More Read
When I first learned about the Personhood Movement whose motto is “Protecting the Pre-born by Love and by Law” and whose goal it is to declare a fertilized egg a person, I was moved to write about it: When Does Life Begin? An important limitation of the Personhood Movement. I made the point that eggs and sperm should also be considered persons–or at least pre-persons and I included a delightful Monty Python video of the crew singing “Every Sperm is Sacred. Check it out, it is pretty funny.
The Personhood Movement, the protector of pre-born, evidently has chosen avatar Molotov Mitchell as one of their spokespersons. Check him out in the video below and ask yourself just who is it that the Personhood Movement people are trying to communicate with here? Pretty weird.
Anyway, I was glad to learn, via the uber-liberal ThinkProgress blog, that legislators (mainly women) across the country are responding to the onslaught of anti-abortion, pro-personhood legislation, with some bills of there own. Here are some examples from Amanda Peterson Beadle‘s post, “As Anti-Abortion Bills Gain Steam, Legislators Push Back with Legislation Mocking the Extreme Bills.” Enjoy:
“EVERY SPERM HAS A RIGHT (OKLAHOMA): To poke fun a “personhood” bill that give full rights to a zygote, state Sen. Constance Johnson (D) introduced an amendment that would also declare every sperm to be sacred. “However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child,” her amendment stated.
CHILDREN DENIED BIRTH BECAUSE OF VASECTOMIES (GEORGIA): State Rep. Yasmin Neal (D) introduced legislation that would limit vasectomies. “Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies,” Neal explained. Her measure is in response to a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks on the grounds that a fetus can feel pain — a claim disputed by doctors.
MORE HOOPS TO CLEAR FOR VIAGRA (OHIO): In response to Ohio’s so-called Heartbeat Bill, which would prevent abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, state Sen. Nina Turner (D) will introduce a bill that would make men jump through hoops, like a psychological screening, before they could obtain Viagra and similar drugs for erectile dysfunction. “All across the country, including in Ohio, I thought since men are certainly paying great attention to women’s health that we should definitely return the favor,” Turner said.
RECTAL EXAMS FOR A VIAGRA PRESCRIPTIONS (VIRGINIA): To protest Virginia’s bill requiring women to receive an ultrasound before an abortion, state Sen. Janet Howell (D) attached an amendment to the bill that would have required men to receive a rectal exam and pass a cardiac stress test before doctorswrote them a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication. “We need some gender equity here,” Howell said. The Virginia Senate rejected her amendment, but both chambers passed the ultrasound requirement after clarifying that women would not be forced to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound.
KNOW THE SIDE EFFECTS OF VIAGRA (ILLINOIS): State Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D) decided to push back against GOP attacks on women’s health by offering an amendment that would require men to watch a “horrific video” about the side effects of Viagra before the received a prescription for the drug. His bill is in response to a measure requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before an abortion. “If we are going to do this, we need to do it in a way that is applied equally,” Cassidy said.
PROTECT ALL SPERM (DELAWARE): Mocking the “personhood” measures, the town council in Wilmington, Delaware approved a satirical resolution “that asks state legislatures and U.S. Congress to enact laws that forbid men from destroying their semen.” The resolution notes that if lawmakers think a female egg has full rights, then they should say the same thing about sperm.
UPDATE: Missouri legislators have also introduced a bill that would limit vasectomies so that the procedures only would be performed “to avert the death of a man or avert serious risk of…physical impairment,” and that no regard would be given to the man’s desire to father children.”
Equally entertaining are the comments in response to this post:
John Hoover from Riverview, Florida writes: “It’s sort of sad that the “male version” of these bills is viewed as satire while the original, female versions are considered serious pieces of legislation that are deserving of serious consideration. That being said, I some how don’t think that the old white men who, at a great majority, proposed the original bills will be quite as receptive to equal measures aimed at themselves.”
James Edwards of San Diego State University says, “I love sarcasm when used to fight the sanctimonious!” [me too!]
And, Kelly Dugery of Salem, Massachusetts writes, “Love this! Keep it up, ladies! Would love to have some of these bills be introduced by male politicians in a show of solidarity with American women, though. Imagine the impact if the bill in Virgina as introduced by “Jack Howell” instead of Janet, or if the bill in Ohio was sponsored by “Neil Tuner” instead of Nina…”
