Oklahoma anti-abortion lawmaker calls pregnant women 'host' bodies


On Tuesday, the Oklahoma House’s Public Health Committee is scheduled to vote on HB 1441, a bill that would require a woman to get written permission from her sexual partner before getting an abortion and requiring her to identify the father to her doctor. The bill was written by state Rep. Justin Humphrey ®, and while a similar law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992, he told The Intercept’s Jordan Smith last week that it’s time to push the issue again, because he believes “one of the breakdowns in our society is that we have excluded the man out of all of these types of decisions.” It is how he described women to Smith, though, that made news:

“I understand that they feel like that is their body,” he said of women. “I feel like it is a separate — what I call them is, is you’re a ‘host.’ And you know when you enter into a relationship you’re going to be that host and so, you know, if you pre-know that then take all precautions and don’t get pregnant,” he explained. “So that’s where I’m at. I’m like, hey, your body is your body and be responsible with it. But after you’re irresponsible then don’t claim, well, I can just go and do this with another body, when you’re the host and you invited that in.” [The Intercept]





He didn’t call pregnant women host bodies: he called them hosts. Like you invite people for dinner and then you are a host. You don’t kill your dinner guests.

Inelegantly stated, for sure, and begging the question of whether those who do use abc have invited anyone…but not what the headline implies.


Very inelegantly stated - makes it sound like the unborn is a parasite or something equally unfortunate.

The problem with the host/guest analogy, is that if at any time a guest becomes too inconvenient I can require them to leave - and if necessary kick them out.


I have a difficult time understanding how it’s any way PRO-LIFE to literally disparage the mother of the unborn child – the mother who’s choosing life.

Keep in mind that Oklahoma has the 2nd-highest teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. (undoubtedly thanks to pro-abstinence policy that forbids mention of anything else that might stop abortion since stopping abortion should be priority #1) and that “pre-knowing” isn’t an actual word.


Sometimes it’s best just to keep your mouth shut. This was one of those times. Sigh.




Yes, he doesn’t seem to have thought the analogy through very well at all.


That’s it, mandatory ecology courses for everyone.

That assumes they will use contraceptives. We know many don’t even with knowledge of it. A number of countries aren’t pro-abstinence only yet have relatively high teen birth rates. New Zealand has a teen pregnancy rate similar to the US and they are hardly pro-abstinence only. I wouldn’t believe access is hindered in NZ. Also, Washington DC has the highest rate but I don’t recall abstinence only was mandated. These places are outliers but why?

Also, does anyone know if abstinence-only is common in Utah? Utah is majority Mormon and has a very low teen pregnancy rate. One would assume the LDS Church would have quite a bit of influence.


Don’t we call Mary a tabernacle?


A tabernacle is a sacred shrine. A bit more respectful than calling someone a host.




Even if a tabernacle contains the host? :eek:


People are just mad because a republican said it.

If Biden said it, they’d just laugh it off and say “that’s just Joe” as El Rushbo notes.


It’s nice to the issue for many is borderline commentary and a reason to hit the GOP, not the death of tens of millions of innocents.


PETA tells me I am a ‘guardian’ of my pets, not their ‘owner.’ I am used to a reduced role.


Well said. :thumbsup:

If a pro-life lawmaker uses language like that it shows how far away they are from the knowledge of God and how secular this country has been.

The consolation in all this, at least they try to protect the unborn lives, thus on the side of God despite their ignorance on what it actually means.


Like closed adoptions assumed that the baby was unwanted. The rights and emotional needs of birthmothers were ignored. Women in difficult pregnancies who chose not to abort were considered as providers of babies for women who were sterile because of repeated abortions. A bit of exaggeration, but you get the drift.

This is especially applicable to the first years post Roe vs. Wade.


This troubles me for many reasons, not in the least because it just adds fuel to the pro-abortion fire.


It still is applicable, apparently. If the emotional needs of the mother were considered, maternity leave and workplace accommodations would be recognized as valid “pro-life” concerns. Do we expect mothers to go back to work (or back to school, as the case may be) the very next day after their baby’s born?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.