     

    A woman can similarly choose whether or not to have sex. But if she becomes pregnant, her involvement continues beyond that point, for up to nine months. She can choose to have an abortion because her body is still in the equation, and as always, is subject to her control and consent.

     

    The “double standard” you’re noticing is nothing more than the differing roles the male and female play in the reproductive process. Is it fair? No, not particularly so. But then, considering that most of the time, women are the ones who reap the disadvantages of their biology (painful childbirth, pregnancy interfering with one’s career, yeast infections, higher insurance costs, cracked nipples, the whole maternal-mortality thing, etc. etc.)… do you really want it to be?

  • crowepps

    Birth control doesn’t ‘level the playing field’, because even with both parties involved using birth control, sometimes it fails.  BOTH parties are using birth control, right?  And if it does fail, only one person is pregnant, only one person risks pregnancy complications, only one person has permanent physical changes made to their body, only one person may incurr permanent disabilities, and only one person risks death.

    After the birth, of course, BOTH PARENTS share an equal legal obligation to support their child, and custody no longer automatically goes to women.  

    An estimated 13.7 million parents had custody of 22.0 million children under 21 years of age while the other parent lived somewhere else.

    About 1 in 6 custodial parents were fathers (17.8 percent).

    Custodial parents receiving the full amount of child support due declined between 2007 and 2009, from 46.8 percent to 41.2 percent.

    http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf

     

  • ack

    I can understand why this is a tricky situation for some people, even if they are pro-choice. Child support is in the state’s best interest, which is why failing to provide it is a civil (or sometimes criminal) offense. Once a child is born, society has a vested interest in keeping that child safe and healthy, so it grows into a productive adult who contributes back to society. Financial support is vital to health, safety, and education. If the non-custodial parent does not provide for that child, then the state/society winds up footing the bill; it’s very difficult for single parents with no support to provide for even one child, let alone multiple children. So, at some point, the state decided that even if you’re not raising the child, you need to provide for it if you are a biological parent. If you think about the cost of daycare alone, which allows single parents of young children to work, the cost can cripple a family’s budget.

     

    Abortion, on the other hand, is about bodily autonomy. The society decided that whatever benefits it might gain from the state compromising bodily autonomy were not worth it. This is why we don’t harvest organs from dead people without their consent, why we don’t mandate blood or organ donation from healthy individuals, and why we don’t ban smoking or drinking, even if those things would present beneifts to both individuals and society as a whole. It’s also about a recognized right to privacy concerning the relationship between patients and doctors. The state has a vested interest in preserving patient confidentiality, because if we posted everyone’s medical records online, people wouldn’t get treatment for conditions that might be considered embarrassing, or would genuinely jeopardize employment.

     

    A child who’s already here needs to be cared for. A fetus, even if it’s given the same rights as everyone else, still wouldn’t have the right to use a pregnant woman’s body against her will.

  • basiorana

    Abortion does not end parenthood, abortion ends pregnancy (thus preventing parenthood).

    The right to have an abortion has nothing to do with not wanting a child. If we just didn’t want a child, 80% of women would just arrange an adoption (if their fetus was healthy, of course). Adoptions of newborns are easy to arrange, especially if the mother relinquishes the child instead of having CPS be involved.

    We don’t want to be PREGNANT. We don’t want 9 months of pain and suffering, of carrying a child we don’t want, and having to take care of that child because they are going to grow up so we should probably not destroy their brain. Pregnancy is a huge responsibility, it’s painful, it permanently alters your body. You face discrimination for it, ESPECIALLY if you don’t wind up keeping the child. Then there’s labor, which is either a C-section with permanent scarring and a long recovery, or a vaginal birth, with permanent damage to the pelvic region and a long recovery. Then you get the hormones, milk leaking all over the place, PPD. Abortion isn’t about preventing 18 years of childrearing, though that is a side effect. It’s about preventing the pain, suffering, and permanent harm from pregnancy, labor and delivery.

    I will also point out that if your girlfriend did become pregnant in spite of your precautions and SHE did not want to keep the child, but was okay with the pregnancy, you could take custody of the child and she would have to pay child support to you. This is rare, of course, because most women won’t endure pregnancy without wanting the child.

    In short: It’s not a double standard because men don’t get pregnant, and whatever the media presents, pregnancy is a terrible experience.

