[Sixstrings]

Bill introduced to regulate men's reproductive health

COLUMBUS – Before getting a prescription for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.
The Cleveland Democrat introduced Senate Bill 307 this week.

A critic of efforts to restrict abortion and contraception for women, Turner says she is concerned about men’s reproductive health. Turner’s bill joins a trend of female lawmakers submitting bills regulating men’s health. Turner said if state policymakers want to legislate women’s health choices through measures such as House Bill 125, known as the “Heartbeat bill,” they should also be able to legislate men’s reproductive health. Ohio anti-abortion advocates say the two can’t be compared.

Heartbeat bill sponsor Rep. Lynn Wachtmann, R-Napoleon, said comparing his bill to Turner’s would be like comparing apples to bananas.

...

“I understand some women think my bill is a personal affront,” Wachtmann said. “Protecting the unborn — to compare this to Viagra is not even related.”

Under Senate Bill 307, men taking the drugs would continue to be tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about “pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.”

“Even the FDA recommends that doctors make sure that assessments are taken that target the nature of the symptoms, whether it’s physical or psychological,” Turner said. “I certainly want to stand up for men’s health and take this seriously and legislate it the same way mostly men say they want to legislate a woman’s womb.”
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/bill-introduced-to-regulate-mens-reproductive-health-1341547.html

Brilliant.

Bottom line on this never-ending debate.. it's a woman that has to have a baby grow inside her, it's a woman who has to take all the risks of pregnancy, it's a *woman's body* we're talking about not the man's. This is a personal liberty issue. Conservatives are getting all up in having the government do things by force to women's bodies -- that forced vaginal probe bill in Virginia, and all the other state bills requiring unnecessary tests and counseling before a woman can exercise her constitutional right.

So.. why not regulate men's reproductive health? The state senator is correct, Viagra has risks. Shouldn't we men have government caring about us too.. shouldn't we have government requiring cardiac tests (no joke, these ED drugs have a cardiac risk). If you conservatives want government all up in a woman's uterus, then this is fair play -- we must be regulated too.

LMAO:

men taking the drugs would continue to be tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about “pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.”

[Tanada]

How about the Government butts out of reproduction, no child tax credit, no pay for birth control, viagra, cialis or abortion. Stay out of my bedroom and mind your own business.

[WildRose]

It sounds like some of the Republicans just want as many future little taxpayers running around as possible! No birth control and no abortion! The alternative would be no sex, at all, for the boys or the girls, not even at Republican conventions!

[dbruning]

My question would be once they regulate caloric intake, will we be getting spreadsheets or do we have to fill out the reports online. And will homegrown calories count the same as store bought calories. Gosh, I can hardly wait for my government issued food modulating throat clamp, you know, so if you go over your limit it chokes you into unconsciousness.

Good times, they're a-coming!

I agree with Tanada, the government should just stay the hell out of our personal lives. Otherwise, where does it stop?

[vision-master]

Yes, the government should just stay the hell out of our personal lives, remove all marijuana laws, right Tanada?

Might as well allow gay marriage too, no?

[AgentR11]

Could solve the whole debate my way.

It is legal in various situations for me to kill another human being, not all of which involve "self defense".

Define the embryo as human.
Make it legal to kill any human that takes up residence inside another human.

blunt, honest, everyone gets to do what they want.

Of course, we expend our full energy on these rabid social issues; but bring up something serious like the tax code, carbon budgets, indirect subsidies for petroleum imports, permitting of NG fired generation facilities, nuclear and nuclear material storage, water conservation, science/research budgets, adaptive responses to future challenges of expensive energy and climate change... bah... too boring.

[dinopello]

Might as well allow gay marriage too, no?

I think the equivalent libertarian marriage policy would be to get government out of marriage. The way it is now you need a marriage license from the state and as a result of marriage there are automatic granted contract-like things that convey. If you let every marriage be a private contract of whatever type two or more people want with no automatically conferred entanglements or benefits or anything then government would be out of the marriage game.

[Tanada]

Exactly correct Dinopello. It is none of anybody else's business how I choose to live my life. Who I love or hate unless I am doing them harm is also none of their business. What I sell, buy, eat, drink etc etc etc...none of their business.

[Sixstrings]

Define the embryo as human.
Make it legal to kill any human that takes up residence inside another human.

Who are you, the Supreme Court?

