Constance Johnson, Senator of Oklahoma Attempts to Boldly Amend Oklahoma’s “Personhood” Bill SB 1433

Constance Johnson, a bold senator of Oklahoma, reached her breaking point concerning “Personhood” bills and attempted to amend the “Personhood” Bill SB 1433 by adding her own clause to the bill.  Her clause read:

However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman's vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child.

She stated, in an article she wrote for the U.K. Guardian, that she is increasing offended by these “Personhood” bills, which focus mainly on the women and female reproduction.  She and another senator in Oklahoma are increasingly frustrated by the ridiculousness of these bills and their focus on the woman’s part in reproduction.

With Oklahoma's new, never-before-experienced Republican majority, we are seeing enactment of more and more measures that adversely affect women and their rights to access safe medical procedures when making reproductive healthcare decisions.

The Personhood bill would potentially allow governmental intrusion into families' personal lives by policing what happens to a woman's eggs without any similar thought to what happens to a man's sperm.

With her addition to the amendment, she seeks to show the absurdity in these bills concerning women.  With this current bill proposed in Oklahoma’s senate, women face criminal charges if their pregnancy ends in a miscarriage and in her opinion, fertilization of eggs outside the womb could violate the proposed personhood statute, therefore they should include a clause concerning men and their sperm, but only to show how absurd the bill is.

She stated she also seeks to draw humourous attention the hypocrisy, inconsistency, and the intrusion of privacy of the Republican proposal.  Johnson feels it is more important that we focus on health care, jobs, and education, rather than reproduction solely on the woman’s part.

According to Jezebel website, this bill seeks to call fertilized eggs “persons” before they implant to the woman’s uterus.

The bill sought to define human life as beginning at the moment of conception, before it’s even implanted in the womb, and offers full legal protection to those tiny multicelled lumps. In the words of the bill, “the unborn child at every stage of development (has) all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state.”

Johnson’s clause, as Jezebel pointed out, would mean that male masturbation, blow jobs, and anywhere else a man can think to place his sperm, other than the vagina, would violate this amendment.

Mriana

Mriana is a humanist and the author of "A Source of Misery". She has two grown sons and raises cats. She enjoys writing, reading, science, philosophy, psychology, and other subjects. Mriana is also an animal lover, who cares for their welfare as living beings, who are part of the earth. She is a huge Star Trek fan in a little body.

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

  • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

    Wow. From Oklahoma, no less! Good for her.

    Deborah

    • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

      I thought so too. :D That took a lot of guts IMO and it's about time some of these congressional women started speaking up and saying something. The guys (mostly males) need to be told they are going too far.

  • Darrah

    This is fantastic. I am from Mississippi were this bill was DENIED. Unfortunately, all people see is anti-abortion and vote for it, rather than researching it further.

  • Sally

    Friends, this is much more dangerous than most people realize. I cannot think of a single piece of legislation that will do more to compromise women’s health than this grand gesture to grant the full rights and privileges of human beings to embryos.
    It’s been some time since I checked on this, but the facts can’t change that much: In the sixties, approximately a third of pregnancies in the United States ended as miscarriages—usually in the first trimester. As my doctor told me, “Mother Nature has her reasons.” I sadly experienced this situation too many times.
    What is a hospital supposed to do if a woman arrives at a hospital emergency room in the process of miscarrying a fetus. Women can die in the process. I almost did.
    Currently, if I had arrived at a hospital affiliated with a Catholic organization, they would have sent me to another hospital. If this new definition of a human being goes into place, where could a woman go in these circumstances? No hospital will want to risk a lawsuit or a doctor risk a criminal charge if he or she provided medical care to a woman in the process of miscarrying a fetus. Will women stay at home and risk their lives? If the law exists only in Virginia, perhaps she could be flown to another state. Does this make any sense at all?

  • diana

    awesome!!

    i just had this thought last night-that if the right-wingers want to go down this road, they're going to have to make it illegal for a man to deny any of his sperm the chance for procreation.

    the Bible (which so many of these legislators use as their reference book) clearly tells us humans that sperm is for procreation, and any action taken to prevent sperm from the possibility of hooking up with an egg is hateful to God.

    [a man takes steps to ensure that he can't impregnate a woman (his dead brother's widow), and that infuriates God so much that God kills him. Genesis 38]

    btw–first time to this site, and even though their are interesting looking items here, i'm leaving because you've got some weird script thing going on that is locking up my browser repeatedly.