Friday, December 26, 2014

Lawmaker Stands By Bill Requiring Man’s Consent for Abortion

In the far-right corner of this blog, one will find a series of links listed under News Sources. Most of the links featured are not to American news websites.

The reason behind my choices of sources has to do with my desire to get as many POV's as I could when trying to get the ends and outs of a variety of stories. Obviously, a story as reported on FoxNews or CNN might have a different slant when viewed on Aljazeera or Sputnik US. In some cases, stories found on BBC or on an Australian news outlet might not even appear on an American website.

One particular case in point involves the reporting of Missouri lawmaker Rick Brattin's introduction of Missouri State House Bill 131 which would require that "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".

The American press [ and for example] choose to paint Brattin's bill as an attempt to restrict women's Rights.

" 'It’s simply demeaning and degrading to women. We, and most of the voters in Missouri, believe that women can make their own decisions both about their lives generally and about their healthcare specifically,' said Laura McQuad, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and mid-Missouri."

The same story, as presented by the Russian newsite,us.sputniknews adds something left out in the U.S. reporting.

"When Missouri lawmaker Rick Brattin found out he was required to have his wife’s consent for his own vasectomy, he thought about how 'twisted' it is that the same rule does not apply to women seeking an abortion."

us.sputniknews quotes Brattin, by way of Mother Jones,

"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 told Mother Jones. "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."

As someone who agrees with the Catholic Church's condemnation of vasectomies, I can understand the reasoning behind a law requiring a wife's consent before a man can have a vasectomy. I do, however, see Brattin's point. I've always disagreed with the idea that a man doesn't have a say in the abortion of his own child.

I'm sure that the biased American media will succeed in painting Rick Brattin as a far-Right wing, anti-choice kook. Knowing America as well as I do, I know that abortion on demand will continue to be the law of the land. It would be nice, however, if while defending abortion, the media could, at least present an accurate description of both sides of the argument.

I won't hold my breathe.

No comments: