Senator Phil Jensen (R-33/Rapid City) openly declares that women do not control their own bodies but must submit to male headship, at least when pregnant. Senator Jensen is proposing a bill to give sperm donors the power to veto a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy:
Republican Senator Phil Jensen from District 33 says he has been fighting for fathers’ rights for decades. Recently, he says he was approached by the head of Right to Life South Dakota about men who have experienced deep grief over their partner’s decision to terminate their unplanned child.
“The depression is real that these men go through when it comes to having no say as to their children,” Jensen said. “This bill is going to stress that men should have the right to accept full responsibility and full custody of that baby.”
That would also include financial responsibility. However, no matter how much responsibility a father may want to take, he still cannot physically carry a child to term – not to mention actually delivering the baby.
To that, he simply says it’s not about her body. It’s about the body of the baby.
“It’s not really her body because she has a living body inside of her and science proves that,” Jensen said [Nick Reagan, “Lawmaker Wants to Give Fathers an Abortion ‘Veto’,” KOTA-TV, 2019.11.14].
Jensen’s support for an inseminator’s veto here lays bare his and his party’s desire to subjugate women to men, to render women second-class citizens who must submit to the orders of men who may not even be their legal husbands, men who may not love them or the children they are forced to bear, men who will lie and cheat and force them to undergo pregnancy just to punish them. Jensen says, “Just because you get pregnant doesn’t mean you should be allowed to kill that baby,” but he’s really pressing the phallusy male fallacy, that just because we can get women pregnant, we should be allowed to boss women around.
We have no bill text yet, but Jensen’s proposal is fraught with problems that cannot be resolved in favor of pregnant women:
- What legal proof would Jensen’s bill require a man to provide to assert his claim over a pregnant woman? Will doctors have to extract DNA samples from the fetus to demonstrate paternity?
- How will the father prove his willingness and ability to take financial responsibility for the fetus?
- What will stop a man from asserting his insemintor veto, then refusing to provide the financial support he promises? What possible civil or criminal penalty can remedy the pain and suffering of a woman who has been forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, only to see her inseminator abandon his promised support?
- How will the bill prevent a rapist from asserting his inseminator veto over a victim, especially it is quite possible a rapist will not have been prosecuted and convicted within the first twenty weeks of pregnancy?
Male headship is narcissism. We could solve a lot of problems if we could once and for all get over this misogyny and treat women as equals, not property.
But don’t expect Phil Jensen and his misogynist, theocratic ilk to spend the 2020 Session solving problems.
When our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters are considered both different and inferior in the eyes of the God we worship, this belief tends to permeate society and everyone suffers.
—Jimmy Carter, The Jimmy Carter Library, 2014
If the two bodies are separate, why does the one depend totally on the other for life until they separate at birth? The fetus would not fare so well with out the life giving nature of the womb and the umbilical cord that unites the two until the cord is severed post birth.
Another wingnut attempt to exert total control of women and a waste of time.
Senator Jensen supported all three of Rep. Tom Pischke’s angry-dad bills in the 2019 Session, bills that are part of an ongoing campaign by Pischke to, among other things, lower his child-support payments.
I support access to abortion services for women, and Cory points out some pretty huge flaws in jensen’s vague proposal. However, I admit that the issue of a father’s rights during pregnancy doesn’t seem quite as simple to me as Cory makes it sound.
In a perfect world, people wouldn’t put themselves in these positions of risking pregnancy without the desire to have a child together, but our world is not perfect. Most women who seek abortions probably don’t have a stable partner willing and able to care for the child, anyway, but that doesn’t mean none of them do. I think this “veto” power, if it existed, would be used incredibly rarely because I assume most women seeking abortion don’t have baby daddies who give a darn, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t guys out there who are devastated by the loss of a potential child that is aborted without their agreement.
If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, should the husband / father have a cause of action against the killer for the death of the child? I think so. If you think he should, too, there have to be at least some pre-birth rights of the father. I don’t know to what extent those rights should exist, but saying the father is a mere sperm donor or just an inseminator until the child is born, and at that point he has substantial legal rights and obligations, makes no sense to me.
