Georgia Democrats Seek Vasectomy Ban In Response To Abortion Bill

A group of female Democratic legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives has proposed a bill that would ban men from seeking vasectomies.

"Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies," said bill author Yasmin Neal in a statement. "It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women's ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States."

The proposed legislation is a response to HB 954, a bill sponsored by Republican Doug McKillips that seeks to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Current legislation prohibits abortions after the second trimester, or approximately 24 weeks. The measure, which has been moving quickly through the House, is intended to prevent late-term abortions on fetuses that proponents say can already feel pain at 20 weeks.

The Georgia House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take up HB 954 on Wednesday. In response, Democrats scheduled a 3 p.m. hearing to introduce the vasectomy ban.

"The Republican attack on women's reproductive rights is unconscionable," said House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams in a statement. "What is more deplorable is the hypocrisy of HB 954's author. If we follow his logic, we believe it is the obligation of the General Assembly to assert an equally invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men and substitute the will of the government over the will of men."

McKillips, the author of HB 954, was unamused by the apparently tongue-in-cheek nature of the Democrats' proposal.

"I think it's disappointing that they would make light of something as important as protecting life," he said. "It's just not a joking matter, and it's a time for serious issues and serious discussion."

Comments

[SylvreWolfe]

01:34 PM on 03/17/2013

This kind of stuff just points out the hypocrisy of the so called "pro-life" crowd. If they were so pro-life they would also support a sacred sperm bill since that is where it all begins. But no, they just want to control women. The entitled white men are losing control and don't like it so they are grasping onto to the last bastion of control they can wield, over women.

[odenojh]

12:07 AM on 06/20/2012

What they should do is put up a BIll that bans executions.

[L Weedn]

05:41 PM on 03/27/2012

Why don't they just say women can not have their tubes tied and ban birth control, condoms and, oh yeah, the plan B pill.

[DawnAnne21]

09:17 AM on 03/27/2012

If they want to highlight that the government should not be able to tell someone what they can't and can't do with their body they should be insisting men have compulsory vasectomies with each abortion. See how that goes over!

[Julia Spiegel]

01:44 PM on 04/15/2012

i kinda wish they would. but i know that's not going to happen. but you can hope. maybe on the womans second abortion. because he didn't learn his lesson the first time.

[mikevalentine]

10:30 PM on 03/12/2012

Bwahahaha. Children will be children...

[mikevalentine]

10:26 PM on 03/12/2012

Q: Why is it, as a Man I have zero say in weather or not my baby lives? Just sayin.... In time my fellow Americans, in time...

[obscurium]

06:43 PM on 03/15/2012

Why would you impregnate a woman who would have an abortion if you feel so strongly about it? If sex, to you, is all about procreation, you should choose the mother of your children more carefully so she's of the same mindset as you on this matter. If you're ok with recreational sex, make sure you don't become a father. Simple really.

[SylvreWolfe]

01:36 PM on 03/17/2013

Because you don't carry the baby for 9 months and then have to raise it, many times by yourself, for 18 years. But hey, it wasn't too long ago that a man had total, complete control over what his own wife could do with her own body.

[lblackw105]

12:18 PM on 03/02/2012

Don't worry, if the Blunt bill is passed, these decisions will be made by your employer, as G_d (or g_d) intended. No other legislation required, as the decisions are on your boss' agenda.

[Leah Malvig]

04:33 AM on 02/27/2012

I just have one question that I STILL have not gotten answered. I get the whole Christian faith system. I was raised Christian. What I don't understand is why do these people keep insisting on trying to force their beliefs on others? Abortion = murder, when based on the Christian faith, is fine. Don't get one. Don't be ashamed to say that's what you believe. Even if it's not based on Christian faith, or religion of any kind, fine. But WHY do people keep feeling this BURNING NEED TO FORCE EVERYONE ELSE TO LIVE THE WAY THEY WANT???

Christians - read your Bibles again! You are NOT to force your beliefs on others. PERIOD.

[Pseudojo]

09:39 PM on 02/27/2012

Protecting human life is not exclusively a Christian value. I am male, atheist, liberal...AND I believe abortion is an ethical gray area. Women who insist that society has no role to play in legislating abortion are being willfully disengenous. Can you legally abort a child one minute before it is born? How about one day? One month? While I don't subscribe to the life begins at conception argument, abortions in the second trimester are dangerously close to infanticide in my opinion.

[Mike Mac]

06:46 PM on 02/29/2012

Hmm, I wonder what kind of answer you'd get from a Priest running a school that is being forced to by birth control for employees. He'd probably share your sentiments of "But WHY do people keep feeling this BURNING NEED TO FORCE EVERYONE ELSE TO LIVE THE WAY THEY WANT???"

[lblackw105]

12:20 PM on 03/02/2012

He has been voluntarily paying for it in the past.

[imokit]

08:32 AM on 03/05/2012

He's not being forced to live a certain way, he's being forced to allow his employees to live the way they want.

[wayne the pain]

07:31 PM on 02/26/2012

Georgia with their rich history of slavery, treason against the U.S., KKK, Jim Crow laws, lynchings, now reactionary medical sex laws. What next, repeal of child labor laws and public flogging of gays?

[Axaproromnal]

11:46 PM on 02/25/2012

Neal's apparently satirical anti-vasectomy bill misses the point. A vasectomy is about preventing pregnancy before it begins. The female equivalent of a vasectomy is a tubal ligation, otherwise known as getting one's tubes tied. If the Republicans had introduced a bill in the Georgia House of Representatives that were about increasing state regulation of tubal ligation, then a vasectomy ban would be an appropriate response. An abortion is about terminating a pregnancy after it has begun. McKillips' anti-abortion bill can only be countered with a ban on the male equivalent of an abortion, but there is no such equivalent because men obviously can't become pregnant. Therefore, unfortunately, there is no equivalent of male reproductive freedom with which to respond to this anti-abortion bill.

