justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 14, 2020 9:55:32 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,127
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 14, 2020 10:27:53 GMT -5
I'm thinking Rep. Rolanda Hollis (D-Birmingham) is trying to make a point regarding reproductive rights. So many existing and proposed laws aimed at women's reproductive 'rights' but none stopping men from being Johnny Appleseeds.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 14, 2020 10:46:35 GMT -5
Oh, undoubtedly that's the point she's trying to make.
Though there's also been some research that even though guys produce sperm more or less forever, the quality of the sperm starts to decline around the same age as women's eggs. I've also seen some beginning research that there's possibly a link between autism and the age of the father when the kid is conceived. So cutting men off at 50 is probably of more sound reasoning than any restrictions on women's rights.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,127
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 14, 2020 10:49:55 GMT -5
Oh, undoubtedly that's the point she's trying to make. Though there's also been some research that even though guys produce sperm more or less forever, the quality of the sperm starts to decline around the same age as women's eggs. I've also seen some beginning research that there's possibly a link between autism and the age of the father when the kid is conceived. So cutting men off at 50 is probably of more sound reasoning than any restrictions on women's rights. All it takes is one little swimmer to score.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,327
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 14, 2020 10:50:32 GMT -5
I still like the idea of mandatory birth control for men and women from 13 to 23.
That would reduce both welfare and abortions.
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,080
Location: Maryland
Member is Online
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Feb 14, 2020 11:15:03 GMT -5
But men pick younger women for their second wives.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 14, 2020 11:18:17 GMT -5
But men pick younger women for their second wives. Which is an even better reason for men to have a built-in excuse not to have kids with them.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 14, 2020 12:32:22 GMT -5
I'm thinking Rep. Rolanda Hollis (D-Birmingham) is trying to make a point regarding reproductive rights. So many existing and proposed laws aimed at women's reproductive 'rights' but none stopping men from being Johnny Appleseeds. This is where I'll park myself. Let's see if the men who are trying to rule women's reproductive rights like the law regulating their's.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 14, 2020 12:39:20 GMT -5
I'm thinking Rep. Rolanda Hollis (D-Birmingham) is trying to make a point regarding reproductive rights. So many existing and proposed laws aimed at women's reproductive 'rights' but none stopping men from being Johnny Appleseeds. This is where I'll park myself. Let's see if the men who are trying to rule women's reproductive rights like the law regulating their's. Are there laws preventing women from being "Jenny Appleseeds" and having many kids?
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,233
|
Post by NastyWoman on Feb 14, 2020 13:36:28 GMT -5
This is where I'll park myself. Let's see if the men who are trying to rule women's reproductive rights like the law regulating their's. Are there laws preventing women from being "Jenny Appleseeds" and having many kids? Noooo, we are to serve as mandatory incubators for the "Johnny Appleseeds" of the world. BTW, I want to propose an amendment to that law and add "or who fail to pay child support per the court ordered schedule plus 30 days, whichever comes first"
No reason to burden society with three of their off-spring if they are not even making timely payments for one
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 14, 2020 13:41:56 GMT -5
This is where I'll park myself. Let's see if the men who are trying to rule women's reproductive rights like the law regulating their's. Are there laws preventing women from being "Jenny Appleseeds" and having many kids? You are missing the point. Reproductive rights go both ways. Women have been hindered in trying to control their own reproductive rights, men have not. THAT is the point of this.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 14, 2020 13:50:02 GMT -5
Are there laws preventing women from being "Jenny Appleseeds" and having many kids? You are missing the point. Reproductive rights go both ways. Women have been hindered in trying to control their own reproductive rights, men have not. THAT is the point of this. How have women been hindered by law from having as many children as they like at whatever age they like? If there is a fetus, isn't a man prohibited from killing it as much as a woman is? Or is a fetus only the reproduction of a woman and not the man? I think it's absolutely fair to impose a law saying that if women can't kill a fetus, neither can men. I'm not sure how you're comparing "women can have all the kids they want" and "there should be a limit on how many kids a man can have" though.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 14, 2020 13:57:02 GMT -5
Abortion laws are laws dictating what medical procedures a woman can have
Forced vasectomies laws are laws dictating what medical procedures a man can have
Though the later is forcing vs preventing so there is differences there
You're getting caught up in the result not matching, when it's what the laws are doing - dictating medical procedures - that should be the focus.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 14, 2020 14:10:20 GMT -5
