Senator Proposes Bill That Could Make It Illegal For Men To Be Intimate With A Woman Without The Intent To Get Her Pregnant
His proposals make exactly as much sense as right-wing politicians' do.
Phoenixns | Shutterstock One of the main bones of contention in the debate over reproductive rights centers on the definition of when "life" actually begins. Conservatives and religious folk contend it begins at the moment of conception, while science and medicine take the view that since a cluster of cellular material cannot survive outside the womb — and often can't even survive inside it, for that matter — we should probably take a more measured approach to the question.
One Mississippi state Senator, Bradford Blackmon, has proposed a different definition altogether — one that perfectly underlines the absurdity and sexism of the debate.
Senator Blackmon proposed a bill that would make it illegal for men to be intimate with women unless the intent is conception.
Now, before you panic, this isn't what it sounds like — this is not an attempt to legally mandate that sex can only be for procreation, though at first blush, it seems that way. Rather, Blackmon's bill, which bears the screamingly hilarious title "Contraception Begins At Erection," would make it "unlawful for a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo" in the state of Mississippi.
Translation: Contraception would be 100% men's problem and their legal responsibility, and all pregnancies would come with legal consequences for men, not just women. And in a time when many states have passed laws that open women up to criminal charges for miscarrying, let alone getting an abortion, is that really all that unfair? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Senator Blackmon proposed the bill in response to the U.S.'s increasingly repressive reproductive freedom laws.
"You have male-dominated legislatures in Mississippi and all over the country that pass laws that dictate what a woman can and cannot do with her body," Blackmon said in an interview with Newsweek.
"One of the reasons why this legislation is so important is that with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it has not only impacted women's ability to get abortion care but it has also affected women's ability to access basic gynecological care that includes contraceptive care," he went on to say.
Indeed, many states are suffering shortages of OB-GYNs, many of whom are afraid to practice in these states because of laws attacking reproductive freedom that are so broad and poorly defined they place doctors in legal jeopardy for performing basic reproductive healthcare.
Blackmon's bill would largely solve these problems by making contraception and reproduction MEN's problem. Don't want a baby? Then keep it in your pants, boys, or we'll see you in court!
Blackmon said his bill is an attempt to expose the radicalism and double standards against women in this debate.
Blackmon's bill is basically a troll, of course, but his reasons for proposing it are salient, to say the least. As he put it to Newsweek, "I am trying to figure out when it is okay for the government to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own home. Apparently, it is when the laws regulate men."
Blackmon's home state of Mississippi is where Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the Supreme Court case that resulted in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, originated, which in many states resulted in the elimination or restriction of women's access to abortion, contraceptives and other forms of reproductive healthcare, including life-saving ones.
Donald Trump has vowed to veto any bill proposing a federal abortion ban after polling routinely showed that even most Republican voters are vehemently opposed to it. But the Republican Party's Project 2025 agenda includes several proposed legislative attacks on reproductive rights that could effectively, if not directly, result in a national abortion ban.
Case in point: Donald Trump's recent Executive Order on gender identity, which references the idea of fetal personhood — legally defining a fetus as a person at the moment of conception. This notion paves the way for federal court cases that could effectively add up to bans on abortion at the federal level.
Essentially, this Executive Order meant to attack transgender rights could be used as a way to "back-door" a nationwide abortion ban via federal court decisions that add up to one, all without the need for one of those pesky Congressional bills the President vowed to never sign.
And here is where I remind you that a politician's words should never be taken at face value and that elections have consequences — and so does needless panic and vitriol towards a population that comprises less than 2% of the population, for that matter. Tuck all that away for 2026 and 2028.
John Sundholm is a writer, editor, and video personality with 20 years of experience in media and entertainment. He covers culture, mental health, and human interest topics.