  • renee99503

    I listened to the entire audio tape of the 03/13 Alaska House hearing in which Dick had some other notable quotes. Here is another I transcribed:

    “We talk about a woman who is a victim of rape, and yet uh, that’s physical rape and yet there are some people in this room and maybe in the audience that feel ethically violated by having to participate in our state funding abortions that violate our conscience.

    In the case of rape a woman is physically violated. In this case there is other people who are ethically and morally violated by what is going on, so I would like to say that if we are going to have a doctor say ok I think this is medically necessary, I’ve been to doctors before who are very quick to say, well I need another doctors opinion. They didn’t want to get involved in being the only one involved in making a decision.

    So I think if there was at least 2 or 3 doctors all concurring that this was very very necessary for the life of the woman and/or the child, then I could live with that, but to just have one doctor say I think its necessary that hangs us all out in a place we don’t want to be.”

    So not only does Dick think women need a permission slip from their impregnators, but he also thinks women’s doctors are liars and that women should have to sit before a panel of 2 or 3 doctors who concur in order to get a medically necessary abortion, and that rape is equal to having someone disagree with your personal opinions on abortion.

    Here is the state website with Rep. Dick’s contact info:

    http://housemajority.org/dick/index.php

     

     

     

  • kilndriedmeats

    “The “double standard” you’re noticing is nothing more than the differing roles the male and female play in the reproductive process. Is it fair? No, not particularly so. But then, considering that most of the time, women are the ones who reap the disadvantages of their biology (painful childbirth, pregnancy interfering with one’s career, yeast infections, higher insurance costs, cracked nipples, the whole maternal-mortality thing, etc. etc.)… do you really want it to be?”

    Well, yes. Yes I do.

     

    If a woman chooses to subject herself to a pregnancy, that’s her absolute right to do so. I still don’t understand why she gets to impose that choice upon somebody else, especially one who does not consent or is explicitly opposed to having their life changed in such a way.

  • prochoiceferret

    Well, yes. Yes I do.

     

    Oh, a deranged genie would have so much fun with you. You’re practically the poster boy for “Be careful what you wish for…”

     

    If a woman chooses to subject herself to a pregnancy, that’s her absolute right to do so. I still don’t understand why she gets to impose that choice upon somebody else, especially one who does not consent or is explicitly opposed to having their life changed in such a way.

     

    Because once there is a child, someone needs to pay to care for its needs. Do you suppose the woman should shoulder this burden alone, when it took two people to create the child in the first place? Ha ha. Do you suppose the government/taxpayers should step in? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha… [wipes tear] oh, you’re funny…

  • ankhorite

     

    A multi-doctor panel for abortion was the law in lots of states right up to ROE v. WADE.

    In 1974, my mother had to get a signed permission slip from her husband to get sterilized under Illinois law.

  • ankhorite

    Thank you for asking.  Basically, it boils down to location, location, location.

    IF the embryo or fetus is inside the woman’s body, the man has no right to interfere — because it IS her body.  Forcing childbirth would make her a slave; and so would forcing abortion (think of mainland China’s brutally enforced one-child policy).  So, IN her body, neither the man nor the fetus itself has any rights (though under current law, ROE v WADE, actually, the fetus gains some psuedo-rights near the end of pregnancy.  States keep trying to enhance fetal rights but generally lose in federal court.)

    IF the embryo or fetus is NOT inside the woman’s body, the woman and the man start out with equal rights, and then, the court will defer to whichever one of them does NOT want the pregnancy to continue.  This happens with frozen fertilized eggs, embryos, etc. when the woman or man have changed their mind or are getting a divorce. 

    The judge in the most famous case — which is not a Supreme Court case and is not binding anywhere but Tennessee but is persuasive & influential everywhere — held that the person who does NOT want their DNA carried forward has veto rights over the person who does.  Reasoning:  the one who does will have other chances; the one who doesn’t would be stuck, no second chance to be childless.  The man in that case argued that he had the right to refuse even if the embryoes were adopted so he’d have no financial responsibility — he said no, the point is, he didn’t want children carrying his DNA out there at all.  And he won.  Google “seven embryoes Tennessee” for more.

