"Pro-life" douchenozzle John Adams (R-Mendacity) has re-introduced legislation in the Ohio house that would require the biological father's consent before a woman can get an abortion.
As written, the bill would ban women from seeking an abortion without written consent from the father of the fetus. In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would be required to submit a list of possible fathers. The physician would be forced to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort.Lifenews.com reports "the bill offers exceptions in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy." They fail to note what that exception consists of: "[W]omen would be required to present a police report in order to prove a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest."
Or, as Pam puts it "a rape survivor would need to find her rapist and see if he's willing to sign off on the whole deal. Jesus H. Christ." Allow me to add an oh, for fuck's sake while we're at it.
Claiming to not know the father's identity is not a viable excuse, according to the proposed legislation. Simply put: no father means no abortion.This whole tack seems especially mendacious and nefarious, as the baby-saver movement tries to find a new position to attack choice from, this time hiding its anti-choice fuckneckery inside a thicket of seemingly-pro-choice legislation. The problem is it is entirely pro-male-choice: Women are, as always, left at the mercy of the patriarchy for autonomy over their own bodies.
In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would be required to submit a list of possible fathers. The physician would be forced to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort.
Of course, there wouldn't be an issue at all if women would just keep their legs closed. "There is merit to chastity," according to Adams. Not sure how that applies to rapists though.