Home | About | Donate

Oklahoma Advances 'Shameful' Written-Consent Abortion Bill


Oklahoma Advances 'Shameful' Written-Consent Abortion Bill

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

The Oklahoma House Public Health Committee on Tuesday advanced a bill that requires women to obtain written consent from their sexual partners before they can get an abortion—a measure that picked up widespread notoriety after its author, state Rep. Justin Humphrey, referred to pregnant women as "hosts" and said their bodies don't belong to them.


Good grief these Southeners get nuttier and nuttier. Must be the moonshine.


Here's to the land you've torn out the heart of,
Oklahoma, find yourself another country to be part of.

For any of the myriad other far-right policies being implemented these days, use this form:

"[name of state] find yourself another country to be part of."

(with a tip of the hat to Phil Ochs)


Without a verifiable elections system loony tunes ding dongs can do anything they want.


The American version of the Taliban are at it again. Yes, very shameful indeed.


Very interesting. I agree with all the outrage but just think, if someone signs his consent to an abortion, he is admitting paternity which would open quite another can of worms, I'd think. Frequently, that partner may not be located in a timely fashion or would refuse to sign for reasons of paternity.

Totally wacko but completely as expected from the patriarchal death cult.


I had found out a few years ago that the abortion argument is pretty old. Somewhere around 520 BC. the philosophers came to conclusion unlike now. Abortion was to be decided by the woman, and anything other than promiscuity was ok. I dont see the modern argument being overly relevant, but only because i know for sure it is used against the public to divide people. It's already been decided. To go back and reverse it, is for fanatics to confuse the populace.


Really cool to know and thanks for sharing. However, history isn't for the narrowminded and the republicans are the epitome of narrowmindedness. So, history will have to repeat itself.....


In all this talk about 'women need to be responsible', who's telling other men to keep their dick in their pants? Why is the woman the only one expected to be responsible? Does Humphrey not want to give up his bi-weekly visits to the whorehouse? Is his wife not enough for him or is she so pissed at him that she won't put out for him?


"There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."

-Will Rogers (a favorite son of Oklahoma)


I'd like to have a source to cite for that, but "the philosophers" is a pretty ambiguous label to use. Around 520 BCE (please; "BC" gives history to Christendom's control) there wasn't a lot of sharing of such decisions from culture to culture. And without microscopy, there was little understanding of how the fetus "got in there in the first place" (as a 4yo put it to me when my 2nd was looming over her head; someone else's 4yo, so I sent her back to her own mother).

But let's also recognize that it never has been up to "the philosophers" or the lawmakers to decide whether abortion is up to the woman. If she feels herself host to a parasite, she will act to free herself. The only question is whether men are willing to help her do it safely enough that she can take care of her already born children or go on to bear and care for others. And you men need to know that, even under the best of circumstances, being pregnant at least on some days feels exactly like being parasitized or possessed by aliens and demons. Your body is not your own, but continuing to "host" that alien life form has to be and always is, like it or not, your own choice.