Also, the anti-abortion bill does not elliminate women's access to abortion entirely. The bill only reduces the amount of time in the pregnancy that an abortion can be obtained in order to prevent the fetus from feeling pain during the procedure. Abortion would still be available for the first 20 weeks of the pregnancy. This is still about five months. I would think this is enough time to have an abortion.

Finally, because it takes both a woman and a man to reproduce, restricting male reproductive freedom also restricts female reproductive freedom.

[Richard Yuzzi]

11:05 PM on 02/26/2012

Thank you. A voice of reason on this site.

[HotelDrama]

11:17 PM on 03/09/2012

I think you missed the entire point of this bill. This isn't about pushing forward an equivalent bill. Its a bill that is making a point. This quote, from the article above, makes that clear.
"What is more deplorable is the hypocrisy of HB 954's author. If we follow his logic, we believe it is the obligation of the General Assembly to assert an equally invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men and substitute the will of the government over the will of men."
Besides, what you think is enough time for someone else to figure out if they need to have an abortion is irrelevant. It isn't your body. You deal with your body. Let others deal with their own body.

[Wesley Ross]

11:04 AM on 03/10/2012

I think Axaproromnal's point is much more in line with the argument than the bill's authors. To whit, in your own response, "What you think is enough time for someone else to figure out if they need to have an abortion is irrelevant."

To this can be stated, what you think is a human life is irrelevant. You deal with your body, let others deal with their own body, ergo the child's body needs to be protected as well. The child to many is human life, with a body, which you should have no say over.

[Louise 1]

12:00 PM on 02/25/2012

The point of the bill introduced by Rep. Yasmin Neal is to point out the arrogance of the state in involving itself in, or politicizing, personal medical decisions between patients and their doctors. It also attempts to remind everyone of the role men play in the reproductive process, since pregnancy cannot occur without them. For those of you who need this broken down in simpler terms, it means that vasectomies cut off a man's ability to have children that might otherwise exist without the procedure. Limiting men's access to it would insure those potential children's chance to be born. I think this is an utterly brilliant concept by Rep. Neal. We need more people like her in positions of leadership.
I also think that some real societal constraints on men and on their irresponsible sexual behavior are in order. Men do have children even though they do not carry those children in their bodies, and there should be severe social consequences for men who abandon or neglect their children, or who do not involve themselves 100 percent in their care and upbringing. And no, I am not joking.

[Kos Murray]

01:08 AM on 02/26/2012

I like your 2nd paragraph--- (I also think that some real societal constraints on men and on their irresponsible sexual behavior are in order. Men do have children even though they do not carry those children in their bodies, and there should be severe social consequences for men who abandon or neglect their children, or who do not involve themselves 100 percent in their care and upbringing. And no, I am not joking.) Thank you for thinking out side your zipper, tent or god. it was refreshing. Thank you.

[Louise 1]

09:46 AM on 02/26/2012

Thanks, Kos!

[MobileSQA]

11:54 PM on 02/26/2012

It is just as irresponsible for the woman as the man if she gets pregnant...its 100% equal

[imokit]

08:35 AM on 03/05/2012

Yes but society blames the woman. It's the woman who's access to birth control or abortion is going through legislation. There's a debate about paying for woman's contraception but not condoms. Blame should be 100% equal but it's not in society.

[Luanne Taylor]

11:33 AM on 02/25/2012

OR, before the procedure, each man needs to have a small camera inserted in his penis so he can see exactly what his sperm is up too....

[Carla van der Meer]

03:07 PM on 02/25/2012

Luanne Taylor I loved your comments. They are are spot on. I would like to add the following. If men got pregnant , free birth controll ever, abortions would would be free, They would be free of the probe they would. be free of all the hoops which women forced to.If you don't own a penis then it really none of your concern

[Luanne Taylor]

07:31 PM on 02/25/2012

thank you!!

[Carla van der Meer]

02:03 AM on 02/26/2012

I doubt they would be able to find a scope small enough. And while they're at it, perhaps they might make use of a high powered microscope in an attempt to locate his tiny brain;

[tarskarkas]

03:03 AM on 02/25/2012

Any legislator regardless of party or affiliation that sponsors , introduces, or supports any bill that mandates anything to do with birth control and then is found to use condoms or any other method of pregnancy prevention should be publicly flogged on the senate steps !

[mbrat42]

02:37 AM on 02/25/2012

So, if they can't abort a baby in the 20th week of pregnancy, they want to ban birth control? Or is it to make sure birth control is only practiced by women? Good grief, you can get free birth control, you can buy condoms in the bathroom at a gas station for 75 cent, you can get morning after pills, or you can just keep your dang pants on. 20 weeks is 5 months, many people are already showing by this time.

[Henk]

09:19 AM on 02/25/2012

...and very few abortions happen at that time.

[WD Dawson]

09:46 AM on 02/25/2012

It is all about banning birth control---but not only birth control one presidential candidate wants to ban pre-natal care (he is considered the "pro-life" candidate---amazing?"), another calls non-procreative sexual intercourse "immoral"-(he is considered the libertarian)--These are the LEADERS of the Republican party--This is what these people believe and what they hope to achieve if elected.

[Marg Wood]

04:41 PM on 02/25/2012

They are not pro life! They are anti choice. They want power over women and keeping them pregnant is one way of doing it. It also keeps people poor and potential slaves to the rich. No person should have the right to dictate what a women can or can not do with their own bodies!!! Stay out of women's lives!

[dylanlewis89]

12:54 AM on 02/25/2012

so mr. santo, what do YOU think?