Abortion laws are laws dictating what medical procedures a woman can have Forced vasectomies laws are laws dictating what medical procedures a man can have Though the later is forcing vs preventing so there is differences thereYou're getting caught up in the result not matching, when it's what the laws are doing - dictating medical procedures - that should be the focus. There are also differences in whether there's another life involved that you're allowed to terminate...which is pretty much the crux of abortion laws to begin with...so ignoring that fact isn't matching up anything at all. That's what is being missed. Ignoring the primary issue and the driver of the difference in order to throw some random poor comparison together simply ignores the actual issue. It's as ridiculous as all the people who say "a marriage is between a man and a woman, if we let a man marry a man then we have to also allow men to marry bicycles and apartment buildings". The primary issue is not an all-encompassing "reproductive rights" or "medical procedures", it's pregnancy...it's VERY specific to pregnancy...and so trying to rope in some "male equivalent" that doesn't exist is silly regardless of which side of the issue someone is on. Beyond that though, this particular case is a legislator going out of their way to waste people's time on something they almost certainly don't even actually believe in. It's governmental click-bait.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 14, 2020 14:11:51 GMT -5
You are missing the point. Reproductive rights go both ways. Women have been hindered in trying to control their own reproductive rights, men have not. THAT is the point of this. How have women been hindered by law from having as many children as they like at whatever age they like? If there is a fetus, isn't a man prohibited from killing it as much as a woman is? Or is a fetus only the reproduction of a woman and not the man? I think it's absolutely fair to impose a law saying that if women can't kill a fetus, neither can men. I'm not sure how you're comparing "women can have all the kids they want" and "there should be a limit on how many kids a man can have" though. Really? What do you not understand about reproductive rights? This isn't talking about how many children, but the ability to control your own fertility, REGARDLESS of direction.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 14, 2020 14:15:57 GMT -5
How have women been hindered by law from having as many children as they like at whatever age they like? If there is a fetus, isn't a man prohibited from killing it as much as a woman is? Or is a fetus only the reproduction of a woman and not the man? I think it's absolutely fair to impose a law saying that if women can't kill a fetus, neither can men. I'm not sure how you're comparing "women can have all the kids they want" and "there should be a limit on how many kids a man can have" though. Really? What do you not understand about reproductive rights? This isn't talking about how many children, but the ability to control your own fertility, REGARDLESS of direction. 1. Abortion laws do nothing to control fertility. They control pregnancy, which is not the same thing at all. 2. It is talking about how many children, it's actually the crux of the proposal. 3. There are laws men face that control their reproduction when that reproduction adversely impacts another human being.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 14, 2020 14:17:19 GMT -5
Abortion laws are laws dictating what medical procedures a woman can have Forced vasectomies laws are laws dictating what medical procedures a man can have Though the later is forcing vs preventing so there is differences thereYou're getting caught up in the result not matching, when it's what the laws are doing - dictating medical procedures - that should be the focus. There are also differences in whether there's another life involved that you're allowed to terminate...which is pretty much the crux of abortion laws to begin with...so ignoring that fact isn't matching up anything at all. That's what is being missed. Ignoring the primary issue and the driver of the difference in order to throw some random poor comparison together simply ignores the actual issue. It's as ridiculous as all the people who say "a marriage is between a man and a woman, if we let a man marry a man then we have to also allow men to marry bicycles and apartment buildings". The primary issue is not an all-encompassing "reproductive rights" or "medical procedures", it's pregnancy...it's VERY specific to pregnancy...and so trying to rope in some "male equivalent" that doesn't exist is silly regardless of which side of the issue someone is on. Beyond that though, this particular case is a legislator going out of their way to waste people's time on something they almost certainly don't even actually believe in. It's governmental click-bait. No one here is talking about abortion, and you are going to get this thread bounced if you go there. This is talking about bodily autonomy. Let me give you an example that pertains to reproductive rights. If a woman wants a tubal ligation, she has to jump through a zillion hoops in order to receive one. If she is too young, they will say she will change her mind. If she is married, she may need her husband to sign off on it. However, if a man wants a vasectomy, no one bats an eye. This is trying to prevent a pregnancy, NOT abort one.
|
|
andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 30,290
|
Post by andi9899 on Feb 14, 2020 14:18:15 GMT -5
What laws are men facing regarding their reproductive rights other than this one being proposed?