Again, I say we should be having the discussion of giving women the right to veto the conception. When this new coercion is added to making access to contraception more difficult, sex education taboo, and bad science about when human life begins, sexual assault normalized, then it really does begin to feel as if woman are reduced to helpmaids who make babies at the will of men.
o, i agree with what I think you mean by some of your comment: access to contraception, sex education, and science are very important; sexual assault should not be “normal” or normalized.
I’m just not sure what you think science says about when human life begins, and I’m not sure I agree that contraception and sex education are all that difficult to come by.
I also recall that the numbers are in the 99% area for abortions that were performed on fetuses created through consensual sex, so I think women absolutely have the current right to “veto” conception.
Having women make choices for themselves and their bodies works just fine. No need to tweak it or give men any say in that decision. If the relationship is stable and loving, the decisions will be made mutually. If not, it is the woman’s choice.
Men, especially right wing nut jobs, need to butt the hell out.
“The depression is real that these men go through when it comes to having no say as to their children.”
So Jensen would rather dump it all on women?
Life begins with the first breath taken by a newborn. Genesis 2:7 “Then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
Chances are better than great that Jensen loves this guy and his criminal organization that just lost a big lawsuit to Planned Parenthood. Pay up, boy! If we’re lucky, maybe he’ll end up in prison.
______________________________
A federal jury found Friday that an anti-abortion activist illegally secretly recorded workers at Planned Parenthood clinics and is liable for violating federal and state laws. The jury ordered him, the Center for Medical Progress and other parties to pay nearly $2.3 million in damages.
The jury awarded $1 million in damages, but offenses under the federal Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act are considered acts of organized crime and penalties awarded for them are automatically tripled.
After a six-week civil trial, the San Francisco jury found David Daleiden trespassed on private property and committed other crimes in recording the 2015 videos. He and the Center for Medical Progress and various employees were ordered to pay varying amounts.
Daleiden and a co-defendant, Sandra Merritt, are set to go on trial starting Dec. 6 on 14 counts each of invasion of privacy. They have pleaded not guilty and argue they are undercover journalists shielded from prosecution.
Planned Parenthood sued the activists as part of what the group called “a multi-year illegal effort to manufacture a malicious campaign.”
ANYONE who wants to interfere with a person’s right to deal with what goes on inside him or her in any way a person wants to deal with it is a totalitarian whose opinion should be relegated to the ash heap of wherever that sort of opinion is relegated.
If wingnut phony kristians actually gave a damn about raising kids in two parent, male/ female environments, why not a total ban on divorce? Or is that too much of a burden on men?
Men would be less prone to cheat if they were forced to stay at home and raise kids.
Ryan, sorry, sometimes the ideas are SO clear in my head — then not-so-clear on the page. I want there to be ABSOLUTE veto power in the hands of women for conception. A man should not be able to impregnate any women until he has her consent to do so — not implied consent, actual consent. That would have a profound effect on the abortion rate (because there can be NO abortions without conception). Intercourse without consent is a crime; why isn’t conception without consent also a crime?
I want to move the whole discussion one process-step in front of where Rep. Jensen wants to have it.
O … Mercury is in retrograde and that makes conveying thoughts accurately much harder. It’s not your fault. Your ideas are clear and concise. It’s those trying to comprehend them that are in flux.
Mike, the Catholic church has and continues to do mental gymnastics over the whole divorce and annulment issue. Another case of when absolute moral stances and dogma are word of God — until they aren’t.
O, I agree with you completely, apparently. I think women already have the right to control whether or not they become pregnant, tho, and some don’t exercise it.
Some people are terrible and commit crimes violating those rights, unfortunately. Those people should be held responsible legally. Some should be beaten to death, honestly.
And porter, the bible is a ridiculous place to seek guidance for crafting laws. What’s the citation for women being stoned to death for premarital sex again? Let’s maybe move on from superstition and scripture as legal authority.
