Ted Cruz Can’t Believe A Lawmaker Is Trying To Legislate Away A Man’s Reproductive Rights

[90DayFinancier 910]

A law requiring vasectomies? Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will not stand for this blatant violation of a (male) person’s bodily autonomy!

On Sunday, Cruz tweeted an article from a conservative news site about Alabama state Rep. Rolanda Hollis’ (D) bill requiring men to undergo vasectomies at the age of 50 or after the birth of their third child.

“Yikes. A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything…literally!” Cruz, a staunch opponent of abortion rights, wrote.

The Republican has advocated for a full ban on abortion with no exceptions, stripping funding for Planned Parenthood, and allowing companies to deny birth control coverage.

Under HB238, introduced by Hollis on Thursday, men would be legally required to undergo a vasectomy procedure “at his own expense” once he turns 50 or has a third child, “whichever comes first.”

“Under existing law, there are no restrictions on the reproductive rights of men,” Hollis wrote in the bill’s synopsis.

In May, Alabama passed a severe anti-abortion law making the procedure entirely illegal unless the mother’s health is in danger, with zero exceptions for rape and/or incest. Doctors who violate the law face a prison sentence of to 99 years. 

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ted-cruz-cant-believe-a-lawmaker-is-trying-to-legislate-away-a-mans-reproductive-rights

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

   People like Hollis are going to make November real easy for Trump and the Republicans. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   People like Hollis are going to make November real easy for Trump and the Republicans. 

Posts like this will make certain people stay awake much later at night.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

So dems want women to have a say over their reproductive "rights".  But not men.  Got it.  Makes sense.   No wonder people spend their hard-earned money to support the dems.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/alabama-lawmaker-proposes-mandatory-vasectomies-for-men-turning-fifty-ted-cruz-responds

 

 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

LOL

[90DayFinancier 910]

Snip snip!

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

2 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Snip snip!

That sounds ouchy. If men could just keep their legs crossed, this wouldn't be a problem we'd even need to address.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

   Forced sterilization has already been ruled unconstitutional. Don't these politicians have something else to do besides wasting other peoples time and money?   

 

 

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

related topics merged.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

This isn’t the same as male vs female reproductive rights vasectomy vs access to abortion. 
 

in the case of abortion, it’s a choice to abort or not and does not diminish the ability for reproductive capability in the future. Forced vasectomy would remove reproductive capacity from men without choice, it’s ostensibly permanent.

 

a more apt equivalent would be forcing a women into a tubal ligation or hysterectomy, removing her capability for future reproductive activity.

 

not sure where all the compare apples and orange Nazis are at .

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

8 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

That sounds ouchy. If men could just keep their legs crossed, this wouldn't be a problem we'd even need to address.

crossed legs in men does not have the same functionality 

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, Randyandyuni said:

This isn’t the same as male vs female reproductive rights vasectomy vs access to abortion. 
 

in the case of abortion, it’s a choice to abort or not and does not diminish the ability for reproductive capability in the future. Forced vasectomy would remove reproductive capacity from men without choice, it’s ostensibly permanent.

 

a more apt equivalent would be forcing a women into a tubal ligation or hysterectomy, removing her capability for future reproductive activity.

 

not sure where all the compare apples and orange Nazis are at .

The point of the bill is to get folks to stop an consider the consequences of legislation to dictate that people (women) shouldn't control what happens to their own body. Men pass the majority of the laws, judge most if the courts and execute most of the laws.  Having them view the law from a different perspective is a good thing.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

26 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

The point of the bill is to get folks to stop an consider the consequences of legislation to dictate that people (women) shouldn't control what happens to their own body. Men pass the majority of the laws, judge most if the courts and execute most of the laws.  Having them view the law from a different perspective is a good thing.

You forget the purpose of a bill is to initiate new laws,

 

I am pro-life but believe abortion is ok in the cases of rape or incest.

 

you considering abortion and sterilization as equivalent actions, I see that as ludicrous

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

20 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

You forget the purpose of a bill is to initiate new laws,

 

I am pro-life but believe abortion is ok in the cases of rape or incest.

 

you considering abortion and sterilization as equivalent actions, I see that as ludicrous

Never in my life have I EVER heard someone make the ridiculous claim that the purpose of a proposed bill was to "get folks to stop an consider the consequences of legislation".

 

The purpose of bills is to make new laws, period.

 

And no, sterilization is not the same as murder.  And forcing sterilization on men is NOT the same as men having no say in what women do with their bodies.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

18 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

You forget the purpose of a bill is to initiate new laws,

 

I am pro-life but believe abortion is ok in the cases of rape or incest.

 

you considering abortion and sterilization as equivalent actions, I see that as ludicrous

 

   Proposing a bill that has no chance of passing just to get people to consider how asinine a previous bill was is absolute insanity. I get that Democrats have little chance at influencing the legislative process in Alabama, but this is not the way to set about improving those odds in the future.