     

    So — if there is a living fetus in the woman, you are stuck.  Why?  Because, once born, the fetus is a child — your child — and you absolutely owe that child financial support no matter what you offer: to pay for an abortion, or a settlement, or whatever.  Nope — none of that changes your legal duty.  Your legal duty is to the innocent child, not the woman.  Remember that, because it’s important to every part of the law around this issue.  (And know that, once born, you can sue for custody of the child and if you win, SHE owes child support.)

    So, back to the beginning.  Here is where the law says you have a chance to exercise your choice:  the night you lie down with her.  When you have sex, you assume the risk of conception.  Contraception fails.  Or she may be lying or wrong about her fertility status.  Even if you have had a vasectomy, it might fail. Whatever — you have assumed the risk.   And because of the location of the fetus you might want to terminate — inside her — you are stuck, as I said.

    Now, if she lied, you can sue the mom for fraud.  Yes, really, you can.  You are still on the hook to the child for child support.  However, since she put you on that hook through fraud, you can sue her for damages.  The actual damages (the amount of child support you owe), and for punitive damages (cuz she lied).  I don’t know what kind of luck you would have, but you could try it.  (As to suing condom companies for failure, I don’t think you’ll win — too easy for them to convince a jury that you must have gone without one night).

    So I hope this helps:

    == if in the woman, she decides (location, location, location)

    == if in a fertility clinic container, you are equal, and then whoever DOES NOT want a child gets to decide

    == you owe child support to the innocent child, no matter what

    == you asume the risk of conception every time you have sex, despite failures and lies

    == if she lied, you can try to sue her

  • kilndriedmeats

    Again, thank you and the others so very much for taking the time to actually explain things from your points of view. I am grateful to those who have replied to a good faith question with courtesy and respect instead of invective and hate.

  • crowepps

    Despite your preemptive apology (“I apologize in advance if this is something that gets torn apart on a regular basis”) you don’t really seem to grasp just how much courtesy you were extended here.  It truly astonishes me how often people come here and ask a question that has been chewed over for 50 years as though it were new and unique and nobody had ever considered it before, and feel that they are entitled to everybody else’s time and consideration in giving them an individual tutoring lesson because, hey, they’re special and their time is important and they don’t have any obligation to improve their poor research skills.

     

    It further astonishes me that they feel by wrapping their question up neatly in clean linen they will disguise its essential basis, and that invective and hate are inappropriate when responding to a theory which laid bare is just the continuation of an ancient tradition: “Why does a father… not have the right to make decisions”.  I’d have more confidence in the good faith of your question if you hadn’t used the emotionally charged and inaccurate term ‘father’.  I’d have even more confidence if you had in any way indicated you were aware the woman in question didn’t get pregnant all by herself, or that the man involved had even a vague awareness that what “changed the rest of his life” wasn’t her decision but his own stupidity in being careless about birth control.

  • crowepps

    “Ask Permission For Abortions?  Women Say No”

    http://community.adn.com/?q=adn/node/160480#storylink=misearch

  • kilndriedmeats

    Why are you putting words into my mouth and then laughing at them sarcastically?

     

    That’s pretty strange.

  • prochoiceferret

    Why are you putting words into my mouth and then laughing at them sarcastically?

     

    Did you have someone else in mind who would write the child-support checks, given how you feel it would be “fair” for that not to be the responsibility of the child’s non-custodial male parent?

  • kilndriedmeats

    Oh, a deranged genie would have so much fun with you. You’re practically the poster boy for “Be careful what you wish for…”

    I do not understand what you mean by this.

     

    Because once there is a child, someone needs to pay to care for its needs.

    Absolutely agreed.

    Ha ha. Do you suppose the government/taxpayers should step in? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha… [wipes tear] oh, you’re funny…

    Do they not already? Is “HA HA HA” supposed to be sarcastic laughter? I don’t understand your point.

     

    Do you suppose the woman should shoulder this burden alone, when it took two people to create the child in the first place?

    When* the woman has the right to safe and effective birth control, and has the absolute right to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, and the non-custodial male parent (thank you for a more accurate term than “father”) explicitly does NOT want a child, then yes. If one opts to remain pregnant, one accepts the risk and consequences, correct?

