Let me start off by saying that I have been blessed with 3 wonderful children, the latest of which joined us a mere 3 weeks ago... so i decided to get a vasectomy because I am very happy with 3 kids and I don't want any more....

I figured hey, I am in my 30's I have been married for 10+ years ( i am trying to be generic to avoid giving out too much personal information and upsetting Jaime) this will be a piece of cake go see a urologist and snip... snip... done...

Not so fast there ...

Apparently I need not only spousal notification to get a vasectomy but her consent...

My wife can have an abortion that MY medical insurance and I have to pay for without my knowledge or consent but I cant cant get a vasectomy without her signing off on it??? Tubal ligation does NOT require spousal consent or notification only vasectomies ( at least in florida)


Questions for debate....

1) Is requiring spousal notification / consent for males a violation of the 14th amendment?

2) has the abortion debate created a reproductive disparity for men and women?

1) Is requiring spousal notification / consent for males a violation of the 14th amendment?

I was trying to find some documentation of this absurdity, and was only able to find this:

All I can say is WTF?!?! It looks as if it’s up to the individual doctor providing the procedure whether he requires consent or not. I don’t know that this is a constitutional issue so much as it is an issue of doctors and health insurance providers. And maybe some irate wives who found out their husband was snipped without their knowledge and filed a lawsuit? It would be interesting to find out what the genesis of this bizarre requirement is.

2) has the abortion debate created a reproductive disparity for men and women?

I haven’t been able to find any indication that this is the case.

The doctors should have just told the women to take it up with their husbands.... frankly it does not involve him(the doctor)...


some of my reading seems to point at a legal requirement i will for sure be able to tell you by friday ( that is when I am having it done)

Could you expand on this a little? I mean, I see a tenuous thread here but I'd hate to answer you in a manner that isn't relevant to what you're really asking. Ultimately I want to understand how you've linked this to the 14th.


This is a really good question. I am not entirely certain your particular instance is the very best evidence regarding the topic but ...

I think ultimately if Abortion becomes more restricted than it currently is the disparity will still be borne mostly by women - meaning they will suffer the most. Women are still, despite this seemingly singularly odd case, on the short end of the stick when it comes to reproductive rights. Some would trump their rights upon conception. Anecdotally I know people who think that a pregnant woman shouldn't do anything that might possibly harm a the "baby" - this includes skiing, driving, being near cigarette smoke - and that the participation of these activities should allow the "law" to lock these women up until the baby is safely delivered. Having to have your wife sign off on a vasectomy pales in comparison to what some Pro-Lifers are calling for regarding abortion.

Further, a vasectomy really isn't Apples to Apples to an abortion. Being that it is preventive.

Besides the one you quoted, I guess you meant to say.

1) I assume you're talking about the "equal protection" part of the 14th amendment. If it is indeed the case that they require consent from husbands and not for wives for the snip snip procedures then I suppose it would be a violation of equal protection.

2) No, that Y chromosome created that disparity . But seriously though, this is a peculiar policy. The only thing I can think of that could have led to this policy is that maybe there was a time before when they required notification/consent from both wives and husbands. Perhaps at some point a woman sued over a violation of her right to privacy so they changed the notification/consent policy- for women- and didn't change it for men. That doesn't seem very likely but that's the best I could come up with. Like DaffyGrl I'd be interested in knowing where this policy came from, too.

Very interesting, indeed. Florida should break off from the US and become its own country. You guys are wacky over there. We Californians are much more sound.




Consent/Notification seems to impinge on the rights of male citizens, especially in depriving a person of his liberty. It's your body, your choice. On the other hand, if you are married, it would seem logical that your spouse be entitled to the knowledge (not necessarily the consent) of such a decision.