Cryin’ Ryan … What-aboutism isn’t a valid argument. Try again or just drop it. There is no scientific answer to when life begins because it’s a religious argument. Either accept the Protestant answer or realize you’ve been wrong as long as you’ve believed a fetus is already life. Of course, there’s a legal answer but again, your opinion is on the wrong side of the law.
Porter, you are so concerned with proving me wrong that you miss the fact that I’ve never expressed my opinion as to when life begins. How am I wrong? I don’t know the answer, but I know that your bible is a self-contradictory fairy tale that supports hating and killing people for all kinds of ugly reasons, so I don’t think we should use it for anything other than evidence of gullibility for people like you.
Now you’re Lyin’ Ryan. You use the phrase “unborn child” which means that a life happens before birth.
AND, I don’t look to prove you wrong. You do that for us, continually.
Wow you’re as empty as they come. Enjoy.
Clever response.
porter, I commented on the blog post to discuss the content of the blog post. You’re apparently just here to talk about people because you’re lonely. I’m sad for you, but not so sad I want to engage with you much at all. Develop a real opinion on something and maybe people will be interested in your input. Until then, just keep talking to your sad self about others.
Ry-Baby … You posted three paragraphs. Then three more paragraphs. Then I posted a Bible verse. Then I talked to O. Then you responded to my Bible verse. That means you initiated the conversation between us. If you don’t agree with me and don’t want me to send you home crying again, then don’t initiate a conversation with me. – *I know you do it because you crave my psychoanalysis of your life. Not today, pal. You need it too much for it to be healthy.
Just for the record, I often post because I feel a bit lonely. Thank you to ALL who reply and indulge me!
I find CIRD’s absolutism useful here. No man has legal claim over what happens inside a woman’s body, including the development of a fetus to whose existence he may or may not have contributed a single cell. No man can demand that a woman, even his lawfully wedded wife, donate blood or a kidney. No man can order a woman to abort her pregnancy. No man can order a woman to start or sustain a pregnancy.
Pregnancy, hosting the growth of a fetus in one’s body, remains the inviolable purview of the woman, not the man.
Even if we slipped and granted the sperm donor even some privilege related to the continuation of the pregnancy, there is no reliable, moral, and legal way for the man to establish his rightful claim to that pre-paternal privilege in court. How does the man prove he contributed sperm to that fetus? Demand that the woman submit to a blood test? One invasion of privacy on top of another? Unacceptable.
Men, deal with it. Women bear the children; women deserve special protection of their rights during pregnancy.
porter, your analysis of everything is questionable, to put it kindly. Your ego is embarrassing if you describe your childish name calling “psychoanalysis.” My degree in psychology and your infantile opinions together mean that I need and want nothing from you, as you have nothing to offer other than your poorly paraphrased viewpoints that other people told you to have.
Cory, do you believe it should be legal for a pregnant woman to drink lots of alcohol while pregnant? After all, it’s her body, right? And nobody should be able to restrict her autonomy because the growing fetus is nobody’s business but hers, right? Or is it ok to terminate the fetus, but not to abuse it? If you see this issue differently, what’s the basis for the difference?
I see now what you mean, Ryan.
Ryan, there lies the problem. Does becoming pregnant suddenly subject a woman to more control by the people around her and the state, the kind of control that can never be imposed on a man for the same reason?
As a slight distraction, don’t forget, as your next Governor, I will propose restoring Article 24 of the South Dakota Constitution, which would take us back to the ban on alcohol that our Founders implemented at statehood. So I don’t mind banning alcohol for everyone, or at least taxing the crap out of it to deter everyone from drinking and reduce the demonstrable harm it causes. I don’t think we should stop pregnant women from drinking; I think we should stop everyone from drinking.
But seriously….
I wouldn’t walk up to a visibly, professedly pregnant woman in a bar and knock an alcoholic beverage out of her hand. I wouldn’t physically restrain a pregnant woman from walking into a bar. Would you?
