Meanwhile, in Oklahoma...

"I would invite you to co-author a bill that I'm considering next year that would mandate that each male, when they reach puberty, get a mandatory vasectomy that's only reversible when they reach the point of financial and emotional stability," said Rep. Mickey Dollens.

If it sounds far fetched, point out what's different between restricting men and restricting women.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

AbbySvenz · F

Just have all guys submit their DNA to a national database, so the baby’s paternity can be confirmed, and the baby daddy can pay child support, and medical costs of the mother.

Tastyfrzz · 61-69, M

@AbbySvenz plus college tuition and health insurance to age 26.

Roadsterrider · 56-60, M

@AbbySvenz I would support something like that as long as baby daddy had equal say in whether it was aborted or not. It is a woman's body but the thing growing there is the product of both. I see financial issues as a reason for a woman to get an abortion and alleviate that responsibility. I think the man involved should have the same options.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@Roadsterrider Have you not been awake this week? The question and the choice were just removed from women all together.

Strictgram · 70-79, C

@Graylight Wrong. The issue has simply returned to the states where it should have been in the first place.

Roadsterrider · 56-60, M

@Graylight NO, it did not get removed, it has been handed back to the states to govern. Just as other issues not specifically spelled out in the constitution are supposed to be handled by the states. Like drivers privileges, sale and consumption of alcohol, age of consent and as long as the states don't violate constitutional rights, they regulate as they please. Michigan has a law on the books prohibiting abortion except in the case of medical necessity, the Governor of MI is already on the record for getting rid of the law and rewriting MI legislation on abortion. I am sure the people of the state have a different opinion of abortion now than they did in 1931 when the law was written. And if any state bans abortion, it will be back in front of the SCOTUS before we know it.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@Roadsterrider Do you not understand the concept of a game plan? Jesus, it's like if the murderer doesn't describe his crime as he commits it you let him go free.

Northwest · M

@Graylight

The question and the choice were just removed from women all together.

The talking point, put forward by the SCOTUS majority opinion, is that it's a "State" issue. Because abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. So. the Court should NEVER rule on any issue not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Idiotic, but gives them an equally idiotic reason to pretend it's not about political, racist and religious extremism (and of course one of them is going to say: what about Long Dong Thomas?).

Graylight · 51-55, F

@Northwest it is not a de facto State issue simply because it's not a mentioned in the Constitution. Much of what has been ruled on by the Supreme Court appears nowhere in the Constitution.

Then why does it become a state issue? On what grounds? What is the argument for sending it back down to the states?

This ruling was political and proved two points. 1, It's already been noted by the party that this was to show conservatives won't be intimidated and 2, They will sacrifice the choice and autonomy of Americans and accept unwanted, unplanned new citizens as the by-product.

There a reason the world thinks we're abject idiots this morning.