July 5, 2013

"Interestingly, though, doctors often ask married men for their wife’s permission before they’ll perform a vasectomy."

Yeah, but I'm not talking about married men. Once you're married, you should be consulting with your wife. If you're not, you've got problems.

Anyway, if these doctors are asking because the law requires it, the men should win their legal challenge. But I suspect the doctors are asking because they're afraid of getting sued, in which case, the men need to establish their rights in court so they can out-scare the doctors.

69 comments:

Skyler said...

Your logic is correct for our pathetic society, but that doesn't rob from how pathetic it is.

Gahrie said...

but I'm not talking about married men.

We were. One of the major offenses against reproductive equality is the fact that married men can be, and quite often are, forced unwillingly to support another man's child because their wife is a slut.

edutcher said...

Of course, the woman's procedures are none of his business.

No wonder somebody asked, if the Sexual Revolution was such a success, why is everybody so unhappy?

Jupiter said...

Ms. Althouse,

Perhaps you miss a certain subtlety here. When a man has had a vasectomy, his wife needs to be damned sure she doesn't get pregnant.

Ann Althouse said...

"Your logic is correct for our pathetic society, but that doesn't rob from how pathetic it is."

Yeah, but that's my point. My real prescription isn't this. This is a fall-back now that we've become pathetic.

Really, men need to keep track of their genetic material. One way or another.

Don't be a splooge stooge.

Skyler said...

I have no idea what a splooge stooge is. I wasn't being critical of you, but of the circumstances.

Revenant said...

Once you're married, you should be consulting with your wife. If you're not, you've got problems.

That's fascinating, but women don't have to consult with their husbands before having an abortion.

When it comes to sex, women have rights; men just have responsibilities.

Gahrie said...

This is a fall-back now that we've become pathetic.

And of course you and your fellow Lefties had absolutely nothing to do with this.

Bob Ellison said...

The pathos lies in the appeal to the judiciary to decide what's right.

heyboom said...

Don't be a splooge stooge.

Once again you are putting the onus on the man to keep the woman from getting pregnant. Women are just as responsible themselves, and one would think even more so since they are the ones who are required to carry the child to term.

For women: Don't be a cum scum.

Ann Althouse said...

"Women are just as responsible themselves..."

I never said they weren't.

Both are fully responsible.

David said...

The docs in Illinois will not do a vasectomy on a married man without the wife's permission, that's for sure. Or a vasectomy reversal.

The woman, however, can have her tubes tied without hubby's permission.

Of course Inga will think this is just the way it should be.

And American men outscaring?

edutcher said...

Ann Althouse said...

Don't be a splooge stooge.

Sounds like a poster put out by the Army Medical Corps in WWII.

Roger J. said...

I concur with the Professor--decisions made with respect to reproduction require both parties to take some responsibilities. Now, I am assuming these parties are in loving relationship--if they are just wanton breeders, there will be no such agreements.

slumber_j said...

"Don't be a splooge stooge."

You want this to be an okay admonition given one thing or another. The thing is, such a lawyerly piece of advice directed the other way (and you do know what I mean) would be taken as problematic.

Now you'll say that's what you meant, but how about this: I think the courts should, based on internally reasonable conclusions that they can make based on certain decisions, decide that I don't have to keep track of that.

I want free lawyering from the system, in other words, Just as though I were a woman. Why shouldn't I be entitled to that?

RiverRat said...

Does the same apply to fallopian tubes. Probably not!

bagoh20 said...

My advice is to keep your legs closed or something terrible might come out. They never listen.

Jquip said...

Althouse: "Really, men need to keep track of their genetic material. One way or another."

So if a man breaks into a house, it's his fault. If a man's house is broken into, it's still his fault.

The same sort of reasoning is used to dignify laws that require women to be chaperoned and wear burkas.

Because if a woman let's a man into her house, it's her fault. And if a man breaks into her house, it's her fault.

bagoh20 said...