Likewise, I wouldn’t stop a woman from entering an abortion clinic. If I happened to be outside an abortion clinic and I saw some guy dragging a woman away from the door, I might walkup and say, “What gives?” If the guy said, “She’s going to kill my baby!” and the gal said, “He has no baby, and this is my my body!” I’d turn to the guy and say, “Fella, let the lady go.” In that moment, no man can assert a legal or moral claim over the woman’s body.
I appreciate your thoughts, Cory.
I would personally not stop a pregnant woman from drinking unless it was my wife or daughter who is pregnant. But absolutely, if one of them had a liquor bottle to her lips, I’d take it away without a second thought and I’d deal with whatever reaction came from that “control” I’m asserting over her. I think you might do the same for a female in your family. The idea of autonomy is great, but in real life we all assert control over people we love from time to time. Often for very good reasons.
I think alcohol is a huge problem for society because some people abuse it terribly, but I definitely wouldn’t support total prohibition. Because where do we stop? Not everything harmful should be illegal. Also, prohibition has been proven not to work repeatedly, so then we’re legislating to make a statement rather than manage behavior, which again doesn’t work.
Under current laws a woman can be charged criminally if she gives birth to a child who was exposed to and harmed by drugs or alcohol while in utero. Do you think those charges should exist or is that an inappropriate infringement on her rights to do with the fetus whatever she’d like?
Ryan, you raise an interesting question, why has “right to life” advocacy not gone after criminalization of pregnant drinking? Is the pro-alcohol lobby stronger than the “right to life” lobby?
But that again draws me back to my criticism of “right to life”: all too often, that group is not advocating for the provision of health care needed for expecting women; all too often that group is not advocating for the provision of health care needed for children (when we ALL agree that they are children). Mandatory delivery is not the same as pro-life.
O, I agree. Lots of people pretend to care about life but it’s pretextual. It’s driven often by other ugly motives. I support universal healthcare and funding programs to make sure all people can receive the benefits of modern medicine without the fear of having to choose between medical treatment and paying rent.
Ryan’s question about pregnancy and alcohol abuse is very intriguing. Oddly enough, although I found several general internet references to the “crime” of “child abuse” in South Dakota I did not locate a statute that directly makes “child abuse” a crime.
There are statutes that make assault on an unborn child a crime, such as SDCL 22-18-1.2 and 1.3, but I didn’t see “child abuse” by alcohol abuse or “child neglect” specifically listed as an assault. If there is such a criminal statute I missed, perhaps Ryan or another more attentive reader can identify it.
There are, however, civil statutes that purport to empower the State to take action against a pregnant mother alleged to be abusing, or who has abused, alcohol to the detriment of the unborn. SDCL 26-8A-2(9) defines an “abused child” as a child:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=26-8A-2
This statute would normally trigger an “abuse and neglect” type civil proceeding that could result in the temporary or permanent removal of a living child from the abuser’s custody and possible termination of parental rights.
And during pregnancy the State asserts the power to involuntarily commit a pregnant woman for abusing alcohol. SDCL 34-20A-70 provides in relevant part:
https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=34-20A-70
I don’t know whether SD courts have ever determined whether these statutes are consistent with or conflict with the constitutional right of a woman to make decisions concerning her body during pregnancy, but it is a very interesting question that could be raised in defense to a criminal charge, an abuse and neglect proceeding or a civil involuntary commitment action.
Although Ryan suggests he personally would use physical force to stop a pregnant family member from engaging in alcohol abuse, that sort of begs the question of whether the State should have that power, which would be a necessary result of the goal of people seeking to overturn the “right of privacy” ruling in Roe v. Wade.
If we attack women for imperiling fetuses by drinking alcohol, we must also attack men for imperiling women and children by getting raving, punch-throwing drunk and abusing the ones they love.
Do those laws punishing moms for actions during pregnancy include smoking?
