Weary of the flood of birth control laws pouring out of state legislatures — almost all authored by men — women lawmakers are striking back.
Sen. Nina Turner of Ohio has introduced a bill that would limit men’s access to Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs. It would require men “to be tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.”
She told an MSNBC reporter her bill was about “showing men as much love in the reproductive health arena as they have shown women over the years. My bill is about making sure that we look out for men’s sexual health.”
Virginia state Sen. Janet Howell did Turner one better. Her amendment to her state’s controversial ultrasound bill, which requires women to have ultrasound tests before they can have an abortion, would have required men to have a rectal exam before they could get a prescription for Viagra. Rep. Kelly Cassidy introduced an amendment to a similar bill in the Illinois Legislature, which would require men to watch a graphic video about the potential side effects of Viagra before they could get a prescription.
“If they are serious about us not being able to make our own health care decisions, then I’m just as serious about them not being able to make theirs,” she said.
And right next door in Missouri, state Rep. Stacey Newman introduced legislation that would allow men to get vasectomies only if their life depended on the procedure. Her bill was similar to one introduced by Georgia lawmaker Yasmin Neal. Rep. Newman’s bill states, “In determining whether a vasectomy is necessary, no regard shall be made to the desire of a man to father children, his economic situation, his age, the number of children he is currently responsible for, or any danger to his wife or partner in the event a child is conceived.”
SOME YEARS AGO the Register enlisted on the women’s side of this debate with the observation that because men don’t get pregnant, legislation regulating a woman’s reproductive health in any way only should be considered if authored by women between the ages of 18 and 45 and that voting on any such measure would be limited to the same group.
They, and only they, are the targets of birth control measures and should be given the right of self-defense — a right historically defended with vigor by Kansas men.
That proposal was inspired by the example of the nation’s founders, who first limited voting to men who owned property on the observation that only men of substance would be affected by taxation.
For reasons never explained, this proposal never saw the light of day in Topeka. And we fear the inspired bills and legislative amendments introduced by the perspicacious women listed above face a similar fate.
Sweet reason so often falls victim to sour ideology in our state capitals.
— Emerson Lynn, jr.
