Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
1st Session of the 56th Legislature (2017)
HOUSE BILL 1441
By: Humphrey
AS INTRODUCED An Act relating to public health and safety; prohibiting abortion to be performed without consent of the father; requiring pregnant woman seeking to abort pregnancy to provide identity of father; allowing identified person to demand paternity test; providing certain exceptions; providing for codification; and providing an effective date.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA: SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1-732.1 of Title 63, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. No abortion shall be performed in this state without the written informed consent of the father of the fetus.
B. A pregnant woman seeking to abort her pregnancy shall be required to provide, in writing, the identity of the father of the fetus to the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion. If the person identified as the father of the fetus challenges the fact that he is the father, such individual may demand that a paternity test be performed.
C. This section shall not apply if the father of the fetus is deceased and the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced signs a notarized affidavit attesting to that fact.
D. This section shall not apply in cases in which a woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced was the victim of rape or incest and the pregnancy resulted from the rape or incest, or in cases where the physician determines that the carrying of the fetus places the woman's life is in danger. SECTION 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2017 56-1-5840 AM 01/09/17
I am not sure how I feel about the language of this bill but I am curious about where the discussions might go from here. I can agree with it in principle but I think they could have approached it in a better (?) way.
Not exactly. In some cases they might be forced to pay for it but they don't need to be a father and they don't need to give birth to it.Right now a man loses his reproductive freedom when the woman becomes pregnant. She can force fatherhood on him.Doesn't this violate the basic human right of the mother? No one can be forced to give birth and raise a child they don't want. And how well would they do the job?
I think a man who runs away from a child he creates is a lousy human being, but that doesn't change the reality that a woman has the power to force fatherhood on him.
When the child is born they have all the responsibilities of fatherhood thrust on them, whether they wanted it or not. The legal system can force them to assume those responsibilities.Not exactly. In some cases they might be forced to pay for it but they don't need to be a father and they don't need to give birth to it.Right now a man loses his reproductive freedom when the woman becomes pregnant. She can force fatherhood on him.Doesn't this violate the basic human right of the mother? No one can be forced to give birth and raise a child they don't want. And how well would they do the job?
I think a man who runs away from a child he creates is a lousy human being, but that doesn't change the reality that a woman has the power to force fatherhood on him.
In the end...there is only one person who's life will drastically change and who might lose her life in childbirth and that is the mother. Yes, a father's life can drastically change IF he steps up to the plate. But the woman is the one who bears ALL the RISKS including mortality - of childbirth. SHE is the one who might lose her job or drop out of school.
Sorry...but father's don't have equal rights because they don't have equal risks.
The principle is sound, it's the implementation that's tricky.In the end...there is only one person who's life will drastically change and who might lose her life in childbirth and that is the mother. Yes, a father's life can drastically change IF he steps up to the plate. But the woman is the one who bears ALL the RISKS including mortality - of childbirth. SHE is the one who might lose her job or drop out of school.
Sorry...but father's don't have equal rights because they don't have equal risks.
But if one wants true legal equality, they have to have equal rights, at least when it comes to the choice of not having the child.
If a woman can have an abortion, which is both a physical and legal end to a pregnancy, and thus the responsibilities of parenthood, shouldn't men have, if not the biological ability, the legal ability to "terminate" a pregnancy?
This is the old "choice for men" argument rearing its head again.
In the end...there is only one person who's life will drastically change and who might lose her life in childbirth and that is the mother. Yes, a father's life can drastically change IF he steps up to the plate. But the woman is the one who bears ALL the RISKS including mortality - of childbirth. SHE is the one who might lose her job or drop out of school.
Sorry...but father's don't have equal rights because they don't have equal risks.
But if one wants true legal equality, they have to have equal rights, at least when it comes to the choice of not having the child.
If a woman can have an abortion, which is both a physical and legal end to a pregnancy, and thus the responsibilities of parenthood, shouldn't men have, if not the biological ability, the legal ability to "terminate" a pregnancy?
This is the old "choice for men" argument rearing its head again.
The principle is sound, it's the implementation that's tricky.In the end...there is only one person who's life will drastically change and who might lose her life in childbirth and that is the mother. Yes, a father's life can drastically change IF he steps up to the plate. But the woman is the one who bears ALL the RISKS including mortality - of childbirth. SHE is the one who might lose her job or drop out of school.
