Oklahoma City News, Entertainment & Occasional Humor • Established 2007

Constance Johnson has filed an amendment that forces rapists to get vasectomies and financially provide for their offspring!

Well, it looks like Senator Constance Johnson is at it again!

Last week, we were the first “media outlet” to report on the failed “every sperm is sacred” amendment that Senator Johnson’s tried to attach to the Personhood Act. Now we’ve learned that she’s filed a more reasonable amendment to the bizarre pro-life legislation.

This one, we’ll call it the Rapist Vasectomy Amendment, will force rapists who impregnate their victims to receive a vasectomy and be financially responsible for the offspring until the age of 21.

Sounds cool, huh? Here is the language:

In the spirit of shared responsibility in issues of reproduction, if a woman declares that she is pregnant non-consensually, the sperm donor shall be required to undergo a statutorily mandated vasectomy, shall be fined Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), and shall also be financially responsible for the offspring of such pregnancy until the age of twenty-one (21).

You know what, this amendment actually make sense! You see, there are no exceptions for rape or incest in the Personhood Act, so if a 14-year-old girl is raped and impregnated by her sick uncle, it would be illegal for the girl to get an abortion. This proposed amendment simply makes sure that the rapists have to financially support the children they father. It also makes sure they can’t have anymore rape babies.

Anyway, we’ll have more information on this amendment as it comes to us. Hopefully it passes. Even crazed archaic theologian lawmakers hate rapists, too. Right?

PDF of the Amendment  –  Link to OK Senate Website

email

Comments

  1. Awesome. She’s “Modest Proposal”-ing the hell out of this session. This is the kind of stuff Oklahomans need to wake up.

  2. Props to Sen. Johnson for trying to equalize the playing field on genital regulation. Reminds me of a story about Winston Churchill:

    In 1946, Churchill, with his conservatives out of power, was battling Labor PM Clement Attlee, who wanted to expand government’s role in economic policy. One day, Churchill enters the members of parliament men’s room to find Attlee standing at a urinal. Churchill took a position at the farthest end of the trough.

    “Feeling standoffish today, are we, Winston?” Attlee asked.

    “That’s right,” Churchill growled. “Every time you see something big, you want to nationalize it.”

  3. This makes about as much sense as passing a law requiring all rapists wear condoms subject to severe punishment if non-compliant. The net effect is the same, except for two things.

  4. Ridiculous. This repeats laws already in place. If a man fathers a child and a DNA proves it is in fact his child, he has to pay child support no matter what. And good luck getting a man in prison to pay child support. Or the fine. And I assume that the vasectomy comes after a court of law finds him guilty? So after approximately 5-10 years (so he can exhaust his appeals) he’ll finally get the fix. So he won’t impregnate anyone in prison. Good, glad that’s all cleared up.

  5. Suppose a man is forced to have a vasectomy and is later exonerated. How can the innocent recover from this? It goes way beyond micro-surgical reversal.

    Sorry guys, but while it sounds good on the surface, it’s a bumper sticker approach to criminal justice.

  6. YES! I can’t decide what’s better, that Senator Johnson is channeling Jonathan Swift, or that her satire is sailing over the heads of so many people.

  7. does johnson really think that a rape victim wants to continue some type of relationship the attacker? does the kid always want to know that his/her biological father violently and unwillingly impregnated his/her mom? social awkwardness, anybody??

  8. Some of you seem to be leaping to the conclusion that Senator Johnson wants this bill to pass into law.

    Note that the language does not require a “guilty” finding on a rape charge…merely a “declaration” by the woman that the pregnancy (not the sex) is nonconsensual. My read is she’s trying to kill the bill with a million small pokes, or if that doesn’t work, make it so that the so-called pro-lifers actually pass a bill that protects the postnatal person as well as the prenatal human, instead of just passing a bill that makes sure to punish sex and eliminate choice.

  9. Yep. This bill is NOT about rape. This bill is about the man sharing responsibility for a pregnancy that the woman didn’t want. Since abortion is off the table under personhood, this gives the woman a “remedy.”

  10. OMG, folks… she is being a smart aleck. Any serious conversation is just a little on the dumb side. I know Connie very well. She’s only trying to make a point on how anti woman this “personhood” bill is. Wow, on those taking her amendment as anything other than a joke… well, Yikes.

Previous Post Is Chesapeake Energy about to go bankrupt?
Next Post Here’s a little bit of Valentine’s Day JoJo