Here's the thing, man. It's a woman's body. Personal liberty wise, you can't compel a human being to allow another organism to grow inside her. Agent this has always been up to women, even in ancient Greece and Rome women had abortions.

Humane timeframe for an abortion has long been settled (late term *only* when health of the mother is at stake). I agree with Aristotle on this one:

In Aristotle's view, abortion, if performed early, was not the killing of something human,[12][13] and Aristotle would permit abortion if the birth rate was too high, but only at a stage before life and sense had begun in the embryo.[14] Aristotle considered the embryo to gain a human soul at 40 days if male and 90 days if female;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

Abortion has been part of gynecology since the beginning:

Soranus, a 2nd century Greek physician, recommended abortion in cases involving health complications as well as emotional immaturity, and provided detailed suggestions in his work Gynecology.

Women have been seeking abortion services since the dawn of time. In cultures all over the world. Abortion is not something new, criminalize it and it will still be done -- but unsafely, by midwives or quacks, not in sterile conditions with the right equipment and women will needlessly die.

As it is, many states have made it so onerously difficult to get an abortion that it may as well be illegal. In some states there is only one or two doctors for the whole state, and besides a six hour drive patients are harassed even more with laws that require an overnight hotel stay as a "waiting period." Abortions are taxed. States want to require counseling, and these sonogram / vaginal probe laws serve no medical purpose at all the point is to make the woman look at it and shame her for exercising what's been a Constitutional right since 1973.

[careinke]

I like abortion, it brings the crime rate down. An unwanted child is probably going to get into trouble. Besides, (except in the case of rape), if a person is so stupid they get pregnant by accident, then maybe we do not want that gene pool in the population.

Economically, it would probably be cheaper to society if all abortions were funded 100% by the government. We could even add a cash incentive if they elected to be sterilized at the same time.

I also agree with Tananda. Why the hell do we give the government the authority to mess with our personal lives?

[eXpat]

I like abortion, it brings the crime rate down. An unwanted child is probably going to get into trouble. Besides, (except in the case of rape), if a person is so stupid they get pregnant by accident, then maybe we do not want that gene pool in the population.

Economically, it would probably be cheaper to society if all abortions were funded 100% by the government. We could even add a cash incentive if they elected to be sterilized at the same time.

I also agree with Tananda. Why the hell do we give the government the authority to mess with our personal lives?

+1, fully agree with that.

[Roy]

Sen. Nina Turner has her way.
The Cleveland Democrat introduced Senate Bill 307 this week.

Statists to the left of me, statists to the right...

They are both parties. They just ahve slightly different agendas but both parties are full of 'leaders' who want to control everyone's behavior beyond the limits common sense would dictate.

The more 'benefits' we get from the government, the more control they require.

No thanks.

I look around me and see many people getting huge tax returns, free health care, unemployment, food stamps, etc. I get nothing but 20% taken off the top of my gross pay, then at the end of the year, not a refund, but a $1700 bill.

Shit's getting outrageous. The sooner it all collapses, the sooner we can get on with building a smaller and more just system of government.

This bloated abomination has outgrown its usefulness and its outgrown Americans' ability to pay for it.



Anybody notice an exponential function here?

:LOL:

[SARCASM] Yes the idea that we NEED lawmakers passing new laws every day, every week, and every year is a good solid idea and of course all these new laws protect us from danger and insure that the government is looking out for our best interests. [/sarcasm]

[Umber]

How about the Government butts out of reproduction, no child tax credit, no pay for birth control, viagra, cialis or abortion. Stay out of my bedroom and mind your own business.

Agree completely.

[gollum]

I like abortion, it brings the crime rate down. An unwanted child is probably going to get into trouble. Besides, (except in the case of rape), if a person is so stupid they get pregnant by accident, then maybe we do not want that gene pool in the population.

Economically, it would probably be cheaper to society if all abortions were funded 100% by the government. We could even add a cash incentive if they elected to be sterilized at the same time.

I also agree with Tananda. Why the hell do we give the government the authority to mess with our personal lives?

LMAO, but seriousley all good points.

[Sixstrings]

Sen. Nina Turner has her way.
The Cleveland Democrat introduced Senate Bill 307 this week.

Statists to the left of me, statists to the right...

