Ohio Bill To Require Affadavits of Impotence

I am so loving this trend.

Before getting a prescription for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.

The Cleveland Democrat introduced Senate Bill 307 this week.
A critic of efforts to restrict abortion and contraception for women, Turner says she is concerned about men’s reproductive health… Turner said if state policymakers want to legislate women’s health choices through measures such as House Bill 125, known as the ‘Heartbeat bill,’ they should also be able to legislate men’s reproductive health.

Turner’s bill tracks FDA guidelines which recommends doctors determine whether the root cause of men’s sexual disfunction is physical or psychological. She describes her bill as an effort to “legislate it the same way mostly men say they want to legislate a woman’s womb.”

For more go here.

(Thanks, J-Mom!)

7 thoughts on “Ohio Bill To Require Affadavits of Impotence

  1. I believe something different is going on with the Ohio situation than with some of the other state bills/laws we’ve seen (and in some cases discussed here) recently. For example, depending on how they’re drafted, ultrasound laws are generally constitutional. They’re a legislative strategy. The Ohio fetal heartbeat bill that Sen. Turner is protesting seems not so much a legislative strategy as a judicial one. If enacted it will run up against Roe and its progeny, at least as applied to the first trimester, and won’t be upheld by the lower courts or the Sixth Circuit. I’m guessing the proponents’ plan is to try to get the Supreme Court to grant review and get it to re-think parts of Roe. Whatever the reason, it’s being reported in the press that the Ohio pro-life movement is divided over whether to endorse the fetal heartbeat bill – a disagreement over strategic risks?

    Interestingly, the last polling indicated that Ohio women (like Ohio voters generally) were breaking statistically even in their support for and against the fetal heartbeat bill, so Sen. Turner’s comment about “mostly men” is arguably off-base.

  2. Not to take anything away from Nemo’s legal analysis, I think Rep. Turner’s bill is dead on because it illuminates the falseness of claims of ‘the woman’s interest’ as the aim of these other laws.

    Of course, from a legal philosopher’s perspective, I might want to raise some questions about the scope of permissible paternalism in law. Typically, provision of information in a non-intrusive form (labels, etc) is regarded as acceptable, ceteris paribus. (And, that’s a big ceteris.)

    Requiring people to undergo invasive medical procedures – and adding special provisions assigning the cost of those procedures to the ‘patient’ – is a mode of ‘paternalistic’ legislation that calls into doubt the veracity of the purported motivation.

  3. That’s a good point, ChrisTS. But isn’t the Ohio bill that Turner is presumably reacting to (though she may be making a commentary as well on some laws or proposed laws in other states) of a different stripe? It does contain an informational aspect, but the most significant part of the bill would prohibit someone – theoretically, if it were constitutionally enforceable – from performing an abortion if a fetal heartbeat has been detected (or from performing one without checking for a heartbeat first). I don’t think anyone disputes that the fetus’ interest rather than the mother’s is the aim of that particular bill.

    Sort of a shame that Sen. Turner couldn’t rustle up a male co-sponsor for the Viagra bill, if only to provide some symmetry to the women co-sponsors of the heartbeat bill.

Comments are closed.