Representative Rick Brattin (r) [file photo]
It’s Missouri and a right wingnut republican opens his mouth in public. What could possibly happen?:
This Lawmaker Wants Women to Get Permission From the Father Before Having an Abortion
Unless it was “legitimate rape.”
-By Molly Redden
| Wed Dec. 17, 2014 6:15 AM ESTA Missouri Republican is pushing a bill that would allow a man who gets a woman pregnant to stop her from having an abortion. The measure would force a woman who wants an abortion to obtain written permission from the father first-unless she was the victim of “legitimate rape.”
Rick Brattin, a state representative from outside Kansas City, filed the bill on December 3 for next year’s legislative session. The proposed measure reads, “No abortion shall be performed or induced unless and until the father of the unborn child provides written, notarized consent to the abortion.”
[….]
….Not Brattin. The father of five says that his recent vasectomy was the inspiration for this bill.
“When a man goes in for that procedure-at least in the state of Missouri-you have to have a consent form from your spouse in order to have that procedure done,” he says. “Here I was getting a normal procedure that has nothing to do with another human being’s life, and I needed to get a signed form…But on ending a life, you don’t. I think that’s pretty twisted.”
A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, a group of clinics that perform vasectomies, says that there is no law in Missouri requiring a man to get another person’s permission for a vasectomy….
[….]
There’s that phrase again.
The bill, pre-filed on December 3rd:
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 131 [pdf]
98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLYINTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE BRATTIN.
0411H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To repeal section 188.027, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to consent requirements for abortions.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Section 188.027, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 188.027, to read as follows:
[….]
13. No abortion shall be performed or induced unless and until the father of the unborn child provides written, notarized consent to the abortion, except in cases in which the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced was the victim of rape or incest and the pregnancy resulted from the rape or incest. If the father of the unborn child is deceased, the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced shall sign a notarized affidavit attesting to the fact. No physician shall perform or induce an abortion unless and until the physician has obtained the written consent required in this subsection. The physician shall retain a copy of the consent or affidavit in the patient’s medical record.
[emphasis in original]
Can we stop pretending that Todd Akin (r) is an anomaly in the republican party?
Previously:
HB 291: keping misooree stoopit (January 24, 2013)
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. “ (February 8, 2013)
Rep. Rick Brattin (r): cdesign proponentsists (February 9, 2014)
Via Twitter:
And on and on and on…
teach creationism. He wrote a bill so full of pseudo-scientific B.S. that it occasioned national ridicule – and he’s still at it, making sane people laugh out loud, that is. For example, he tried to redefine such standard concepts as “hypothesis” and the result was not only hilarious but very revealing:
What kind of clown could put this out in public? The type that talks about legitimate rape, I guess, and doesn’t understand wat’s wrong about subjecting women’s well-being to the whims of husbands, boyfriends, or casual sexual partners.
Yet, as in so many of our Missouri districts, he ran unopposed. At least our President had a good day. I look forward to a visit to Cuba. I believe, in spite of all his bluster otherwise, there’s less governmental interference in people’s lives there than Mr. Brattin would have here in Missouri.
OK..that was a little ignorant. The Cubans are repressive. This crap just gets me worked up.
there’re a lot to choose from. Cuba may not be a haven for civil liberties, but it did something about bringing literacy to a largely illiterate population and ensuring good healthcare for people who’d never enjoyed such a benefit. If you think Cubans have it hard, you should have read the stories about life under Batista – who enjoyed U.S. support. Although post-Castro Cuba’s economy was propped up by the Soviet Union for a long time, the benefits flowed to the people not an oligarchy.
And although nothing excuses political oppression, you can understand that a tiny island in the shadow of a superpower that is continually making threatening noises (or acting agressively as in the Bay of Pigs, etc.), might feel just as threatened as our government and population did in the wake of 9/11 when they enacted the Patriot Act and moved to curtail our civil liberties – acts enthusiastically supported by many fearful Americans.
Forgive my rant – but I really wanna visit to Havana.
I am excited to go there, too. I think we’ve missed out on a pretty cool people in the Cubans, Senator Rubio notwithstanding.
Pingback: Ashley Beard-Fosnow (D) in the 55th Legislative District | Show Me Progress