There are a number of active laws that were rendered unconstitutional by Lawrence v. Texas. In addition to the anti-sodomy laws, this invalidated most laws restricting sex toys.
Lawrence was explicitly called out as being on the chopping block in the Jackson decision, so these are slated for a comeback. The only real limitation is that SCOTUS needs a case, and the challenger needs to show standing.
In a statement to WLBT News, Blackmon wrote, “All across the country, especially here in Mississippi, the vast majority of bills relating to contraception and/or abortion focus on the woman’s role when men are fifty percent of the equation.
This bill highlights that fact and brings the man’s role into the conversation. People can get up in arms and call it absurd but I can’t say that bothers me.”
Sure, some may say it’s absurd, but masturbation inspector is a good paying, high quality American job that cannot be exported overseas, and not a job I’d trust to AI.
So nobody is going to talk about how he said "without the intent to fertilize an embryo" and not "fertilize an egg"? You can't fertilize an embryo lmao
"In a statement to WLBT News, Blackmon wrote, “All across the country, especially here in Mississippi, the vast majority of bills relating to contraception and/or abortion focus on the woman’s role when men are fifty percent of the equation.
This bill highlights that fact and brings the man’s role into the conversation. People can get up in arms and call it absurd but I can’t say that bothers me.”
Edit: Merp, the bill is actually satire. It’s an actual bill, filed in an actual legislature, but the person who filed it is a Democrat, and it’s pretty obvious it’s intentionally worded to be absolutely absurd (coming from a Democrat, to be clear, because I’d take them at their word if a Nationalist Christian wrote it).
I want to believe this is a satirical bill meant to bring attention to how absurd a lot of other bills are, but it is Mississippi. And with how things are going these past several years, it's becoming harder and harder to tell at face value if something is an Onion or not.
"In a statement to WLBT News, Blackmon wrote, “All across the country, especially here in Mississippi, the vast majority of bills relating to contraception and/or abortion focus on the woman’s role when men are fifty percent of the equation.
This bill highlights that fact and brings the man’s role into the conversation. People can get up in arms and call it absurd but I can’t say that bothers me.”
(4) This section shall not apply to the discharge of genetic material:
...
( b ) Discharged with the use of a contraceptive or contraceptive method intended to prevent fertilization of an embryo.
So basically it's illegal to do so without the intent to fertilize an embryo... unless doing it as part of a contraceptive method? Isn't abstinence - e.g. not having sex - a legitimate method?.... wouldn't masturbation be a way to manage abstinence?
To be fair, the article doesn’t give his party affiliation and if you’re just scrollin’ on by this sounds like it could easily be from a RWNJ who believes masturbation and sex for funsies are sins and the bible should be law. Wikipedia says he’s a dem; I know nothing about him but the quote from him doesn’t read to me as ‘every sperm is sacred.’ Then again it is Mississippi so before reading the actual bill I was only 51% sure it was satire.
In a statement to WLBT News, Blackmon wrote, “All across the country, especially here in Mississippi, the vast majority of bills relating to contraception and/or abortion focus on the woman’s role when men are fifty percent of the equation.
This bill highlights that fact and brings the man’s role into the conversation. People can get up in arms and call it absurd but I can’t say that bothers me.”
Short article, yet you failed to include the third that makes it illegal to jerk it:
"As written by Sen. Bradford Blackmon, the bill would make it “unlawful for a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo.”"
My article is 12 inches and very girthy actually, thank you! There used to be a surgeon in California to help you all with short articles. Sadly, you know, the fires...
O... kay. Was I correct? I tried interpreting the rules listed in the link and drew a conclusion about what they're trying to achieve. 🤷♂️ Thanks for trying to help, good buddy.
I did read the article. While I understand he's trying to even out the responsibility for pregnancy, I'm at a loss to understand how this will legitimately help in any way.