I'm fixed. Do you believe me?

bagoh20 said...

Every one of my genetic cruise missiles has a tiny bar code.

bagoh20 said...

The life-begins-at-creation crowd is the only fair ones. They say you both lose control of your genetic material at the same time. But equality is a really just a club with nails on one side.

heyboom said...

"Women are just as responsible themselves..."

I never said they weren't.

Both are fully responsible.


I didn't interpret your comment that way, especially in light of the other discussions on this subject over the past week or so. My take was that your stronger admonishments were reserved for the men.

n.n said...

Both are fully responsible.

And that is the lesson and appropriate conclusion.

Liberty is only possible for men and women capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior.

n.n said...

heyboom:

One possible interpretation of the discrepancy is a perspective where women are vulnerable and men are opportunistic. If men are capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior, then the requirement of women is reduced. This is strictly true, but it diminishes the dignity of women.

Jquip said...

"I'm fixed. Do you believe me?"

Conversation with the Snipped:

"Honey, I think I might be pregnant..."

"That's wonderful! Be sure to congratulate the father for me."

Saint Croix said...

Don't be a splooge stooge.

Sex makes everybody stupid.

heyboom said...

n.n.

Excellent point.

Inga said...

No David, I said in the big thread (when it came up there first) that it was unjust for the husband to have to get his wife's permission first, it's his body.

MayBee said...

Husbands and wives are responsible for each other. That's why it's ok to ask permission before a vasectomy and should be ok to get a sign-off on an abortion.

As far as the "it's his body" argument, it's his body the courts are going to throw In jail if he doesn't pay child support. It's his body that is going to have to work partially as an indentured servant to the ioman's offspring.

Vince said...

I had a vasectomy back in 1984, and, when I inquired about telling my wife (who knew and approved), the doctor told me that it wasn't any of her business.

Vince said...

I had a vasectomy back in 1984, and, when I inquired about telling my wife (who knew and approved), the doctor told me that it wasn't any of her business.

campy said...

When it comes to sex, women have rights; men just have responsibilities.

The first 5 words in that sentence are superfluous.

the men need to establish their rights in court so they can out-scare the doctors.

I don't want somebody quaking in fear handling a knife in that area.

Chuck said...

Yeah. Because "out-scaring the doctors" is always a great way to run a medical system.

Spoken like a true law professor.

Leland said...

Why should it matter if we are talking married men or not? It's not like the ability of abortion on demand differentiates between married women or single women, anymore than it treats differentiates minors from adults (seemingly the only non-emergent medical procedure a minor of any gender can get without parental consent).

Michael said...

Men usually get the procedure only once whereas women, some women, get multiple procedures. For equal protection men should instead get an annual voucher or cash equivalent.

Mitchell the Bat said...

I was still living at home and my father was about age 50. His latest wife was about 25 years younger than him and desperate to get pregnant.

Their bedroom was right above mine and sometimes I'd have to listen to him fuck her, and he'd fuck her like a pile driver. My girlfriend at the time said to me, "I don't know what he's got but I hope you inherited it." She laughed. I didn't.

This situation went on for a couple years. He was shooting blanks, of course, which was fine with him because he was getting laid very regularly and he didn't really want to have children, anyway.

I'd finally moved out of the house by the time she eventually got him to go to some fertility doctor and she ended up having twins.

They separated about two years later and got divorced. For him that was divorce number three. For her, number one.

The whole thing made me want to fucking puke.

But I'll say this for the evil bastard . . . he sure did maneuver himself into some fully compliant missionary sex -- a blowup doll that begs you to fuck it, and fuck it, and then come inside it.

The funny thing is, I actually kind of liked her. We got along fine and she was sort of like my big sister, in a way.

But it's closer to the truth to say I felt sorry for her, same as I felt sorry for myself.

Nichevo said...

I hate to tell you this, Mitch, but that some hot shit.

Freder Frederson said...

