Arkansas law gives the father input on what happens to fetal remains

A recently-passed bill, H.B. 1566, is a provision under the Arkansas Final Disposition Rights Act of 2009, which states that, in the matter of a person’s death, family members have to agree on what to do with the deceased person's body.

H.B. 1566 includes aborted fetuses into the Act, which means that both the mother and the father of the fetus will have to agree on what to do with fetal remains, thus requiring a woman to tell whoever impregnated her that she's planning on having an abortion. Both parties will have to agree on what to do with the remains.

The provision passed in the state's 2017 legislative session.​

I imagine that in the majority of cases, the man's not going to give a hoot.
But there will be some men who do care.

Texas passed a similar law, requiring either burial or cremation for fetal remains, but a federal judge prevented the law from going into effect:
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/09/05/fetal-remains-texas-ruling-abortion-rights/

Pro-choice advocacy groups argued that requiring abortion providers to change their disposal procedures would raise costs for the patients.

Multiple abortion workers who testified said women often don't ask what happens to the fetal remains from their procedure.

 

Does it also apply to miscarriages, aka God-commanded Abortions?

 

Presumably yes. Why wouldn't it?

Don't you think the father has the right to see and bury his miscarried child? (if he wants to)

 

Well, Arkansas.

 

"""H.B. 1566 includes aborted fetuses into the Act, which means that both the mother and the father of the fetus will have to agree on what to do with fetal remains, thus requiring a woman to tell whoever impregnated her that she's planning on having an abortion."""


A direct violation of her Constitutional right to privacy.

 

Oh, because I bet she has a right to privacy from the man she spread her legs for.

It's not just her fetus. He has a right to decide what happens to his unborn child's body too.

 

How is consenting to sex equal to permanently abrogating one’s right to privacy?

What if said man was an abuser the woman has tried to break contact with for her own safety?

 

It's not permanent. It's just him having another peak into her privacy a few months later.
He's already been allowed inside her body's most intimate and private space, so it's not like the woman's being required to give up something private the man hasn't already seen, felt, and intimately experienced.

Then she can go to him through a third-party intermediary.

 

So what? Consent to sex once is not consent to anything else.

Do you realize how much you are perpetuating rape culture just by going down this route?

 

That's what pro-choicers believe.
But not all of them, if you look through the comments left in this thread: Sperm donor sues to force surrogate mother to abort one of her triplets
Apparently many pro-choicers do believe that a woman can consent away her future choice if she explicitly signs a contract.

How about a loophole to the law where the woman can opt out of the requirement if the man explicitly signs his rights away through a contract?
All she has to do is make the man sign the contract before she has sex with him.

 

Consenting to sex is not consenting to anything else, period.

 

So if both parents agree to donate the aborted fetus to medical science, thats okay now?

 

1. That’s not exactly the most intimate space.
2. According to your theory, she cannot change her mind about letting him have his way with her privacy.

 

That sentence makes no sense whatsoever.... HOW does having sex with someone give you the right to privacy from them??

WTF are you talking about....PLEASE DO explain ????

Only if she let's him.... the woman has all the power

 

What a sickening claim this is.

He did have a right. To not blow his load in her and to take some responsibility.

I'd argue due to case law that the sperm is a gift and that has been upheld in court. Men have been forced to pay child support for getting a blow job and the woman using it behind their backs to impregnate themselves.

Dont want abortion?

Stop restricting birth control and start handing it out everywhere.

 

A vagina is not a woman's most private and intimate space.
That would be her brain.

 

So, we are now going to,have to cremate soiled tampons and pads?

 

She had that right too.

 

No. He had his say. He chose to put his DNA inside her. She owns it now.

Again, case law.

 

She chose to let him put his DNA inside her.

Why don't you think she got her say?

 

She has her say with the outcome. She can consent to having his DNA in her and not consent to becoming pregnant.

You know, I'll never understand how you lot can seriously make these arguments. Your entire argument is a bunch of religious psycho babble.

 

Okay, but as long as a fetus isn't killed.

Anyway, this thread isn't about consent to pregnancy. It's about consent to disposal of fetal remains.

Another member made an interesting thread about this a while back: Best argument for banning abortion

 

These laws, like the one you're discussing in this forum, are nothing but injunctions trying to stop legal abortion.

As long as a fetus isnt killed? Why is that your ****ing business?

 

Why is it your business if a woman can't abort?