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 14, 2020 14:19:56 GMT -5
Really? What do you not understand about reproductive rights? This isn't talking about how many children, but the ability to control your own fertility, REGARDLESS of direction. 1. Abortion laws do nothing to control fertility. They control pregnancy, which is not the same thing at all. 2. It is talking about how many children, it's actually the crux of the proposal. 3. There are laws men face that control their reproduction when that reproduction adversely impacts another human being. This is not talking about abortion! This has absolutely NOTHING to do about controlling the number of children, this is trying to push a point about someone else controlling your body and its functions.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 14, 2020 14:23:03 GMT -5
There are also differences in whether there's another life involved that you're allowed to terminate...which is pretty much the crux of abortion laws to begin with...so ignoring that fact isn't matching up anything at all. That's what is being missed. Ignoring the primary issue and the driver of the difference in order to throw some random poor comparison together simply ignores the actual issue. It's as ridiculous as all the people who say "a marriage is between a man and a woman, if we let a man marry a man then we have to also allow men to marry bicycles and apartment buildings". The primary issue is not an all-encompassing "reproductive rights" or "medical procedures", it's pregnancy...it's VERY specific to pregnancy...and so trying to rope in some "male equivalent" that doesn't exist is silly regardless of which side of the issue someone is on. Beyond that though, this particular case is a legislator going out of their way to waste people's time on something they almost certainly don't even actually believe in. It's governmental click-bait. No one here is talking about abortion, and you are going to get this thread bounced if you go there. This is talking about bodily autonomy. Let me give you an example that pertains to reproductive rights. If a woman wants a tubal ligation, she has to jump through a zillion hoops in order to receive one. If she is too young, they will say she will change her mind. If she is married, she may need her husband to sign off on it. However, if a man wants a vasectomy, no one bats an eye. This is trying to prevent a pregnancy, NOT abort one. Great, show me the law that says women who have a medical need of a tubal ligation aren't legally allowed to get one. And there are already states that have a waiting period for vasectomies, just like tubal ligations. If you want to compare this specific legislation, and you only want to talk about bodily autonomy, show me which states have forced sterilization for women based on # of children they've had. To the bolded part...yep, all the same stuff a man has to go through for a vasectomy. Love to see which states you believe require a husband to sign off on a tubal ligation.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 14, 2020 14:23:41 GMT -5
1. Abortion laws do nothing to control fertility. They control pregnancy, which is not the same thing at all. 2. It is talking about how many children, it's actually the crux of the proposal. 3. There are laws men face that control their reproduction when that reproduction adversely impacts another human being. This is not talking about abortion! This has absolutely NOTHING to do about controlling the number of children, this is trying to push a point about someone else controlling your body and its functions. You might try re-reading the legislation.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,233
|
Post by NastyWoman on Feb 14, 2020 14:47:15 GMT -5
Abortion laws are laws dictating what medical procedures a woman can have Forced vasectomies laws are laws dictating what medical procedures a man can have Though the later is forcing vs preventing so there is differences thereYou're getting caught up in the result not matching, when it's what the laws are doing - dictating medical procedures - that should be the focus. There are also differences in whether there's another life involved that you're allowed to terminate...which is pretty much the crux of abortion laws to begin with...so ignoring that fact isn't matching up anything at all. That's what is being missed. Ignoring the primary issue and the driver of the difference in order to throw some random poor comparison together simply ignores the actual issue. It's as ridiculous as all the people who say "a marriage is between a man and a woman, if we let a man marry a man then we have to also allow men to marry bicycles and apartment buildings". The primary issue is not an all-encompassing "reproductive rights" or "medical procedures", it's pregnancy...it's VERY specific to pregnancy...and so trying to rope in some "male equivalent" that doesn't exist is silly regardless of which side of the issue someone is on. Beyond that though, this particular case is a legislator going out of their way to waste people's time on something they almost certainly don't even actually believe in. It's governmental click-bait. Forced incubator laws!!! that is the point you are not missing but ignoring
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 14, 2020 14:58:22 GMT -5
