Senator adds “Every Sperm is Sacred” amendment onto Oklahoma personhood bill

Amazing. After Oklahoma conservatives introduced a “personhood” bill to the state Senate on Monday, Sen. Constance Johnson decided to follow in Virginia Senator Janet Howell’s footsteps and attach an amendment in protest, which would add this language to the bill:

However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child.

Jezebel adds that another pro-choice senator added an amendment:

Another pro-choice legislator, Democrat Jim Wilson, attempted to add an amendment to the bill that would require the father of the child to be financially responsible for the woman’s health care, housing, transportation, and nourishment while she was pregnant.

I second Erin’s contention that this new trend of legislators attaching snarky, ridiculous amendments to ridiculous bills that infringe on our uteri are kind of genius. It started just last week when Sen. Janet Howell decided to attach an amendment to a Virginia bill that would force a woman to have a vaginal ultrasound before an abortion — the clause being that men would have to undergo a rectal exam before getting Viagra.

Not shockingly, Howell’s amendment didn’t pass, and neither did either of these (Johnson even withdrew hers after making her point).  But while these amendments may not go anywhere, what it does — as Jill points out — is force the conversation, and point out just how warped and straight-up sexist this kind of legislation is. In short, if men were subject to the same kinds of invasive, ridiculously fucked requirements women are in order to be sexually active, they’d completely lose it. Keep ‘em coming, Dems.

and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

9 Comments

  1. Posted February 9, 2012 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    They’re doing this with drug laws as well- for one or two of the “Welfare recipients should have drug tests if they’re to receive govt money” bills there have been amendments suggesting “Legislators should have random spot drug tests if they’re to receive govt money”. I like it.

    • Posted February 9, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

      There was a great segment on the Daily Show where Asiv (sp?) covered the Florida law forcing people to take drug tests for receiving unemployment benefits, if I remember correctly. The guy he was interviewing was a Republican who had something to do with the law and he said that anyone getting tax payer money should have to take a drug test. Since this Republican was paid by said money, Asiv asked him if he would take a drug test! Of course he wouldn’t do it!

      Pointing out this hypocrisy to the public is helpful, I think.

  2. Posted February 9, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    Yoko Ono was proposing that idea 40 years ago, in her song “What a Mess”:

    If you keep hammering anti-abortion,
    We’ll tell you no more masturbation for men.
    Every day you’re killing living sperms in billions,
    So how do you feel about that, brother?

    I hope she reads this news story and gets a kick out of someone actually taking her up on it!

  3. Posted February 9, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    LOL That was clever by senator Constance Johnson. I get the point she was trying to make about such ridiculousness. The article is right, there’s no way in hell men would put up with such a restriction.

  4. Posted February 9, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    Are periods crimes against unborn children too? I sorta like this, actually. All the progressive dudes who haven’t been concerned with Ron Paul’s signing of the personhood pledge or all the attacks on women’s rights might actually wake up and smell the reproductive-rights-are-important-to-everyone-not-just-women!
    Also, how can I commit a crime against a child that doesn’t exist? Even by personhood standards it’s silly. Are we supposed to grant rights to every potential unborn, un-zygote person? Scientists consider dolphins to be non-human people. If biologically scientists want to extend personhood to various non-human creatures and politicians want to extend personhood to various eggs, I’m not sure I fully understand the justification for considering anything a “person.” I honestly have less of an issue with dolphin personhood because there was at least some basis or criteria for making that determination (the similarity of dolphin minds and their robust reasoning and emotional capacities) rather than pure paternalism. I think biologists are interested in expanding personhood because they found some interesting results, the right wants to expand personhood because they don’t like abortion or, apparently, anal.

    • Posted February 9, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

      Sorry I misread this post initially, but I don’t know how to delete my comment. -_-;;;

  5. Posted February 9, 2012 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    This is genius! Let’s keep fighting ladies and gents!!!

  6. Posted February 10, 2012 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    okay, just saw the title of the article & all I could think of was this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

    Thank you Monty Python.

    • Posted February 10, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

      I wonder if they saw that and missed the humor of it and thought ‘Hmmmm….good idea.”

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

189 queries. 1.040 seconds