Lawmakers Just Proposed Making It Illegal For Men To Have Unprotected Sex Unless They Intend To Make A Baby, And YES, This Is REAL
Hot Topic
🔥 Full coverage and conversation on Politics
It's a ballsy move, but two Ohio State Representatives have introduced a bill that would make it illegal for men to have unprotected sex if it's not intended to make a baby.
If the 'Conception Begins at Erection Act' passes, men in Ohio could be charged with a felony if they 'discharge genetic material' without intending to get a woman pregnant.
However, the bill does provide exceptions if the male partner uses protection or contraception, masturbates on their own, donates sperm, or is a member of the LGBTQ+ community.
Think it sounds nutty? You'll get no arguments from Rep. Anita Somani, who co-sponsored the bill with fellow Democrat Tristan Rader.
In an editorial for the Columbus Dispatch, Somani, a gynecologist, admitted she knows 'how ludicrous my sounds' but said that was the point.
'Is my bill offensive because it dares to attack men? Maybe, but again, as an OB/GYN, I'm against regulating anyone's reproductive rights,' she said. Those decisions, she argued, 'should be between the patient and the physician without criminal penalties being built into bills conservative organizations are promoting across the country.'
HuffPost has reached out to Somani for details on the bill.
In an interview with CBS Cleveland affiliate WOIO, Somani said there's no doubt about the damage restrictive abortion laws have had on women.
'What other right do you know of where women have different rights based on where they live versus men?' she asked. 'If I live in a state that protects reproductive rights, I have more rights than somebody who lives in a state where reproductive rights have been restricted.'
'Men can go to any state in the United States and have the same rights no matter where they are,' Somani added.
Somani and Rader's bill is similar to another bill with the same name recently introduced in the Mississippi legislature.
Under the provisions of that proposed bill, violators wouldn't face jail time but would pay $1,000 for the first offense, $5,000 for the second, and $10,000 for three or more offenses. Somani told WOIO that her bill would make ejaculation a felony, which underscores the point she's trying to make by introducing it.
'We shouldn't be penalizing reproductive care for anybody, and that, again, is why we have the felony piece of this bill,' Somani said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Far-left House candidate rallies around healthcare for illegal immigrants: 'How is it controversial?'
Kat Abughazaleh, a 26-year-old Democratic candidate for Illinois' ninth congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives, said "every single person in the world deserves healthcare," even illegal immigrants. "How is it controversial?" Abughazaleh asked a CNN "NewsNight" panel on Thursday night. The young progressive candidate, with a campaign website that reads, "I don't have health insurance, and I'm running for Congress," repeatedly told the panel that every person is entitled to healthcare when asked if that includes illegal immigrants. "I'm such a monster… How is it controversial that I don't want someone to die in the hospital if they can't afford it?" Abughazaleh asked. Dems Warn House Republicans Will Pay Price At Ballot Box For Passing Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act is currently under consideration by a Republican-led White House and Congress. The president has championed the legislation as fulfilling his key campaign promises, including border security, American energy production and tax cuts. Read On The Fox News App Gop Rails Against 'Blatantly False' Dem Claims About Medicaid Reform In Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' House Republicans have celebrated Medicaid reform included in the megabill, which they say eliminates waste, fraud and abuse in the welfare program to deliver for Americans who need coverage most. Removing illegal immigrants from Medicaid is one of the key provisions of that Medicaid reform. Meanwhile, Democrats have railed against possible Medicaid cuts since Trump was elected in November. Every House Democrat voted against the bill, and Democrats are already defining Medicaid cuts as a driving issue ahead of competitive midterm elections in 2026. The bill does not cut Medicaid for the most vulnerable, according to Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., who served on three major committees leading budget markup in the reconciliation process. Houchin told Fox News Digital that targeting waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program cuts benefits to illegal immigrants, those ineligible to receive benefits who are currently receiving benefits, duplicate enrollees in one or more states and those who are able-bodied but are choosing not to work. "Your bill is going to cut coverage for 11 million Americans and it'll still cost more than universal healthcare. Healthcare is a human right, you absolute ghouls," Abughazaleh said in response to a Republican National Committee (RNC) rapid response account calling her comments, "madness." Abughazaleh said she is running for the U.S. House of Representatives because, "Our leaders are out of touch." The young Democrat is challenging Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who has served decades in congress. Abughazaleh is a former staffer for the progressive watchdog group, Media Matters, and a progressive article source: Far-left House candidate rallies around healthcare for illegal immigrants: 'How is it controversial?'
an hour ago
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., fended off a challenge from progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., to become the House Oversight Committee's top-ranked Democrat.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court largely reinstates Trump's ban on AP's access to White House
A federal appeals court panel on Friday reinstated parts of President Donald Trump's ban of the Associated Press from several key areas where presidential press events are typically held, including the Oval Office, Air Force One and the president's home in Mar-A-Lago. The court left in place part of a lower-court order that required Trump to give AP access to events held in larger spaces, like the East Room. The ruling is a setback to the news organization's efforts to restore its access to the White House press pool, the small group of reporters and photographers who get access to a variety of White House spaces and other areas frequented by the president. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, both Trump appointees, largely granted the government's request to lift an April ruling from a district judge who blocked the ban. The decision from Rao and Katsas allows most of the ban to go back into effect while litigation over its constitutionality continues. The AP sued after Trump banned the news organization for refusing to adopt his renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the 'Gulf of America.' In a 27-page opinion, Rao wrote that 'these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion. The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.' Katsas signed onto Rao's opinion. The April injunction from district judge Trevor McFadden, another Trump appointee, 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces,' Rao added. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented from the ruling, saying that the Supreme Court has never held that journalists or news organizations can be excluded from a forum based on their viewpoint. 'The panel's stay of the preliminary injunction cannot be squared with longstanding First Amendment precedent, multiple generations of White House practice and tradition, or any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy,' Pillard wrote. 'Looking further ahead, if any merits panel were to accept those theories, the result would be a Press Pool — and perhaps an entire press corps — limited during Republican administrations to the likes of Fox News and limited to outlets such as MSNBC when a Democrat is elected.' The Trump administration has argued that Air Force One, the Oval Office and other spaces in the White House are akin to personal and private spaces where public access can be restricted.