There are also differences in whether there's another life involved that you're allowed to terminate...which is pretty much the crux of abortion laws to begin with...so ignoring that fact isn't matching up anything at all. That's what is being missed. Ignoring the primary issue and the driver of the difference in order to throw some random poor comparison together simply ignores the actual issue. It's as ridiculous as all the people who say "a marriage is between a man and a woman, if we let a man marry a man then we have to also allow men to marry bicycles and apartment buildings". The primary issue is not an all-encompassing "reproductive rights" or "medical procedures", it's pregnancy...it's VERY specific to pregnancy...and so trying to rope in some "male equivalent" that doesn't exist is silly regardless of which side of the issue someone is on. Beyond that though, this particular case is a legislator going out of their way to waste people's time on something they almost certainly don't even actually believe in. It's governmental click-bait. Forced incubator laws!!! that is the point you are not missing but ignoring Who is ignoring it? I was talking about it then told to stop talking about it.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 14, 2020 15:51:07 GMT -5
This is where I'll park myself. Let's see if the men who are trying to rule women's reproductive rights like the law regulating their's. Are there laws preventing women from being "Jenny Appleseeds" and having many kids? Well the law of nature says that one man *could* father hundreds thousands of kids in one year, whereas a woman can only produce 2 at the most, 1 in most cases.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 14, 2020 15:57:22 GMT -5
No one here is talking about abortion, and you are going to get this thread bounced if you go there. This is talking about bodily autonomy. Let me give you an example that pertains to reproductive rights. If a woman wants a tubal ligation, she has to jump through a zillion hoops in order to receive one. If she is too young, they will say she will change her mind. If she is married, she may need her husband to sign off on it. However, if a man wants a vasectomy, no one bats an eye. This is trying to prevent a pregnancy, NOT abort one. Great, show me the law that says women who have a medical need of a tubal ligation aren't legally allowed to get one. And there are already states that have a waiting period for vasectomies, just like tubal ligations. If you want to compare this specific legislation, and you only want to talk about bodily autonomy, show me which states have forced sterilization for women based on # of children they've had. To the bolded part...yep, all the same stuff a man has to go through for a vasectomy. Love to see which states you believe require a husband to sign off on a tubal ligation. Why should a woman have to have a "medical need" for a tubal ligation? Why isn't "I want to prevent pregnancy" a good enough reason? Do men have to show "medical need" for a vasectomy?
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 14, 2020 16:10:35 GMT -5
No one here is talking about abortion, and you are going to get this thread bounced if you go there. This is talking about bodily autonomy. Let me give you an example that pertains to reproductive rights. If a woman wants a tubal ligation, she has to jump through a zillion hoops in order to receive one. If she is too young, they will say she will change her mind. If she is married, she may need her husband to sign off on it. However, if a man wants a vasectomy, no one bats an eye. This is trying to prevent a pregnancy, NOT abort one. Great, show me the law that says women who have a medical need of a tubal ligation aren't legally allowed to get one. And there are already states that have a waiting period for vasectomies, just like tubal ligations. If you want to compare this specific legislation, and you only want to talk about bodily autonomy, show me which states have forced sterilization for women based on # of children they've had. To the bolded part...yep, all the same stuff a man has to go through for a vasectomy. Love to see which states you believe require a husband to sign off on a tubal ligation.I had a tubal ligation in Texas. My husband had to sign. Sometimes doctors require it even though the law doesn't. Federal government policy according to the Office of Population Affairs is that female sterilization procedures do not require the consent of the spouse. Any family planning program funded by the federal government is required to adhere to state laws on consent except for laws requiring spousal consent for sterilization, as these are held to be unconstitutional. The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover tubal ligation, but does not require doctors to perform the procedure against their own judgment. Spousal Consent Policies Despite federal court rulings against spousal consent laws, some hospitals still have policies against performing the procedure without the signed consent of both spouses. Publicly owned hospitals are not legally allowed to maintain such a policy, but private hospitals are. Despite the illegality of spousal consent policies at public hospitals, doctors may still refuse to perform the procedure, especially if the woman requesting it is young or has not yet had children. oureverydaylife.com/married-woman-need-her-husbands-consent-her-tubes-tied-29832.html
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 14, 2020 16:14:25 GMT -5
