By Jonathon Van Maren
We are now so many decades removed from the Sexual Revolution that progressives frequently stumble into what we call “self-owns.” There was, for example, the pro-abortion actress calling on women to launch a “sex strike” in response to pro-life laws being passed, thereby accidentally reverse-engineering sexual responsibility. Pro-lifers greeted this welcome suggestion with approval and gales of laughter.
Then there have been the frequent attempts at gotcha moments by abortion activists who suggest that if abortion is to be restricted, perhaps it is time to force men to be more responsible, as well! Again, pro-lifers are in whole-hearted agreement with this. The latest example is a fellow from Oklahoma:
An Oklahoma lawmaker is filing a bill that would declare a biological father’s financial responsibility to his child and its mother begins at conception.
Rep. Forrest Bennet, a Democrat from Oklahoma City, announced he filed House Bill 3129 last week on Twitter in response to the push to restrict abortion rights in the state.
“This week I filed HB3129, which codifies that a father’s financial responsibility to his baby & their mom begins at conception. If Oklahoma is going to restrict a woman’s right to choose, we sure better make sure the man involved can’t just walk away from his responsibility,” Rep. Bennet’s tweet read.
Last year, Oklahoma passed five laws restricting abortions; three of those were blocked by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Bennet’s attempt at owning pro-lifers, of course, was itself a hilarious self-own. Pro-lifers are very much in favor of this sort of thing—it is only delusional feminist intellectuals who think that abortion laws are about restricting sex rather than protecting human life. Bennet’s law also proves pro-life premises—that at conception there is a child, and that the responsibility of both parents begins when the life of their child begins. Pro-lifers applauded Bennet’s law, sending the Democrat scrambling to recant his inadvertent heresies as abortion activists excoriated him for his proposed law:
This lawmaker says via Twitter that he’s “not moving forward with this bill as written.”
He’s tweeted: “Let me get this out of the way: obviously I’m not moving forward with this bill as written. I’m glad many of you understood the idea but it clearly needs work. So to actual constituents of mine like @realmartypeercy who requested that I go back to the drawing board, I hear you.”
In a lengthy Twitter thread, Bennet added: “I’ll own this: I should’ve been more thoughtful & thorough in crafting this bill in the first place. It’s clear there are many unintended consequences, both from the language & design.”
Inadvertantly, Bennet proved that it is abortion activists who do not wish to ensure the involvement of the father from the beginning of the child’s life—and the constituent he was referring to happens to be a male pro-abortion journalist (surprise, surprise!) Pro-lifers are happy to ensure that men are held responsible for supporting their offspring. Abortion activists—not so much. If they did, they would be forced to admit that the child in the womb is a child. And so, instead, fathers can walk away and tell mothers to go to a clinic and have the baby killed—because to “pro-choice” activists, before the baby is born, it isn’t a baby—it is a potential abortion.
Bennet, it is safe to say, has now been educated.