Well there is a fundamental disparity between men and women, in terms of reproduction, so what is good for the goose isn't necessary good for the gander. But in the final analysis, it's a man's body and to be fair, I believe it should be his choice to A. have a vasectomy and B. disclose such information

How so ? women can terminate a pregnancy pretty much at will until the third trimester... a mans rights end at conception.
How many men have been lied to,( oh yeah I am on the pill) deceived or outright manipulated (holes poked in condoms, IUDs removed, and many other such things) guess what he is on the hook for life no ifs and or buts... and the state can garnish his wages, suspend or revoke his driving priviledges ( try to get a job when you can't drive. ) woemn have for CENTURIES used pregnancy as a way to "Hook" a man .... don't even start with me about this....

I'd like to know what he means by the Fourteenth Amendment too, but I don't think it has to be apples to apples. If I have time I'll look up Lexis-Nexis, but I think if we do some research we could probably trace this attitude back to contraception (prevention). Sterilization is a serious, sometimes irreversible medical choice, but it's the perfect opportunity for doctors to get stupid. Except, unlike abortion, their concern about the patient regretting their decision isn't restricted to women.


Don't get weak on me, Doc.


I could understand a doctor refusing to sterilize because the patient is young and childless, but it's not their place to assume the role of a poor statistician to talk all of them out of the procedure. I wouldn't be surprised, either, if some doctors refuse to make arrangements for sterilization because, just like contraception, never being able to have another baby just ain't right with God.

Be glad you don't live in Washington State, Angel. You "requir[e] pre procedure counseling and consent 30 days prior to the procedure" for men and women there. Cuz... well you know, the state wants to make sure people don't regret their adult decisions.


No, women can't have abortions up to the third trimester at will. I'd like you to prove this.

BTW, can you link Florida law exempting women from notification?

1) Is requiring spousal notification / consent for males a violation of the 14th amendment?
I guess so, if by including the 14th amendment you're making the case that this involves the state only. I would be curious to see if there are any Federal statutes on the books.

2) has the abortion debate created a reproductive disparity for men and women?
In an odd fashion, yes. Frankly, I don't think consent should be mandated by law in either case. That is not to say the spouse shouldn't own some responsibility to inform, but my body is my body. If I want to end my contributions to the gene pool, that's my decision and mine alone from a legal perspective (in my opinion, obviously). Ethically there should be communication but the nanny state idea that I be required to get my wife's consent for any procedure performed on me seems ridiculous, just as it would be if she were required to do so of me. *

I'm probably in the minority in that view, but its certainly not the first time. Must be that libertarian gnome running around inside my head, corrupting my usual liberal tendencies.

* the one exception I could see in this case is if the medical procedure were unusually risky or experimental, where my life could be at risk. I know, all surgery has that possibility, but you get the idea. If I'm putting my life at risk, I could see a legal mandate for spousal consent. If someone makes the case that a vasectomy could result in death, I guess we'll have a different discussion

No, women can't have abortions up to the third trimester at will. I'd like you to prove this.


OK my wording was bad... until the third trimester the state cannot place an "undue burden" on a woman wishing to have an abortion.

A man has absolutely no rights to decide after conception. how is this not a disparity?

Well, define undue burden. Florida is trying to pass a law giving women the opportunity to view medically unecessary ultrasounds at state expense to make extra sure, on top of preexisting bureaucratic red tape, that they don't regret their abortion. Congress also banned, and SCOTUS recently upheld, the "PBA" abortion procedure throughout pregnancy, regardless of circumstances surrounding conception and/or a woman's health. If vasectomies and abortions are privacy rights, then I'd say notifying your spouse is analogous to an undue burden. Given the Supreme Court we have today, I doubt they will strike down a spousal notification/consent law for abortion a second time.

I don't agree with you that an ultrasound is an undue burden... more like informed consent...

once again if a woman wants an abortion she can get it after the fact. How many women are FORCED into a pregnancy? I know of at least 3 men who were lied to and or manipulated into becoming parents, I guess you could say if they did not want to be parents they should't have had sex... I guess women don't have that same choice to say no to sex then... No father can EVER have a second choice after conception,

That is the disparity.