Great, show me the law that says women who have a medical need of a tubal ligation aren't legally allowed to get one. And there are already states that have a waiting period for vasectomies, just like tubal ligations. If you want to compare this specific legislation, and you only want to talk about bodily autonomy, show me which states have forced sterilization for women based on # of children they've had. To the bolded part...yep, all the same stuff a man has to go through for a vasectomy. Love to see which states you believe require a husband to sign off on a tubal ligation. Why should a woman have to have a "medical need" for a tubal ligation? Why isn't "I want to prevent pregnancy" a good enough reason? Do men have to show "medical need" for a vasectomy? I said medical need because the post I was quoting was talking about "jumping through hoops to get one". Most voluntary medical procedures that are THAT significant involve a little jumping through hoops, including vasectomies. I also said medical need because I expect a doctor to determine that, so the point was asking for a law that told doctors they aren't legally allowed to give a tubal ligation where they determine a medical need exists. Preventing pregnancies is a fine medical reason for both, assuming the procedure isn't unnecessarily dangerous due to other medical issues. If you want to replace "need" with "medically appropriate" that's fine too. And yes, men have to show the same level of medical need/appropriateness for a vasectomy.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 14, 2020 16:17:59 GMT -5
Why should a woman have to have a "medical need" for a tubal ligation? Why isn't "I want to prevent pregnancy" a good enough reason? Do men have to show "medical need" for a vasectomy? I said medical need because the post I was quoting was talking about "jumping through hoops to get one". Most voluntary medical procedures that are THAT significant involve a little jumping through hoops, including vasectomies. I also said medical need because I expect a doctor to determine that, so the point was asking for a law that told doctors they aren't legally allowed to give a tubal ligation where they determine a medical need exists. Preventing pregnancies is a fine medical reason for both, assuming the procedure isn't unnecessarily dangerous due to other medical issues. If you want to replace "need" with "medically appropriate" that's fine too. And yes, men have to show the same level of medical need/appropriateness for a vasectomy.My husband did not have to show ANY level of medical need/appropriateness for his vasectomy. None. Zip. Nada. WA state.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 14, 2020 16:18:33 GMT -5
Great, show me the law that says women who have a medical need of a tubal ligation aren't legally allowed to get one. And there are already states that have a waiting period for vasectomies, just like tubal ligations. If you want to compare this specific legislation, and you only want to talk about bodily autonomy, show me which states have forced sterilization for women based on # of children they've had. To the bolded part...yep, all the same stuff a man has to go through for a vasectomy. Love to see which states you believe require a husband to sign off on a tubal ligation.I had a tubal ligation in Texas. My husband had to sign. Sometimes doctors require it even though the law doesn't. Federal government policy according to the Office of Population Affairs is that female sterilization procedures do not require the consent of the spouse. Any family planning program funded by the federal government is required to adhere to state laws on consent except for laws requiring spousal consent for sterilization, as these are held to be unconstitutional. The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover tubal ligation, but does not require doctors to perform the procedure against their own judgment. Spousal Consent Policies Despite federal court rulings against spousal consent laws, some hospitals still have policies against performing the procedure without the signed consent of both spouses. Publicly owned hospitals are not legally allowed to maintain such a policy, but private hospitals are. Despite the illegality of spousal consent policies at public hospitals, doctors may still refuse to perform the procedure, especially if the woman requesting it is young or has not yet had children. oureverydaylife.com/married-woman-need-her-husbands-consent-her-tubes-tied-29832.htmlWe're talking about LAWS, not random policies some doctors implement. So tell me how it is apples to apples to compare "This is legal but some doctors might have differing policies in private practice" and "we should pass a law that makes this illegal". The state of Texas didn't require it, just like if I require my children to jump up and down 10 times that doesn't mean "the state of Iowa requires children to jump up and down 10 times".
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 14, 2020 16:21:54 GMT -5
I said medical need because the post I was quoting was talking about "jumping through hoops to get one". Most voluntary medical procedures that are THAT significant involve a little jumping through hoops, including vasectomies. I also said medical need because I expect a doctor to determine that, so the point was asking for a law that told doctors they aren't legally allowed to give a tubal ligation where they determine a medical need exists. Preventing pregnancies is a fine medical reason for both, assuming the procedure isn't unnecessarily dangerous due to other medical issues. If you want to replace "need" with "medically appropriate" that's fine too. And yes, men have to show the same level of medical need/appropriateness for a vasectomy.My husband did not have to show ANY level of medical need/appropriateness for his vasectomy. None. Zip. Nada. WA state. HE wouldn't be SHOWING anything...people don't prove to their doctor they need a procedure, the DOCTOR decides it is medically appropriate. Are you saying your husband's doctor did nothing? No physical, no nothing...he just started snipping without looking at your husband's medical records, examining him, making sure there wasn't anything dangerous likely to happen? Did he get it done in an alley by a homeless man? Because it's inconceivable that a doctor would perform ANY surgery without determining it was medically appropriate first.
|
|