State Rep Alan Dick: he doesn’t believe that when a woman is pregnant, it’s really “her pregnancy"

[kpete]

Abortion Permission Slips from Men

And if you’re not fully convinced yet that Alaska is the next front in the GOP’s war on women, you just have to listen to State Rep. Alan Dick. He said that he doesn’t believe that when a woman is pregnant, it’s really “her pregnancy.” As a matter of fact, he would advocate for criminalizing women who have an abortion without the permission via written signature from the man who impregnated her. He stated, “If I thought that the man’s signature was required… required, in order for a woman to have an abortion, I’d have a little more peace about it…” He didn’t say whether a rapist would be able to send his signature by fax from prison, or not. But he’ll have “peace” and women will require a permission slip for their own bodies.

http://www.themudflats.net/2012/03/20/help-help-theres-an-elephant-in-my-uterus/

[KansDem]

1. Looks like Rep. Alan is living up to his name.

nt

[TrogL]

2. You simply take this to its logical conclusion - there is no such thing as rape

Hence, women should be forced to marry their rapists and bare their children. Sound familiar?

[hifiguy]

3. Where do these fuckwits come up with "ideas"

like this? Are they brain-damaged from being dropped on their heads too many times as children?

[montanacowboy]

4. The very thing they hate the most, Sharia Law

is coming to a Repukian state near you

[pokerfan]

5. All your uterus are belong to us (nt)

[liberalhistorian]

6. You know, I hate to be juvenile and childish, but his

last name sure does lend itself to some rather appropriate jokes for this subject matter.

Snort. Snicker.....oh, screw it, I'm gonna be juvenile and childish. lol

PA already tried to pull this shit over twenty years ago. It was passed and then repealed. I believe it was a rep named Steven (Stephen?) Friend who introduced and promoted it and got his caveman caucus behind it. I think it was around 1987, 'cause I remember attending a NOW rally/march in D.C. in March of that year (I was in college) and I lived in a neighboring state of PA at the time; I remember a lot of signs from the PA people riffing on the state's then-slogan "You have a Friend in Pennsylvania". They said things like "My friend, you have no friend in Pennsylvania" and "We have a Friend in PA. That's our problem!" It was only briefly law before being struck down, but I never had any doubt that there were more than enough men, including legislators, who felt the same way and who wouldn't hesitate to take the opportunity to try to enact it.

And what about men who (like my fiance 21 years ago) dump the woman when they learn she's pregnant, or who disappear 'cause they don't want to deal with it and they don't have to, as a matter of simple biology? Or men who have no intention of helping with the child when it's born but who want to vindictively stick it to the woman? Etc., etc., etc. Fucking time-warp woman-haters.

[Happyhippychick]

7. What a Dick

[Ilsa]

8. I'll be in favor of that law when Alan Dickhead gets pregnant. nt

[JBoy]

9. This was almost precisely the point of a landmark Supreme Court case in Canada

In 1989 a woman sought an abortion, and the boyfriend sought an injunction to prevent the abortion, on the grounds of protecting the fetus' right to life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremblay_v._Daigle

Tremblay v. Daigle [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530, was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in which it was found that a fetus has no legal status in Canada as a person, either in Canadian common law or in Quebec civil law. This, in turn, meant that men, while claiming to be protecting fetal rights, cannot acquire injunctions to stop their partners from obtaining abortions in Canada.

The decision was effectively the end of the Anti-Choice's legal challenges in Canada.