     

    *I am aware that the above two rights are the result of an already hard-fought battle for equality. I am aware that many people, governments, organizations, and churches are actively working to undermine these basic human rights, and I am doing my best to be a part of fighting against it. I want to be part of the solution. I understand that my initial view of this was overly simplistic and too idealistic, and is charged with a lifetime of bias due to my gender and the culture I was raised in. I’m doing my best to deal with that and work to better my thoughts, words, and deeds.

     

    I’ve been spending the past several days thinking about this issue, and done my best to have a civil and productive discourse here. I have done my best to take to heart the words of those who chose to help me, and to even try to see something valuable in the flame messages. I’ve come to the conclusion that ultimately the individual right to control one’s own body and the societal necessity of children having a means of support are of greater importance than a man’s right to refuse to support an unwanted child. That may be a more appropriate situation in the future, when all pregnancies are wanted and intended, but for now I’m willing to accept this as a reasonable and fair means of dealing with what has historically been a gross injustice to women and children alike. I imagine most of the readers here will respond with “well DUH”, but it’s been something that’s taken some thinking-out for me.

     

    Again, my thanks to everybody here who has taken the time to respond, and help me find good answers to my question.

  • kilndriedmeats

    Despite your preemptive apology (“I apologize in advance if this is something that gets torn apart on a regular basis”) you don’t really seem to grasp just how much courtesy you were extended here. 

    I am well aware of the courtesy that has been extended to me here, which is why I have thanked the people who have taken the time to assist me when they were under no obligation to do anything at all.

    It truly astonishes me how often people come here and ask a question that has been chewed over for 50 years as though it were new and unique and nobody had ever considered it before, and feel that they are entitled to everybody else’s time and consideration in giving them an individual tutoring lesson because, hey, they’re special and their time is important and they don’t have any obligation to improve their poor research skills.

    Well, it’s an issue I’ve been thinking over for a while, and as I have already stated it’s something I attempted to research. The majority of what I found on the topic was written by ‘Men’s Rights Activists’ and was useless anti-woman propaganda at best, and utter drivel at worst. Since I respect this website as a source of accurate information, I opted to ask the typically well-informed and intelligent commentators here. I politely and respectfully asked a good faith question, and for the most part the individuals responding have shown me the same courtesy while taking time out of their days to help educate me. I resent your attempt to frame this as a negative thing. Would it be better if I had remained ignorant?

    It further astonishes me that they feel by wrapping their question up neatly in clean linen they will disguise its essential basis, and that invective and hate are inappropriate when responding to a theory which laid bare is just the continuation of an ancient tradition: “Why does a father… not have the right to make decisions”. 

    I’ve been spending an awful lot of time recently attempting to become more aware of my own privileged thinking, and how it influences my words and deeds. I am making an active attempt to undo a lifetime of inculcation, and educate myself so as to do better in the future. Invective and hate are inappropriate when it’s just a means of attacking me personally, as opposed to bad ideas I may hold, because I personally make a convenient target. I will not pretend that such things are a positive contribution to a discussion.

    I’d have more confidence in the good faith of your question if you hadn’t used the emotionally charged and inaccurate term ‘father’.

    I have already admitted to my own ignorance, and pre-emptively apologized for any offense I may have caused by asking a question that has been answered time and time again – what on earth else do you want me to do here? As for the “emotionally charged and inaccurate term ‘father'”, what term should I use instead? I’m here asking because I want to learn, and I want to use what I learn to help make the world a better and more equal place for everybody. If that wasn’t important to me I would probably be out drinking beers with my ‘bros’ and laughing at rape jokes instead of trying to have a civl discussion here.

    I’d have even more confidence if you had in any way indicated you were aware the woman in question didn’t get pregnant all by herself,

    I’m really not sure how to address this. I’m well aware of how babies are made.

    or that the man involved had even a vague awareness that what “changed the rest of his life” wasn’t her decision but his own stupidity in being careless about birth control

    I use condoms religiously. I follow the instructions to the letter, every single time. I’ve had a condom break on me before and had to help my girlfriend get through the terror that she might be pregnant. Seeing somebody I cared so much about so frightened was awful, and has only made me more careful. Accidents happen though, and as another poster accurately pointed out, deceit happens too. Carrying a pregnancy to term is something that a woman has, or ought to have an absolute right to decide about, right?

     

    I’m not sure what your beef with me is, but I object to the idea that it’s acceptable to make personal attacks rather than attack bad ideas. I’ve already said that I will accept any shredding of my question with grace, but I will not accept somebody calling my girlfriend a “dumb broad” or attacking a straw-man version of me. That’s not fair, and that’s not being part of the solution.

