Ohio Democratic lawmakers propose ‘Contraception Begins at Erection Act'
State Rep. Anita Somani, D-Dublin, talks with people gathered for the Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom rally for Issue 1, October 8, 2023, outside the Statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original article.)
A new bill in Ohio would make it a crime for men to ejaculate without intending to have a baby.
'You don't get pregnant on your own,' state Rep. Anita Somani, D-Dublin, said.
In between performing multiple surgeries as an OBGYN Friday, the Democrat explained that she wants to start regulating men's reproductive health care.
'If you're going to penalize someone for an unwanted pregnancy, why not penalize the person who is also responsible for the pregnancy?' she said.
She introduced legislation that would make it a felony for men to 'discharge semen without the intent to fertilize.'
Somani and state Rep. Tristan Rader, D-Lakewood, joined forces to propose a bill nicknamed 'Conception Begins at Erection Act.'
There are some exceptions, such as when protection or contraceptions are used during sex. It also wouldn't apply when an individual is masturbating, donating sperm, or if the intercourse takes place between members of the LGBTQ+ community and thus doesn't 'produce ova.'
So what this would apply to is sex without a condom and without actually wanting to procreate. This felony would cost violators thousands of dollars, with a max of $10,000 per discharge.
'It's beyond ridiculous what's going on here,' Republican activist Austin Beigel laughed. 'It's a mockery of the most basic biological concepts.'
The humorous aspect is something both Beigel and Somani agree on.
'If you think it's absurd to regulate men, then you should think it's equally absurd to regulate women,' Somani responded.
'So this is to make a statement,' she said.
'It is a statement,' Somani said with a laugh.
Ohio voters overwhelmingly legalized and protected the right to abortion in 2023.
Issue 1 passed 57%-43%, and it enshrined reproductive rights into the state constitution. Ohioans have the right to make their own decisions about abortion, contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage care, and continuing pregnancy. The state is prohibited from interfering with or penalizing someone for exercising this right.
Despite this, anti-abortion advocates like Beigel are trying to reverse it. He is the president of End Abortion Ohio.
He said that in the coming weeks, lawmakers will introduce a new bill to criminalize abortion totally.
'It just says human life begins at conception,' he said. 'Therefore, all the protections that are offered to other people under the state law are also offered to the pre-born.'
He said the bill is called the Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act.
'It will be being introduced very soon,' he said.
Beigel believes the legislation could hold up in court because of the equal protection provision in the U.S. Constitution. He said the state constitution is now in violation of the 14th Amendment to the federal charter.
Legal experts have routinely criticized this argument, saying it won't hold up.
Beigel knows there will be a legal challenge, but he is also trying to normalize the idea of a total ban. By continuing to introduce it, it may get passed further down the line, he argued.
'Would this bill be going against the will of the voters?' Beigel was asked.
'Yeah, look back at American history… The issue of slavery was popular with the majority at certain times, and so it is absolutely possible for the majority of a state's populace to support something that's evil and something that's wrong,' he responded.
Somani has criticized that argument throughout the years for being inaccurate, while Democrats have called it racist to suggest abortion is similar to slavery.
The nonstop effort of anti-abortion activists is one of the reasons why this legislation is needed, the Democrat said.
'Just like abortion bills have penalized physicians or created felonies for physicians and patients, the intent of the bill is to show that we should not be policing any anybody's reproductive rights,' Somani said.
Beigel added that he understands that Somani is being satirical but that she is missing the mark.
'The pro-life movement has never tried to regulate women's bodies,' he claimed. 'We're trying to regulate the actions of people who want to kill another person.'
He said that Somani's bill is invasive and isn't based on science, questioning how the Democrats are spending their time.
'If they think that it's a waste of taxpayer money, well, then they should think the same on the other side,' the doctor responded.
She is also sick of the Republicans choosing which bills are 'jokes' or not since she thinks their legislation 'destroying public education in the state' or 'not supporting kids getting free meals at school' are both absurd.
'I think this hits the idea of 'Republican freedom' and 'men's freedom,' and so that's why it's touching such a big nerve,' Somani said.
This bill likely isn't conceivable in the GOP-controlled legislature, but it is heating up the conversation.
Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on X and Facebook.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
As Musk's 'robotaxi' rollout approaches, Democratic lawmakers in Texas try to throw up a roadblock
NEW YORK -- A group of Democratic lawmakers in Texas is asking Elon Musk to delay the planned rollout of driverless 'robotaxis' in the state this weekend to assure that the vehicles are safe. In a letter, seven state legislators asked Tesla to wait until September when a new law takes effect that will require several checks before autonomous vehicles can be deployed without a human in the driver's seat. Tesla is slated to begin testing a dozen of what it calls robotaxis for paying customers on Sunday in a limited area of Austin, Texas. 'We are formally requesting that Tesla delay autonomous robotaxi operations until the new law takes effect on September 1, 2025,' the letter from Wednesday, June 18, reads. 'We believe this is in the best interest of both public safety and building public trust in Tesla's operations.' It's not clear if the letter will have much impact. Republicans have been a dominant majority in the Texas Legislature for more than 20 years. State lawmakers and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott have generally embraced Musk and the jobs and investment he has brought to Texas, from his SpaceX rocket program on the coast, to his Tesla factory in Austin. The company, which is headquartered in Austin, did not responded immediately to a request for comment from The Associated Press. The law will require companies to secure approval from the state motor vehicles department to operate autonomous cars with passengers. That approval, in turn, would depend on sufficient proof that the cars won't pose a high risk to others if the self-driving system breaks down, among other reassurances. Companies would also have to file detailed plans for how first responders should handle the cars if there is a problem, such as an accident. The letter asked Tesla to assure the legislators it has met all the requirements of the law even if it decides to go ahead with the test run this weekend. The letter was earlier reported by Reuters. Musk has made the robotaxi program a priority at Tesla and a failure would likely be highly damaging to the company's stock, which has already tumbled 20% this year. Musk's political views and his affiliation with the Trump administration have drastically reduced sales of Tesla, particularly in Europe, where Musk's endorsement of Germany's far-right Alternative for Germany party in February's election drew broad condemnation. Tesla shares bottomed out in March and have rebounded somewhat in recent months. Much of the rise reflects optimism that robotaxis will not only be deployed without a hitch, but that the service will quickly expand to other cities and eventually dominate the self-driving cab business. Rival Waymo is already picking up passengers in Austin and several other cities, and recently boasted of surpassing 10 million paid rides. In afternoon trading Friday, Tesla shares were largely unchanged at $320.