The docs in Illinois will not do a vasectomy on a married man without the wife's permission, that's for sure. Or a vasectomy reversal.

Can you provide a cite to the Illinois statute, or statute in any other state, that requires this consent.

I bet you can't.

And of course Instapundit, as usual believes anecdotes are the same as data.

I would imagine that it is a breach of medical ethics for a doctor to require consent for any procedure from a third party when the patient is competent.

Freder Frederson said...

Even Instapundit admits that this is apparently against Federal law, so why are we even discussing it?

Inga said...

David, and you a lawyer, should've known this factoid! I was right all along, it's unjust. It's not even done.

paul a'barge said...

the men need to establish their rights in court so they can out-scare the doctors

Yeah, that's a real healthy exercise of the legal system. Dueling banjos in court.

Nathan Alexander said...

but I'm not talking about married men. Once you're married, you should be consulting with your wife. If you're not, you've got problems.

And therein is the hypocrisy.

Laws for women's reproductive rights are based on the extremely rare exceptions. Laws for men's reproductive rights always ignore the exceptions.

The result is that a woman has a broad range of options that she can choose without being required to provide any proof.

Claim "rape" and get an abortion at any point of the pregnancy. No charges required, much less a conviction.

Claim that having the baby will make you unhappy, and get an abortion at any point of the pregnancy. No doctor note needed. "Health of the mother" is a hole broad enough to throw the galaxy through.

But if a man is raped? Well, the law is that he has no rights to terminate a pregnancy, or preserve a pregnancy for a child he wants, or not be forced into 18 years of indentured servitude (where he can be forced to pay an arbitrary amount based on what a judge merely thinks he ought to be able to earn).

Women like Inga and Althouse will agree that's horribly tragic, and shouldn't be the case...

...and not lift a finger to do anything about it, while insulting the men who point out the injustice/hypocrisy as "beta".

Freder Frederson said...

Yeah, that's a real healthy exercise of the legal system. Dueling banjos in court.

You don't have to go to court. You just have to have the balls to tell your doctor he is out of line and, if he doesn't back down, promptly file a complaint with the state medical board.

campy said...

while insulting the men who point out the injustice/hypocrisy as "beta".

That's because feminism is fundamentally a bigoted ideology.

jr565 said...

"Yeah, but I'm not talking about married men. Once you're married, you should be consulting with your wife. If you're not, you've got problems."


Sigh. And yet a wife can make the choice to abort her kid without even telling her husband. Shoudnt they be consulting their husband?

Inga said...

Come to think of it, when my son in law had one done three years ago, my daughter didn't have to give permission.

campy said...

while insulting the men who point out the injustice/hypocrisy as "beta".

That's because feminism is fundamentally a bigoted ideology.

Bob Boyd said...

"Don't be a splooge stooge"

They used to call a condom a French safe, maybe because it was an attempt to foil the nefarious sperm burglar.

Inga said...

Catch a falling condom
Put it in your pocket
Save it for a rainy day....


Or dump it in a public trash bin, the nastier the better, no woman would dumpster dive after it there.

Nathan Alexander said...

What is rape?

It used to mean forcible sex. An act of violence, not sex.

Then feminists got involved. After all, violent rape left evidence, but sometimes a woman just wants to shirk accountability completely and it is a hassle and a pain to hit yourself with a door to manufacture evidence.

So "date rape" was invented.

With date rape, a woman can seek sex, consent to sex, enjoy sex, and then later claim it was rape. If the jury believes her, he goes to jail.

If you read the legal definitions of date rape, it can be claimed if the woman merely regrets having sex with him. Date rape can be claimed if the woman says yes only because she was feeling tipsy from alcohol.

Because it all comes down to whether he can prove consent. Since even with a video/audio recording, she can claim drug-induced consent, he cannot prove consent and it would come down to he said/she said and who the jury believes.

Okay, let's assume that all that is true. Let's assume that sex that she regrets is damaging to her. To the point of needing a criminal case to resolve her feelings of violation.

