Question

Is there any law that requires a man to notify his wife before undergoing a vasectomy? Would such a law violate the Constitution?

Comments

[upyernoz]

i think it would be. i wonder if scalito would

[Allah]

Is there any law that requires a woman to notify her husband before undergoing a hysterectomy? Why might that be a better analogy to your question than a question involving pregnancy?

Think hard.

[upyernoz]

yaa allah,

actually it's still a fair question whether a law requiring a woman to notify her husband before undergoing a hysterectomy would be constitutional.

abortion, hysterectomy, vasectomy, tonselectomy, root canal, whatever. the answer is the same for me no matter what procedure you're talking about.

wa anta, yaa allah? madha tujeeb?

[Chris Clarke]

Why might that be a better analogy to your question than a question involving pregnancy?

The only reason I can think of is, hypothetically, that the person posing it has no familiarity with the female reproductive systemm, as the analogous operation in the female is tubal ligation rather than hysterectomy.

Ah, I just noticed who posed the question. Just as I thought.

[maha]

Bottom line, in Rightie World upon impregnation a woman becomes property of the state.

[clandesta jones]

If it's on or under my skin, it's my business and no one else's. Wish everyone else felt the same.

[Elayne Riggs]

I don't think there's a law, but vasectomies are reversible (my first husband reversed his, much good it did us)...

[zoe kentucky]

There are all sorts of weird laws. A friend of mine found out that Virginia has a 30-day waiting period for vasectomies...he was pissed.

So much for the so-called liberal nanny state-- the GOP wants something far more scary, they want the daddy state.

[The CommissarT]

Rox,

If you want to roll out the jug of Leftie Kool-Aid on this, I can't stop you.

But here's the deal on Alito's Casey opinion.

He simply tried to apply the law as he understood it, with a proper respect for the difference between legislators (who make laws) and judges (who interpret and apply laws). Alito began by noting the state of the law regarding abortion restrictions. He said that his major disagreement with the majority concerned the issue of whether spousal notification was an “undue burden.” Then, as now, deciding that issue called for reference to the writings of Sandra Day O’Connor, and Alito did so, concluding:

"Taken together, Justice O’Connor’s opinions reveal that an undue burden does not exist unless a law (a) prohibits abortion or gives another person the authority to veto an abortion or (b) has the practical effect of imposing “severe limitations,” rather than simply inhibiting abortions “‘to some degree’” or inhibiting “some women.""

Judge Alito then noted that the spousal notification provision at issue did not give the husband a veto power. Rather, a married woman simply had to certify (through her own uncorroborated and unnotarized statement) either that she had notified her husband, or that her case fell within any one of several statutory exceptions.

He concluded: "Whether the legislature’s approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether Section 3209 meets constitutional standards."

See Patterico for more:
http://patterico.com/2005/10/30/3872/alitos-dissent-in-casey/

To answer your question, no, I would not encourage my legislators to pass a law requiring spousal consent on vasectomies. From his opinion, I doubt that Alito would either.

But none of that matters, does it Rox?

So long as the Left can BORK BORK BORK this guy, anything goes. Don't let the facts trouble you guys, okay?

[DTLV]

Chris,

So Allah's right that it's a bad analogy, but...

...you have a better recollection of 8th grade health ed?

Hardly seems worth the post.

[slickdpdx]

The right hasn't cornered the market in reproductive restrictions, just ask the Chinese!

And, you don't have to be anti-abortion to agree with Alito.

What if a man secretly gave his ladyfriend a dose of RU-84 the morning after? Not an exact analogy either, but more in the spirit of the law at...issue.

[eli]

or, for the catholics, does your husband have to inform you every time he masterbates?

