A state representative from Birmingham filed a bill Thursday that would require Alabama men to get a vasectomy once they reach 50 years old or father three children, “whichever comes first.”
The legislation by state Rep. Rolanda Hollis, D-Birmingham, says that a man will have to pay for the vasectomy “at his own expense."
Hollis said the bill is a response to last year’s abortion bill that passed the legislature and included a near-total ban on abortion.
“The vasectomy bill is to help with the reproductive system, and yes, it is to neutralize the abortion ban bill ... it always takes two to tango," she said. “We can’t put all the responsibility on women. Men need to be responsible also.”
Hollis explained that she is “both” pro-life and pro-choice.
“I do not believe that women should use abortion as a birth control, but I do believe that if a women is raped or if it’s incest or anything like that, then she has the choice to do what she wants to do.”
In October, a federal judge blocked the abortion bill from going into effect while courts address challenges to the legislation. The bill would only make abortion legal if the life of the mother is in danger.
“Under existing law, there are no restrictions on the reproductive rights of men,” reads the legislation’s synopsis. “This bill would require a man to undergo a vasectomy within one month of his 50th birthday or the birth of his third biological child, whichever comes first.”
In a similar fashion to Hollis, state Sen. Vivian Davis Figures, D-Mobile, tried to address what she saw as hypocrisy on the abortion ban bill by adding an amendment making it a felony for a man to have a vasectomy. The amendment failed.
Toadfinger on February 15th, 2020 at 07:26 UTC »
An interesting way to legislate. She only proposed it as retaliation against the Alabama law making abortion a crime with a 99 year prison sentence. That law was shot down at the federal level. She knows her proposal will never occur.
Nobody has to say: "From my cold, dead, underwear".
AmateurVasectomist on February 15th, 2020 at 07:00 UTC »
I’m in business!
Kaidart on February 15th, 2020 at 06:52 UTC »
ITT: A bunch of dense people getting woosh'd because they think this bill is serious.
Oldest move in the book, people. "I don't have the votes to take down this bill I don't like, so I'm going to make a ridiculous bill that follows similar thinking to the bill I oppose." She's not actually for mandatory vasectomies, she's trying to say that government should stay out of people's reproductive freedoms. Even if she were serious, this would be such a fringe idea with so little backing that it's totally inconsequential and you shouldn't concern yourself with it. Unless you happen to live in her district and want to vote her out for being crazy, but again, she's so clearly not serious.
From WSFA12 who went to the trouble of spelling it out for people:
Hollis said many opponents have seen her bill as “an outrageous overstep,” but she counters “year after year the majority party continues to introduce new legislation that tries to dictate a woman’s body and her reproductive rights." Hollis calls her bill a means “to neutralize last year’s abortion ban bill,” and to send a message that “men should not be legislating what women do with their bodies.”
Edit: RIP my inbox. Lots of people getting woosh'd responding to this, good times.
Edit again: Because people don't get it, I'll say it real slow. It's about reproduction. The commonality is reproduction. R E P R O D U C T I O N. No, vasectomies for men is not equal to banning abortion for women, it doesn't have to be. The point is that they're both reproduction.
Edit final: My inbox is still full of "Hurr Durr it's not exactly the same so those things aren't related at all." How I wish I could live in a simple world of black and white dichotomies like the redditors in my notifications. The people who don't understand that I am explaining her argument and not myself taking a stance on abortion are also wonderful.
Oh, and defensive people who think I'm wrong about people getting woosh'd because they personally disagree with her argument, don't feel left out. Bless your hearts, all of you. The world revolves around you and no one is legitimately misunderstanding the bill as a serious piece of legislation because that would require you to develop theory of mind.