Sorry...but father's don't have equal rights because they don't have equal risks.
But if one wants true legal equality, they have to have equal rights, at least when it comes to the choice of not having the child.
If a woman can have an abortion, which is both a physical and legal end to a pregnancy, and thus the responsibilities of parenthood, shouldn't men have, if not the biological ability, the legal ability to "terminate" a pregnancy?
This is the old "choice for men" argument rearing its head again.
In the end...there is only one person who's life will drastically change and who might lose her life in childbirth and that is the mother. Yes, a father's life can drastically change IF he steps up to the plate. But the woman is the one who bears ALL the RISKS including mortality - of childbirth. SHE is the one who might lose her job or drop out of school.
Sorry...but father's don't have equal rights because they don't have equal risks.
But if one wants true legal equality, they have to have equal rights, at least when it comes to the choice of not having the child.
If a woman can have an abortion, which is both a physical and legal end to a pregnancy, and thus the responsibilities of parenthood, shouldn't men have, if not the biological ability, the legal ability to "terminate" a pregnancy?
This is the old "choice for men" argument rearing its head again.
The only way you can have truly "equal" rights is if you have "equal" risks and thus far you don't. It is a conundrum.
Either everyone has reproductive freedom or it doesn't exist.here we go again..men whining about their inability to control their sperm
here we go again..men whining about their inability to control their sperm
Very true but as stated earlier the problem really does raise its head in implementing such equality and the damage it inevitably does in reality. I can only see this as leading to more children without fathers - a clear problem.In the end...there is only one person who's life will drastically change and who might lose her life in childbirth and that is the mother. Yes, a father's life can drastically change IF he steps up to the plate. But the woman is the one who bears ALL the RISKS including mortality - of childbirth. SHE is the one who might lose her job or drop out of school.
Sorry...but father's don't have equal rights because they don't have equal risks.
But if one wants true legal equality, they have to have equal rights, at least when it comes to the choice of not having the child.
If a woman can have an abortion, which is both a physical and legal end to a pregnancy, and thus the responsibilities of parenthood, shouldn't men have, if not the biological ability, the legal ability to "terminate" a pregnancy?
This is the old "choice for men" argument rearing its head again.
The only way you can have truly "equal" rights is if you have "equal" risks and thus far you don't. It is a conundrum.
What does the risk have to do with it if one or the other party decides they don't want the responsibility of parenthood? Right now only women have the overall control of the situation, either to carry to term or to abort. If true equality is the goal, men should have at a minimum the choice to legally "abort" and not have the responsibilities of parenthood. It's not like that option results in forced gestation, it just results in the woman, if she wants to keep the baby. to support it herself.
Very true but as stated earlier the problem really does raise its head in implementing such equality and the damage it inevitably does in reality. I can only see this as leading to more children without fathers - a clear problem.In the end...there is only one person who's life will drastically change and who might lose her life in childbirth and that is the mother. Yes, a father's life can drastically change IF he steps up to the plate. But the woman is the one who bears ALL the RISKS including mortality - of childbirth. SHE is the one who might lose her job or drop out of school.
Sorry...but father's don't have equal rights because they don't have equal risks.
But if one wants true legal equality, they have to have equal rights, at least when it comes to the choice of not having the child.
If a woman can have an abortion, which is both a physical and legal end to a pregnancy, and thus the responsibilities of parenthood, shouldn't men have, if not the biological ability, the legal ability to "terminate" a pregnancy?
This is the old "choice for men" argument rearing its head again.
The only way you can have truly "equal" rights is if you have "equal" risks and thus far you don't. It is a conundrum.
What does the risk have to do with it if one or the other party decides they don't want the responsibility of parenthood? Right now only women have the overall control of the situation, either to carry to term or to abort. If true equality is the goal, men should have at a minimum the choice to legally "abort" and not have the responsibilities of parenthood. It's not like that option results in forced gestation, it just results in the woman, if she wants to keep the baby. to support it herself.
There are very few instance where I believe that my political philosophy is hypocritical and this is, unfortunately, one of those instances. I have not yet been able to square my support of freedom and the reality that such a policy will undoubtedly hurt innocent children that do not deserve such treatment.