[upyernoz]

To answer your question, no, I would not encourage my legislators to pass a law requiring spousal consent on vasectomies. From his opinion, I doubt that Alito would either

sorry commissar, that's not the question rox asked. please read more carefully. she didn't ask whether you would be in favor of the law, or even whether alito would be. for someone who makes the distinction between what the constitution requires and what you want to happen, you totally blew that one.

all rox was asking is (1) whether there any law that requires a man to notify his wife before undergoing a vasectomy? and (2) whether such a law would violate the Constitution?

if you're gonna be a "strict constructionist" a good start would be to strictly construe the questions

[Not Dick but Richard]

I think its a great analogy and I wish I had of thought of it when heard one of the local wingnuts on the radio ranting about this issue. His take was what if the wife is incapacitated and needed medical help that could be complicated by a previous abortion.

Of course this is a ridiculous supposition but the vasectomy example helps show how stupid it really is.

Frankly its a good reason to keep abortion legal, I imagine a back alley abortion is a lot more likely to pose future medical issues than a legal one.

[Chris R]

How about a polticial question to the Commisar:

We all know Bush and company want to overturn Roe. They think it was badly reasoned. That's what they're selling behind the scenes. So why don't they say that publicly? What are they afraid of?

Really. I'm curious. There's buzzwords in the debate about "Dred Scott" being a decision he would overturn and there are clever nods and winks concerning Roe. But why not just say it?

[Jimmie]

No, I wouldn't.

Are you arguing that the Casey law and this hypothetical one are analagous? They aren't.

[Roxanne]

There is no analogy I could come up with that works completely. Pregnancy is a possible condition unique to women.

[Auguste]

And what about the father of the child? Is he required to be notified too?

(And if that sounds like a snarky question, it both is and isn't...mainly the latter.)

[Auguste]

It doesn't matter, Roxanne, because if there isn't a law on the book somewhere requiring notification prior to tubal ligation, the Talibamerican would like there to be.

[Greg]

I had to have my wife's signature on file before my clinic would do my vascectomy.

[Shawn]

Sheesh...my kingdom for a Westlaw login.

[Jimmie]

There really isn't an analagous situation to a pregnancy and later raising (or not raising) of a child. Unlike a vasectomy or a tubal ligation, a pregnancy involves another living being (though we dispute what exactly is alive or if that living thing has rights). It is dependent on another human being for its very survival not only in the womb, but for years outside the womb.

It has struck me for years that the responsibility for the care of a child flips so radically once the child is born. While yet unborn, the child's welfare is the province of the mother. After birth, longstanding legal tradition then places the responsibility for that child's support with the father. In each case, the other parent seems to be veritably invisible in the eyes of the law. That's always seemed a poor way of doing things to me. It is true that the woman bears the risks of carrying a child to term but involving the father in that process - making him necessary and welcome in it again vastly improves the condition of the mother and child. Likewise, once a child is born, the father bears the risks of supporting that child (lesser risks, to be sure, but for a longer period of time), yet again both father and child fare far better if the mother joins in and the family acts as a unit.

I wonder if we all might be better off if we stopped staking out who has what rights at what point - if we stopped being so reflexively conscious of our own territory - and started asking what we can do to make things better for our children and families.

[maha]

There really isn't an analagous situation to a pregnancy and later raising (or not raising) of a child.

That's true. There is no male equivalent for pregnancy and chilcbirth. That's why no analogy is perfect. And a big reason why men are in no position to pass judgment on a woman's decision.

I wonder if we all might be better off if we stopped staking out who has what rights at what point - if we stopped being so reflexively conscious of our own territory - and started asking what we can do to make things better for our children and families.

Very often, that's exactly what a woman IS doing when she chooses to abort. See, for example:

http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/1000ab.htm

[Jimmie]

maha, you're going to make an argument that killing a child is the best thing for it? That sounds a lot like euthanasia, except that in this case the being killed doesn't get to choose whether it lives or dies.

[maha]

maha, you're going to make an argument that killing a child is the best thing for it?

Did you bother to go to the provided link and read? Of course not.

Thank you for your perspective on the social status of an embryo. I regret that I cannot fit the reasoning behind my perspective on a bumper sticker. If you actually care to know what I think, please read the following for some clues into how I view life and death and personhood:

http://www.mahablog.com/oldsite/2005.03.20_arch.html#1111870450309

And see if you can guess which one of these is a "child":

http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html