Just to clarify, this Ohio bill isn't serious she's not really for regulating any guy's Viagra or getting insurers to stop covering Viagra (guess what, all these Catholic church plans cover Viagra, so where is the righteous Christian outrage over Viagra pills.. *crickets*).

The state senator did introduce the bill for real, but obviously male senators aren't going to vote to regulate their reproductive health. They'll vote for a forced vaginal probe though -- and that's the point of this bill, to highlight the hypocrisy here.

They are both parties. They just ahve slightly different agendas but both parties are full of 'leaders' who want to control everyone's behavior beyond the limits common sense would dictate.

Exactly.

Mark my words, statist Republicans out to control everyone's lives and bodies with the force of Big Government -- Big Gov could easily pivot from regulating womens' constitutional rights to regulating your 2nd amendment rights. You could use the same laws, scratch out abortion and replace with gun -- how about a several day waiting period? How about mandatory counseling before you can buy a gun? How about some psychological tests before you can buy a gun? All the same anti-abortion tactics could be used.. gun dealers could be treated like abortionists, Big Government could make it so onerous to buy a gun that all the shops would go out of business until there's only one or two left in the whole state.

That's the state of affairs with abortion services, go ahead and clap and cheer Republicans but remember one day they can come after your rights too.

I look around me and see many people getting huge tax returns, free health care, unemployment, food stamps, etc. I get nothing but 20% taken off the top of my gross pay, then at the end of the year, not a refund, but a $1700 bill.

Shit's getting outrageous. The sooner it all collapses, the sooner we can get on with building a smaller and more just system of government.

That's a whole other thread, but.. problem here is conservatives feel the same as you do that benefits are out of control. Problem there is how can a party be anti-abortion but also anti-services for poor children -- it's illogical, you can't force poor women to have the baby and THEN shame her anyway for then using WIC for formula and food stamps. Pick one, either support a poor woman's right to abort or support the child if she has it.

I agree with you in spirit on these child tax credits, but we see the causes differently. It's really business that wanted these big earned income credits (average $3,000 per year, you just need at least one kid). Situation in the US is such that business no longer pays anything close to a living wage for working class jobs. So what are we going to do. Economy has to run somehow, *somehow* money has to get into the masses hands. Therefore, business has chosen to pass their payroll responsibility onto government.

How it should be Roy.. it should be like the old days.. a working class job should pay enough to support the worker without government having to do these outright wealth transfers.

(actually, instead of government sending working class folks three to four thousand dollar checks every year we should have just raised the minimum wage.. but business doesn't want that, they'd rather the government subsidize workers and gov just prints the money)

[davep]

How about some psychological tests before you can buy a gun?

That's eminently sensible. You have to have a doctor's stamp here in Euroweenieland (France) before you can go off and buy a gun. And it's renewed every year (certain classes of guns can be kept forever once you've bought them though).

Isn't there some form of mental health restriction on buying guns in the USA?

[AgentR11]

Isn't there some form of mental health restriction on buying guns in the USA?

There is.

[DomusAlbion]

Isn't there some form of mental health restriction on buying guns in the USA?

There is.

There is but it's not very effective. There has to have been a forced committal to a mental institution for the "mental health" restriction to apply. You can be as crazy as a loon and even spent some time in an institution but as long as your stay was voluntary there is no restriction on the purchase of any gun.

I'm good with that. Few truly mentally ill people commit crimes against others (though when they do they're usually spectacular); most of those that misuse guns turn them on themselves.

[AgentR11]

I'd be more concerned about giving M.D.'s that sort of gatekeeper authority; between the ones that don't like guns, and those that will sign anything for cash; it sounds like a system designed to insure that evil, malevolent crazies get guns, and boring middle class people get denied.

[rangerone314]

Could solve the whole debate my way.

It is legal in various situations for me to kill another human being, not all of which involve "self defense".

Define the embryo as human.
Make it legal to kill any human that takes up residence inside another human.

blunt, honest, everyone gets to do what they want.

Of course, we expend our full energy on these rabid social issues; but bring up something serious like the tax code, carbon budgets, indirect subsidies for petroleum imports, permitting of NG fired generation facilities, nuclear and nuclear material storage, water conservation, science/research budgets, adaptive responses to future challenges of expensive energy and climate change... bah... too boring.

Its also legal to kill a human being (adult or otherwise) if a rich person (or the politician they own) decide that some brown people are expendible in the pursuit of oil or some other resource. Love the morality!