Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mercuryblues

(15,362 posts)
23. you are correct
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 08:32 AM
Jul 2014

there is no law requiring a woman's consent. Some Dr's do ask couple to go to a joint counseling session and sign forms. I think that is for their own protection against law suits.

So lets use the same argument the MRA types have used about the conception mandate being struck down....just go to a different Dr. Find one that does not require a joint counseling session. Who cares if that Dr is not in your insurance network, you are not being stopped from getting the medical procedure you want. you will now have to pay for insurance and contraception coverage out of your own pocket.

Edited in

It made me curious about tubal litigation. Again it is the female reproductive system that is being controlled.

Despite federal court rulings against spousal consent laws, some hospitals still have policies against performing the procedure without the signed consent of both spouses. Publicly owned hospitals are not legally allowed to maintain such a policy, but private hospitals are. Despite the illegality of spousal consent policies at public hospitals, doctors may still refuse to perform the procedure, especially if the woman requesting it is young or has not yet had children.

More at: worth the 2 minute read, IMO

http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/married-woman-need-her-husbands-consent-her-tubes-tied-29832.html

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Some men really begrudge the progress being made by women over these past decades, don't they? NYC_SKP Jun 2014 #1
Yeah I get the need to uphold our young men to higher standards. ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #2
It would be interesting to see a Venn diagram of this group... malthaussen Jun 2014 #3
Heh! ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #10
Reading those quotes was truly bizarre BrotherIvan Jun 2014 #4
In Michigan, they can. knitter4democracy Jun 2014 #7
Thanks for the info! BrotherIvan Jun 2014 #8
Sure. I'm involved in custody issues. knitter4democracy Jun 2014 #9
I'm so sorry BrotherIvan Jun 2014 #11
Thank you. I do, too. knitter4democracy Jun 2014 #12
yes mercuryblues Jul 2014 #22
That's true in several states. malthaussen Jun 2014 #14
It is, and it isn't. knitter4democracy Jun 2014 #15
Yep, that's one rationale. malthaussen Jun 2014 #19
It's more that DNA doesn't make one a parent. knitter4democracy Jun 2014 #21
you can still challenge paternity within 3 years of child's birth shaayecanaan Jun 2014 #18
But you still have to pay child support if you were married at the time. knitter4democracy Jun 2014 #20
"We’ve seen women with increased reproductive freedom, sufrommich Jun 2014 #5
No, it's bullshit Warpy Jun 2014 #6
A note from their wives. That is pure horse shit. MadrasT Jun 2014 #13
My response should any asshole try to make that argument to my face... Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #16
Great scene! ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #17
you are correct mercuryblues Jul 2014 #23
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»History of Feminism»Inside the first Internat...»Reply #23