Males Remember the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

[RB TexLa]

Guarantees the rights of Roe V. Henry Wade to everyone regardless of gender. And all attempts to weaken that decision are attempts to take rights away from everyone. Everyone, male and female have the right to control their bodies, without interference from their government, or from their husband or wife if they so chose to not tell them about what they are doing within their body.

The spousal notification law is one step away from the removal of this right. This is putting into criminal law the notion that what I do with my body is no longer my decision, but also the decision of my wife. I know that the supports of the law say it's notification and not permission, but what would be the next step after such a law is upheld by the supreme court?

This is where the can of worms lay. If my medical decisions are no longer based on what I want but what my spouse thinks is in her or "our" best interest how far could that go. The obvious medical decision that comes to mind is obtaining a vasectomy, I do not have to notify anyone of my doing that should I not want to. Without Roe V. Henry Wade it is very easy to see a law passed requiring my wife's permission for such under the guise that I would not be allowed to deny her the ability to conceive children from me. Then the question would be at how many children would a judge allow my judgment to hold for my medical procedure to take place? What about my second wife with whom I have no children? Would the fact that I have to financially support however many children there are with the first wife play into the ruling? What if I am supporting the 4 the first wife has because she swore she only wanted 3 and I finally left after the 4th, and now the new wife with no children wants her ability to possibly have my children protected.

This is all very real, in all the gay marriage debates the conservatives say that one of the purposes of marriage is for the formation of children. This has been debated in statehouse after statehouse and can be legally used as legislative intent in court decisions.

What if you do not want a heart surgery that your spouse feels will prolong your life and thusly their enjoyment of having you with them? What becomes of living wills if your spouse now has this right of denial of the medical treatment of your body? If we no longer have this right while we are able to say what we want what happens when we can no longer say what we want and believe people will follow what we wrote down?

Now of course all of these things should be discussed and decided by committed couples. I guess that could be the part of government's next intrusion into our private lives.

Also I have wondered about this spousal notification, I assume it is interned to be notifying the father. If the father is not the husband is the father notified or the husband? If the father is not the husband is the father's wife if there is one also notified? I know the law was overturned but with changes come changed decisions.

[kevinbgoode]

1. maybe someone needs to construct this as an assault

on traditional marriage. Otherwise my advice would be to encourage people to refuse to marry in the future in order to preserve their right to control their own bodies.

[dflprincess]

2. I wonder how Alito would rule in a case

where the husband wanted the his wife to have an abortion and she refused?

[RB TexLa]

3. or in one

Where the father who is not the husband wants the child and the husband and wife don't. Or where the wife and father want the child and the husband doesn't. Once we have the right to control our own bodies everything is on the table as far as who decides what.