I’m willing to overturn every one of those laws punishing pregnant women for actions taken during pregnancy that result in some perceived threat to the fetus. Fetal rights do not outweigh the rights of pregnant mothers.
I do support laws punishing people who harm a pregnant woman and her fetus against her will, because they are infringing on the rights of the pregnant woman.
Trump supporters are doing immense harm to unborn fetuses by creating a world in which those fetuses, once born, will be at far greater risk of income inequality, pollution, climate change, lack of education, bigotry, sexism, etc. Trump supporters should be thrown in jail for harming the unborn… at least if you follow what little logic we might salvage from Jensen’s misogyny.
What Ryan does to intervene in the pregnancy-related decisions of his wife and his daughter are far more his business than the state’s.
Ryan’s actions are “his business” rather than the state’s unless his actions to protect the fetus result in a statutory crime against his wife or daughter, such as kidnapping, false imprisonment, assault, etc. Even the mere misdemeanor “Disturbing the peace” can in some cases qualify as “domestic abuse” under federal definitions and trigger federal sanctions, such as loss of the right to own or possess a firearm. To the best of my knowlege defending a fetus from the mother’s behavior would not constitute a viable legal defense to any of these crimes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/01/12/five-years-after-an-abortion-most-women-say-they-made-right-decision/
From WAPO and I didn’t encounter a paywall. Not saying there isn’t one.
Yep. But that won’t stop wingnuts and additional assorted misogynists from lying about it.
Alabama Dem female Senator proposes vasectomies for all 50 year old males or after fathering three kids. Ted Cruz loses it, bigly!
State Rep. Rolanda Hollis (D-Birmingham) put forth the bill in response to the fact that there’s “no restrictions on the reproductive rights of men” under existing state law.
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/congrats-on-an-epic-self-own-internet-bursts-into-laughter-as-ted-cruz-freaks-out-over-vasectomy-bill/
I’d read about Sen. Hollis’ marvelous bill, but this is the first time I saw what an ass Oozy Croozy has made of himself. Of course it’s so easy for him, no challenge. 😆😆😆😆
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/new-abortion-tactic-aims-against-doctors.html (this is a very good read)
Color me confused. I was of the understanding abortionists were denied admitting privileges to hospitals as a way to block abortions from happening and make them more expensive and harder to get.
Dahlia Lithwick , in Slate, opened my eyes …….. The physicians who seek admitting privileges in the Louisiana lawsuit are a far cry from the turf-grabbing doctors of the early gynecology profession, and even from the avuncular physicians of Blackmun’s 1970s Roe opinion. These providers, often imperiling their own lives and the lives of their families, are so phenomenally proficient that they have a hospitalization rate that stands, as Justice Stephen Breyer noted in Whole Woman’s Health, at less than one-quarter of 1 percent in the first trimester, and less than one-half of 1 percent in the second trimester.
This very proficiency is part of the reason they cannot obtain admitting privileges and the record shows that they did in fact try and were refused. Hospitals don’t want to give such privileges to physicians who almost never need admit a patient. As Breyer noted in Whole Woman’s Health, doctors at the El Paso clinic in Texas performed 17,000 procedures in the preceding 10 years and not one had to be transferred to a hospital. That made admitting privileges impossible to obtain. There is no medical need for extra credentialing, and requiring the privileges serves only to cast abortion providers as dubious stewards of their patients’ health. At this moment when government is working double time to cast physicians and science as less than reliable, that is a particularly nasty smear.
The irony, then, is that despite the wobbly doctor-based reasoning of Roe, the physicians in contemporary cases are so profoundly aligned with the interests of their patients that they take on landmark lawsuits, subject themselves to years of depositions and expense, in order to serve patients who desperately need them to protect their interests in court. They are not the all-knowing wise decision-makers of Roe, nor are they the chop-shop villians Alito imagines. They are—now more than ever—equal partners in a reproductive rights ground war from which women as actual combatants with agency and moral sophistication are being systematically erased.
That is a very good read Mike, thanks. Anti choice, anti women people hate facts. Jensen is near the top of that list.