an hour ago
Police in northeast Ohio arrest man who allegedly menaced GOP US Rep. Max Miller on interstate
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A northeast Ohio man was arrested Thursday on allegations that he threatened and spewed antisemitic epithets at Republican U.S. Rep. Max Miller while the two were traveling on an interstate highway near Cleveland. Police in Rocky River said Feras S. Hamdan, 36, of Westlake, voluntarily turned himself in with counsel present and is awaiting an appearance in municipal court. A message was left with his lawyer seeking comment. Miller, who is Jewish, called 911 while driving on Interstate 90 on his way to work Thursday. He reported that another driver was cutting him off, making profane hand gestures, showing a Palestinian flag and shouting death threats targeted at him and his 1-year-old daughter. After an interview with police, Miller filed a complaint against Hamdan alleging aggravated menacing and sought a criminal protective order. Local police continue to investigate with assistance from the U.S. Capitol Police, the Ohio State Highway Patrol, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Attorney's office and the Rocky River prosecutor. The Ohio Jewish Caucus praised Rocky River police and extended their thoughts to Miller and his family, noting the incident followed by just days the politically motivated shootings in Minnesota, which left two people dead and two others injured. 'Enough is enough," the all-Democratic legislative alliance said in a statement. "There is no place for this type of violence — whether it be political, antisemitic, or ideological — whatsoever. We believe we can solve our differences with humility, not hatred.'
2 hours ago
Judge asks if troops in Los Angeles are violating the Posse Comitatus Act
SAN FRANCISCO -- California's challenge of the Trump administration's military deployment in Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday for a brief hearing after an appeals court handed President Donald Trump a key procedural win. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer put off issuing any additional rulings and instead asked for briefings from both sides by noon Monday on whether the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil, is being violated in Los Angeles. The hearing happened the day after the 9th Circuit appellate panel allowed the president to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed in response to protests over immigration raids. California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in his complaint that 'violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is imminent, if not already underway' but Breyer last week postponed considering that allegation. Vice President JD Vance, a Marine veteran, traveled to Los Angeles on Friday and met with troops, including U.S. Marines who have been deployed to protect federal buildings. According to Vance, the court determined Trump's determination to send in federal troops 'was legitimate' and he will do it again if necessary. 'The president has a very simple proposal to everybody in every city, every community, every town whether big or small, if you enforce your own laws and if you protect federal law enforcement, we're not going to send in the National Guard because it's unnecessary,' Vance told journalists after touring a federal complex in Los Angeles. Vance's tour of a multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center and a mobile command center came as demonstrations have calmed after sometimes-violent clashes between protesters and police and outbreaks of vandalism and break-ins that followed immigration raids across Southern California earlier this month. Tens of thousands have also marched peacefully in Los Angeles since June 8. National Guard troops have been accompanying federal agents on some immigration raids, and Marines briefly detained a man on the first day they deployed to protect a federal building. The marked the first time federal troops detained a civilian since deploying to the nation's second-largest city. Breyer found Trump acted illegally when, over opposition from California's governor, the president activated the soldiers. However, the appellate decision halted the judge's temporary restraining order. Breyer asked the lawyers on Friday to address whether he or the appellate court retains primary jurisdiction to grant an injunction under the Posse Comitatus Act. California has sought a preliminary injunction giving Newsom back control of the troops in Los Angeles, where protests have calmed down in recent days. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops have been necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said their presence on the streets of a U.S. city inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The demonstrations appear to be winding down, although dozens of protesters showed up Thursday at Dodger Stadium, where a group of federal agents gathered at a parking lot with their faces covered, traveling in SUVs and cargo vans. The Los Angeles Dodgers organization asked them to leave, and they did. On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a downtown curfew that was first imposed in response to vandalism and clashes with police after crowds gathered in opposition to agents taking migrants into detention. Trump federalized members of the California National Guard under an authority known as Title 10. Title 10 allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is otherwise unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.' Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said allows presidents to control state National Guard troops only during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,' ' wrote Breyer, a Watergate prosecutor who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. The appellate panel ruled otherwise, saying presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, but the panel said that by citing violent acts by protesters in this case, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for federalizing the troops. For now, the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit proceeds. It is the first deployment by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since troops were sent to protect Civil Rights Movement marchers in 1965. Trump celebrated the appellate ruling in a social media post, calling it a 'BIG WIN' and hinting at more potential deployments.