With date rape, it rape now can be an act of sexuality.

So why is it still rape?

Simply: because she feels violated.

What is violated?

Her control over her ability to choose who she gives sexual pleasure to.

That's what it comes down to. I welcome any debate to the contrary.

(continued)

Ann Althouse said...

"Sigh. And yet a wife can make the choice to abort her kid without even telling her husband. Shoudnt they be consulting their husband?"

Yes, and that's exactly the reason Planned Parenthood v. Casey gave for striking down a statutory requirement that a woman consult her husband.

Think about it.

And stop your sighing.

Freder Frederson said...

Think about it.

Think about what? We have established that it is a violation of medical ethics and Federal Law (e.g., HIPPA) for a doctor to ask or require permission from a spouse before a vasectomy.

Instapundit's contention that this violation of ethics and law happens "often" is obviously something he pulled out of his ass.

Nathan Alexander said...

So if something is 'rape' because it violates a woman's control of something extremely important to her psyche, her well-being, and her future welfare, then it makes sense to say that it is also 'rape' if something violates a man's control of something extremely important to his psyche, his well-being, and his future welfare.

It has been said that men define themselves by what they do, and women define themselves by their status.

Regardless of the degree of accuracy of that concept, it is absolutely and undeniably true that a man attracts women based significantly on his after-expenses earnings. The same guy that most women would ignore or dismiss as not even achieving beta status suddenly becomes the world's most eligible bachelor if he has $5 billion in his bank account.

Women use access to sex as way to attract men. Or put another way, from an evolutionary standpoint, women grant access to sex to get access to greater material resources.
Men use access to money as a way to attract women. Or put another way, from an evolutionary standpoint, men grant access to resources to get access to more sex.

So if a woman can use fraud and dishonesty to violate a man's control of one of the main aspects he uses to attract women, is it not rape?

Most people laugh/deride when talking about raping men by not getting consent to sex: of course the man wants sex, amiright?

Well, no. But I do think it harms men less than women, because it doesn't violate their control of their main attraction asset.

Rape of a woman is violation of her ability to control sex.

Rape of a man is violation of his ability to control his monetary resources.

Thoughts?

Saint Croix said...

A vasectomy is birth control.

An abortion is (often) infanticide.

The way liberals just conflate the two is insane.

That's why the dumbest sentence in Casey is this one...

It should be recognized, moreover, that in some critical respects the abortion decision is of the same character as the decision to use contraception

Saint Croix said...

And for their hubris, the idiots who wrote Casey were forced to participate in Carhart.

our discussion may seem clinically cold or callous to some, perhaps horrifying to others.

Saint Croix said...

Here is a photograph of birth control, for those Ivy Leaguers who think abortion is just like birth control.

Don't click on the link! It's appalling! Gruesome! It's birth control! Aiiiiiieeeeeeee!

Here is that awful birth control case where they had to dispose of16,000 dead babies.

No, wait, that's abortion. Damn this is confusing!

I googled "vasectomy" and "murder," just in case there was some crazy pro-lifer out there killing vasectomy doctors. Apparently there is not.

But vasectomy might lead to murder!

Just a heads up, scissors fans.

jr565 said...

"And stop your sighing."
Sighing is not sobbing.
But you should stop your sobbing too. (from the male perspective).

Joe said...

When I got my vasectomy, the doctor explained that it wasn't the law but that he didn't want to be sued or, worse, have the wife come in and whine at him.

That said, I do agree that if a couple doesn't talk about vasectomy, getting tubes tied, pregnancy or not, they have problems.

jr565 said...

What did Althouse say about how proponents of traditional marriage were oppressing the gays? And they got away with oppressing them long enough and should not stop whining.
You women, with your choice which dicates how a man must spend his money for 8 years, have been oppressing men long enough. Stop whining and allow for them to have the same right for family planning as a woman. If that means that they aren't going to pay for their kids, then they probably wouldn't be good dads anyway.
Right?
The man should, when faced with the pregnancy have the ability to renounce his role in it before she gives birth. So, if she decides to have it anyway, then she is having it on her own.
This corresponds to the argument posed by women that she is the sole person to choose.
Women should be responsible for their choice.

jr565 said...