  • crowepps

    Taking you at your word that you in no way contemplate as part of your question that the man to be able to FORCE a woman to remain pregnant when she doesn’t want to be, then your question sparks these thoughts:

    • Pregnant women worry that a pregnancy will forestall their education, mire them in lifelong poverty, result in the loss of their job or estrangement from their family or social ruin, negatively impact their mental health or cause health complications resulting in permanent disability and death.
    • Men who get women pregnant worry about whether it’s ‘fair’ that they might be on the hook for child support.

    The way you have the question framed, though, may be an apples and oranges problem:

    Situation 1 is Man A has sex with Woman A, knowing that birth control sometimes fails, and the natural process will lead to a pregnancy BOTH of them should anticipate the possibility of, she weighs the risks listed above and continues the natural process, successfully delivering a child, and at that point BOTH Man A and Woman A are responsible to support that child as both of them were aware was a POSSIBILITY right from the moment they chose to have sex.  Man A gets exactly what a reasonable person would anticipate as the possible natural result.

    Situation 2 is Man B has sex with Woman B, knowing that birth control sometimes fails, and the natural process leads to a pregnancy BOTH of them should have anticipated the possibility of, and weighing her risks, she interrupts that natural process by having an abortion.  At that point Woman B no longer has to worry about any of the negative consequences that Woman A risked, and both Man B and Woman B have zero support obligation (just as would have been the case after a natural reproductive failure), and if Man B is upset about the decision she made,  he’s under no obligation to have anything further to do with Woman B.

    The question you are contemplating attempts to justify Man A being able to choose to shift his reasonably expected burden of financial responsibility onto Woman A by abandoning their infant born of the completed pregnancy because it’s not fair that Man B, with whom he has no connection at all, ‘got lucky’ financially by having Woman B choose to handle her situation differently.  This doesn’t have anything to do with whether Woman A’s or Woman B’s behavior is moral, but instead Man A’s indignation that he’s still obligated and Man B has gotten off the hook.  Of course, Man A does have a child and Man B doesn’t not, but there isn’t any presumption that balances things, because these hypotheticals assume a living child is valueless to men.

    And by the way, my ‘gripe’ with you is that I never said anything about your girlfriend.  You seem to make it a habit to lump all the people commenting here together, and use your posts to me to make snotty comments about what other posters have said, and I find that offensive.  It is also remarkably similar to ‘Woman A doesn’t deserve money to support the child she must care for because Woman B didn’t have one.’

  • prochoiceferret

    When* the woman has the right to safe and effective birth control, and has the absolute right to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, and the non-custodial male parent (thank you for a more accurate term than “father”) explicitly does NOT want a child, then yes.

     

    So you’d rather be unfair to the child, who has no fault in any of this whatsoever, than be unfair to the non-custodial male, who decided to have sex with a woman who wasn’t all that keen on not having a child.

     

    If one opts to remain pregnant, one accepts the risk and consequences, correct?

     

    Sure deal. Replace “remain pregnant” with “ejaculate inside a woman’s vagina” and the statement remains accurate!

  • prochoiceferret
    • Pregnant women worry that a pregnancy will forestall their education, mire them in lifelong poverty, result in the loss of their job or estrangement from their family or social ruin, negatively impact their mental health or cause health complications resulting in permanent disability and death.
    • Men who get women pregnant worry about whether it’s ‘fair’ that they might be on the hook for child support.

     

    My goodness, this is a travesty of injustice! Obviously, what we have to do to make this heavily-lopsided situation fair and balanced again is to do away with the man’s financial obligation to the child he helped create. Then, everything will be the way man God intended!

  • liberaldem

    In response to Mr. Dick’s proposal, I humbly suggest that all men get the permission of women before the men have erections…because we all know what erections can lead to.

  • kittyarmy

    His statements really betrayed a longing for control…I think we’ve all seen similar opinions cloaked in “concerns for women & baby” assertions, but he doesn’t even bother. If a woman gets pregnant her body is not hers, her baby is not hers, she’s just like a temporary incubating vessel.

    Must be nice not to have a vagina/uterus – even if you do get raped, buttholes can’t get pregnant.