Because there is no such thing as being too informed? I guess you don't have a problem with Washington State requiring counseling and a 30-day waiting period.


Being a biological father does not make you a parent.


If no man had a choice we could repeal the 1987 Welfare Reform Act provision shifting the responsibility of payments from the state to the man. Look, I agree with you, but the medical profession denying adults the opportunity to forgo parenthood and/or raising another child is not exactly breaking news.

Do you happen to have a link to the actual Florida law on the books? I searched and couldn't find it. My answer would depend a bit on whether this is truly a state law, or the physician's choice in this case.


Must add...I just noticed the last part about your medical insurance. Say WHAT? Since when does a person's medical insurance pay for elective abortions? At this point, I'm starting to wonder if you aren't, um, embellishing a bit...


Edited to add: BTW....Forgot to say, CONGRATS on your new baby! That is awesome.

My plan is with United Health Care and they will cover an elective abortion with a rider but my plan (EP1) does not cover it ...

there was some debate a while back about covering it apparently they did not go through with it. i thought they had...


Same as:

· Physician Office Service

· Professional Fees

· Hospital-Inpatient stay

· Outpatient Diagnostic and Therapeutic Services






Covered Services:

· Voluntary sterilization.

· Contraceptive services including depo provera injections



The following services are not covered:

· Surrogate parenting.

· The reversal of voluntary sterilization

· Fetal reduction surgery.

· Health services and associated expenses for elective abortion.

· Health services associated with the use of non-surgical or drug-induced Pregnancy termination.

1) Is requiring spousal notification / consent for males a violation of the 14th amendment?
It is a violation only if the notification requirement is mandated by the city/county/state government. As a general rule, private actors cannot violate the 14th Amendment. However, and this is an important "however", the notification requirement may be a violation of the Health Information Privacy Act.

2) has the abortion debate created a reproductive disparity for men and women?
The debate has not created a disparity, rather the disparity has been created as a result of the laws passed by our legislators, and more significantly, the laws created out of penumbras and emanations by our courts.

What I think is worthy of consideration is "why require notification", and even more interesting, "why the higher notification requirement rate for men"?

I'd say it's hard to form any conclusions from that statistic because urology and gynocology are entirely different branches of medicine. Urology is rather clinical by comparison to obstetrics/gynocologist work...the ob/gyn usually has a more personal relationship with his/her patients. A woman goes to her doctor every year, and 20+ times the year she conceives and gives birth. By comparison the man sees his urologist...well, never if he is healthy, or only for the surgery, post and pre-op work. IOW, the ob/gyn will be much more likely to know a great deal about the family situation, and psychology of the woman obtaining such surgery than the average urologist will know about his/her patient.

1) Is requiring spousal notification / consent for males a violation of the 14th amendment?

I'm not sure what the 14th Amendment has to do with it. I will say, however, that requiring spousal consent for sterilization is an extraordinarily bad idea. In a perfect relationship, both spouses will not only know about such a decision, but will both fully consent to it. However, this is an imperfect world. If one spouse wants to be sterilized, and the other objects, the will of the person being sterilized must prevail. Think of it the other way around; would we say that a person must be sterilized at the will of the spouse? Of course not. Similarly, we must not say that a person must remain fertile at the will of the spouse.

This is not academic to me. Since I have never had even the slightest desire to have a child, I was sterilized before I was married. Fortunately, I had no trouble with this. I can't imagine having to wait thirty days, or have the formal consent of anyone else.

2) has the abortion debate created a reproductive disparity for men and women?

I assume the analogy here is when one person wants an abortion and the other does not. Let's consider the less controversial situation for a moment; assume the man wants the woman to have an abortion, and the woman does not want one. I think we would all agree that she should not be forced to have one.