8 years should equal 18 years.

jr565 said...

My argument seems to get under the skin of feminists. How dare men say that the should opt out of fatherhood when a baby is in the world.
But it's the exact same argument that a woman makes when she says she needs to terminate her pregnancy.
And it's just as obnoxious when made by women.

ByondPolitics said...

Any problems a married man may have that contribute to his desire to have a vastectomy without the permission of his spouse are his own business. A urologist who concerns himself with such matters should be sued for malpractice.

Your response to Reynolds is a big pile of busybody failure.

David said...

Inga and Freder:

I said the Docs will not do the vascectomy without the father's consent. I did not say it was illegal to do it without consent.

Probably not all Docs but all the ones I knew. And my quite able family lawyer girlfriend said a Doc would be a fool to do a vasectomy without getting consent of the wife. Too risky.

The Docs are afraid of tort suits, not of prosecution.

Women can be vengeful, when it comes to their reproductive rights.

Learn to read and think more carefully.

Inga said...

"The docs in Illinois will not do a vasectomy on a married man without the wife's permission, that's for sure. Or a vasectomy reversal."

7/5/13, 10:11 PM

David, your own words.

Tom said...

I wouldn't get a vacsectomy without informing and consulting with my wife. But just because I wouldn't doesn't mean I don't have the right to control my reproduction. My body, my choice.

Achilles said...

David said...
Inga and Freder:

I said the Docs will not do the vascectomy without the father's consent. I did not say it was illegal to do it without consent.

Probably not all Docs but all the ones I knew. And my quite able family lawyer girlfriend said a Doc would be a fool to do a vasectomy without getting consent of the wife. Too risky.

The Docs are afraid of tort suits, not of prosecution.

Women can be vengeful, when it comes to their reproductive rights.

Learn to read and think more carefully.

Inga said...
"The docs in Illinois will not do a vasectomy on a married man without the wife's permission, that's for sure. Or a vasectomy reversal."

7/5/13, 10:11 PM

David, your own words.

----------

...

Fascist movements have two types of people in them: The evil ones and the stupid ones. Sometimes the groups overlap a bit but the stupid group is always the bigger one.

Just another example of progressives inflicting their angst on the rest of us through judicial tyranny. And a stupid progressive that can't read and may not even understand how her cohorts are ruining the lives of the people she hates. As long as her enemies are being punished and she gets free stuff by taking their money all is good.

Achilles said...

Freder Frederson said...
Even Instapundit admits that this is apparently against Federal law, so why are we even discussing it?

7/6/13, 8:31 AM

Because it doesn't matter what the law is. In practice men have to ask for permission because doctors face a high likelihood of getting sued if they don't and if you haven't noticed some states are lawless wrecks.

It is against federal law to have the IRS harass people because of their political and religious beliefs but Obama had them do it anyway. Fascists tend to do whatever they want.

kmg said...

I like most of what Ann Althouse writes, but I predict fewer Instapundit links for her in the future..

Ann Althouse and Dr. Helen clearly are on the opposite sides of many issues regarding misandry and Men's Rights.

Marty said...

So I take it you would agree that if a married woman wants an abortion, her doctor should be sure she has her husband's approval?

This idea that women have absolute control over every facet of life after becoming pregnant, but the man's only option is to not participate in the act because he has zero rights if she becomes pregnant, is way beyond bizarre if properly understood.

If the woman's rights are absolute, so must be the man's. If the woman decides whether to keep the baby, the man decides whether he will have anything to do with either of them.

The current law is just a way to use State power to enslave the man to the whim of the woman, and I use the word "enslave" knowing full well what I am doing.