Oklahoma City News, Entertainment & Occasional Humor • Established 2007

Constance Johnson has filed another amendment. This time she wants to ban vasectomies.

If we were to determine an MVP of the 2012 Oklahoma legislative session, the front-runner would have to be State Senator Constance Johnson. The lawmaker from Forrest Park has been doing just about everything in her power to point out the general absurdity, quackery and gender-bias of the controversial Personhood Act and other propsed laws.

First she introduced the “every sperm is sacred” amendment to the Personhood Act, which would have banned depositing semen outside of a woman’s vagina. Then she filed an amendment to force convicted rapists to get vasectomies and financially provide for their rape babies.

Now she’s filed yet another one. This amendment is attached to SB1274, which would force a woman to hear the heartbeat of her unborn fetus before she can get an abortion. Because you know, getting an abortion isn’t traumatic enough.

In Johnson’s amendment, she seeks to ban vasectomies, unless, of course, the vasectomy is intended to “avert the death of the man or avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the man.” The full text of the amendment is below. You can view the PDF here:

SECTION 1.     NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section <1-745.20> of Title <63>, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A.   The Legislature finds that:

1.  Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies;

2.  There is substantial evidence that unregulated vasectomies result in fewer unwanted pregnancies and, by extension, fewer births;

3.  It is patently unfair that men can avoid the rewards of unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the Legislature;

4.  Fewer unwanted pregnancies result in fewer children living in poverty and a lower prison population, and this is job killing in a time when social workers, police officers, and prison guards need the employment to feed their families; and

5.  It is the purpose of the Legislature to assert an invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men in this state and substitute the will of the government over the will of adult men.

B.

1.  As used in this section, the term “vasectomy” means a surgical procedure performed on males in which the vas deferens are cut, tied, cauterized, or otherwise interrupted in such a manner that the semen no longer contains sperm and conception cannot occur.

2.  No vasectomy is authorized or shall be performed in violation of this section.

3.  In determining whether a vasectomy is necessary, no regard shall be made to the desire of a man to father children, to his economic situation, to his age, to the number of children he is currently responsible for, or to any danger to his wife or partner in the event a child is conceived.  A vasectomy may only be performed to avert the death of the man or avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the man.  No such condition shall be deemed to exist if it is based on a diagnosis or claim of a mental or emotional condition of the man or that the man will purposefully engage in conduct which he intends to result in his death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.

4.  No vasectomy is authorized or shall be performed unless the vasectomy is performed in a licensed hospital, in a licensed ambulatory surgical center, or in a health facility licensed as a vasectomy facility by the State Department of Health.

5.  A vasectomy shall only be performed by a licensed healthcare provider.

6.  Any person who performs a vasectomy, and any person permitting a vasectomy to be performed on him, in violation of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be sentenced to community service of not fewer than one thousand forty (1,040) hours in the field of service to needy families, caring for or counseling abused and neglected children or wayward teens, or performing service to inmates in a jail or correctional institution.

Once again, let me clarify that Senator Johnson filed this to lampoon our legislature’s obsession with limiting the reproductive rights of women. She probably wants to ban vasectomies about as much as I want to ban large breasts and pints of beer.

Usually it gets on my nerves when politicians pull stunts like this, but not this time. The “Every Sperm is Sacred” amendment was picked up by just about every national media outlet (of course, we’re the ones who broke the story, but who really cares). That helps let people across the country know that not all Oklahomans are Santorum-voting, right-wing, hypocritical nutjobs. That some of us don’t want the government to try to ban and restrict legal medical practices and procedures. That some of us are sane and logical and, well, normal human beings.

Anyway, keep up the good work Ms. Johnson. And if you ever need any ideas for other amendments, send us an email. We have some suggestions.

(Update: In our original post, we incorrectly reported the amendment was attached to the Personhood Act. We corrected everything. We apologize for getting the nutty legislation confused.)

email

Comments

  1. If the Personhood bullshit was about tubal ligation, this might make sense. However, comparing abortions to vasectomies is stupid.

    • Thank you. While I think the whole Personhood stuff is ridiculous political pandering many people fail to realize it takes two to make that human, not just the one carrying it. Though, kudos to women for doing most of the work.

      Anyway, birth control and abortion (and its complexities) are not the same.

      • I dont think she was trying to compare abortions and vasectomies as much as she was tyring to demonstrate the double standard that exists when people think its okay for the government to make health care decisions for women and not men.

        • I understand her point, I’m just saying it’s poorly executed. She’s chosen to make a direct comparison between abortion and birth control, when there’s no real comparison to make.

          Also, I don’t really see that it’s a double standard, as women are the only humans equipped to give birth. People that are anti-abortion aren’t anti-woman, though that point is hard to get across amidst all the shouting from the pro-abortion crowd. People that are anti-abortion are against ending a life.

          I’m personally pro-choice, in large part because I am not a woman. Abortions are medical procedures that are best left discussed between a doctor and patient.

          • This woman is BRILLIANT.

            More power to her. And to women.

            Far too many of the lawmakers in our state are misogynists masquerading as moralists. PERIOD.

      • I suspect that few things would cause more smiles at 4031 N. Lincoln than the Oklahoma Democratic party giving the gubernatorial nod to Sen. Johnson. If a top-level, well-funded and demonstrably competent candidate like Jari Askins can’t beat the Prom Queen Governor, then Sen. Johnson would get steamrolled.

  2. Wow, if it weren’t for Senator Johnson, the only thing the dems would have going for them would be bribery, slush funds, and making their own photoshop porn.

  3. What, no DNA database for the state to identify fathers? You’re stopping short of the goal, Connie – you need to go all the way with the mock legislation, you’ve got a good start, but they ain’t feeling the heat. Turn it UP!

  4. What they should really propose is a “spawn of Satan” exception. They could call it the “Rosemary’s Baby Clause”. That way at least we can watch Republican politicians on YouTube defending the “personhood” of demonic zygotes.

Previous Post This video is a good representation of the 96,759 Oklahomans who voted for Rick Santorum
Next Post Ogle Madness V: First Four