So what happens when the woman wants an abortion and the man does not? This is a tragic situation, with no good solution, so all reasonable measures should be taken to avoid it. If the two cannot come to an agreement, and the abortion is otherwise legal and proper, than we should not force the woman to avoid having an abortion.

This is in no way meant to suggest that the rights of the woman are somehow more important that the rights of the man. It is only meant to point out that sometimes difficult decisions must be made, and we must find the least unsatisfactory way of making them.

Actually, I think there's a GREAT point to be made here.

Why in America is there an absolute double standard?
- No consent required for Abortion
- Consent required for vasectomy (when married)

I suppose you could just take the ring off your finger, and hope the doc doesn't know you're married. I dunno. Weird. How would the hospital know? How could the know that you didn't go to the parking lot and sign a name?

I mean, funny enough, women can go buy birth control pills and never tell a soul. Why can't I go get snipped? (I know... some of y'all are hoping I DO! HA!)

I think it boils down to the interesting (and sick in my opinion) notion that a baby/fetus in a woman is a piece of property, sort of like my tonsils or my toe nails. If I wanna get my tonsils out, funny enough, it seems that it takes a more intensive medical decision (numerous trips to the doc, etc).

Of the people I've known that have had abortions, I can't say that I ever remember more than a couple days in between the initial visit and the procedure. I wonder how vasectomies go... is it the same?

Actually, no one has yet provided proof of that "absolute" double standard. If the law requires spousal consent for men and not women, yes, that is a double standard. If the practitioner requires it, it isn't....unless you believe that laws should actually forbid private medical practitioners from making this request.

According to Daffy's link, half of the practitioners require spousal consent for female sterilizations as well...but it did (handily) break up the statistics to show the differences between medical fields. General practitioners (whether for men or women) were much more likely to require parent and/ore spousal consent than ob/gyns.

My wife HAS to accompany me to the appointment... there is no way around it, the doctor has to talk to her, and she has to sign a consent form ....

I just had my appointment confirmed today and the nurse told me it is not a state requirement but no urologist anywhere near me will do a vasectomy without spousal consent. So, i guess it is not a law, but it may as well be.






my wifes ob just more or less asked matter of factly 24 hours before the delivery if since she had 3 and did not wish to have any more if she wanted him to do a tubal after the delivery...

I took that to mean there was no requirement for even spousal notification because my wife told me about it afterward...

1) Is requiring spousal notification / consent for males a violation of the 14th amendment?

I think that, if there is no spousal notification/consent required in the law for women when it comes to voluntary sterilization, then there would be a 14th Amendment issue if there is one in the law for men. If this isn't a legal requirement, I think you can still probably sue the hospital for withholding the procedure based on spousal consent if no such consent is required for women. You might even be able to do so even if they require spousal consent for women.

2) has the abortion debate created a reproductive disparity for men and women?

There will always be a disparity when it comes to reproduction for men and women. But this disparity does not create a constitutional conflict because the groups have to be similarly situated in order for such a conflict to occur. Men and women are not similarly situated when it comes to reproduction - men can't give birth. In terms of sterilization alone, they are similarly situated in that they both have reproductive organs that can undergo sterilization procedures. But abortion really has nothing to do with this. In terms of "My Body, My choice," women simply have more choices to make because they have a much larger biological role to play in reproduction. So, the abortion debate did not create this reproductive disparity between men and women - nature did.

All that said, I think that spousal notification should be required for both abortion and sterilization. And spousal consent should not be required for either. On the one hand you have, to a certain extent, the right to do with your body as you see fit. On the other hand, you have a responsibility to keep your spouse informed regarding your reproductive ability. If you are going to sterilize yourself after you've married someone, that person has the right to know if you are going to change the nature of your marital relationship. To do otherwise, is fraud. To lead a spouse to believe that you are still capable of reproduction when you are not is fraud - a required spousal notification solves that problem.

Well, Im putting an end to this right now. Spousal consent is not required to perform a vasectomy. According to the GPO,



Link

Additionally, throughout my research on the topic, spousal requirement (for BOTH sexes) was the norm; however, court cases questioning the legality have always ruled in favor of the individual. However, the rulings have been sort of weird: public hospitals cannot require spousal consent forms, but private ones can.

Google books has a few pages that deals with this: Link 1
Link 2

Anecdotally, Ive heard that it's more difficult for young women to get sterilized than men. I read a magazine article a few years back about a young woman (adult) who went to six different doctors and all of them refused to sterilize her, claiming that she just didnt know what she was doing.

2) has the abortion debate created a reproductive disparity for men and women?

Yes! Let me say, as someone who is neither a supporter or detractor of Roe V. Wade, that the issue has been poorly framed by Planned Parenthood from the begining.

Case in point, nobody on earth, except in situations where the mother's health is threatened, choses to get an abortion because they don't want to be pregnant for nine months... abortions are undertaken because would-be mothers decide that they don't want to have kids at this point in their lives. Yet pro-abortion groups seem to always frame the issue as a mother's choice to do what she will with her own body, instead of what the choice is really about, choosing when you want to have kids. In other words, most abortions have absolutely nothing to do with a woman's body... it has everything to do with 'planned parenthood.'

Ok, but no one recognizes the crucial thing here: if a man and a woman, mess up, and accidentally conceive a child, two things happen. If that child is born, then society asks the father to take responsibility for the kid via child support. Yet if the father doesn't want that child to be born -- maybe he can't take on the 400 dollars a month child support burden at this time-- he has no leverage in forcing his partner to get an abortion. Meanwhile, if the woman decides she can't financially care for a child at this point in her life, she is quite free to seek out an abortion.

If a child is the responsibility of both the mother and the father, then shouldn't both have equal say in who gets an abortion? Why do fathers who don't want kids have to pay child support, when mother who don't want kids can take a surgical way out? I can't see how the fact that the child, physically, resides in the mother for nine months makes ay real difference in this matter.

Moreover, I have no idea how any of this would play out on a practical level, and maybe it shouldn't. I'm not suggesting that fathers be given the right to force their partners into having an abortion, nor be allowed to opt out of child support payments by professing their desire to have the fetus aborted.

But on a purely rhetorical level, I can't see how abortion should be anymore a mother's decision than the father's... unless we're willing to live in a world where the child is solely the mother's responsiblility. Which, unfortunately, is too often the case. Still, the way this argument is phrased isn't doing much to reverse that notion.

drewyorktimes,

The protection of the choice to have an abortion is about protecting a woman's choice to do what she will with her own body. The reasons why she makes that choice - such as not wishing to have kids at this time - to some extent, are irrelevant.

Yes accidents happen, but - unless you are raped - sex is a choice. Sex has consequences. If you do not wish to deal with a woman choosing to have a child, do not have sex with that woman.

This is what we, as a society, seem to have lost sight of. For heterosexuals, the sex act has potential consequences in that fertilization may occur. The only way to guarantee that fertilization will not occur is to refrain from engaging in the act. More men need to take that into consideration. Nature gave women more choices to make regarding reproduction. To a large extent, they have the right to make those choices. Men have to take nature into account when they make their choice as well. They just have to make it sooner.

But, abortion has very little to do with this particular issue regarding sterilization.

There was an interesting article about what might happen if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. See “The Day After Roe” by Jeffrey Rosen, The Atlantic Monthly (June 2006). The article made several points, the gist of which being that abortion is a “wedge” for Democrats and a “unifying” issue for Republicans; however, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the abortion issue would, politically speaking, have the opposite effect. Democrats would become united in their efforts to push for state legislation preserving a woman’s right to have an abortion; while religious extremists would demand a complete ban on abortion, driving moderate conservatives from the Republican party, resulting in the loss of political power. Indeed, we have already seen a preview of the coming attractions with the recently rejected ban on abortion by South Dakota voters, which backfired on its Republican proponents.