Why does it only apply to women? Also, it seems to make an assumption that the practitioner is a man.
So you don’t want it repealed, just updated to include men?
It’s not ‘absurdly outdated’ though is it?
I’m fairly certain that no doctor or dentist would anaesthetise anyone when they were on their own these days. Purely on safety grounds, but also to protect themselves from accusations of impropriety.
It’s absurdly outdated because it isn’t gender neutral but you’re correct, I would just want it updated.
Also, the “third person” can be anyone. It doesn’t have to be a medical professional; it could be some drunk off of the street. It’s a law premised on the concept that all medical professionals are men (and straight men at that), only gentle females need to be protected from rape by that professional, and that any third party at all can simply sit and supervise, not for any medical purpose, but to make sure that no rape occurs.
I don’t think you can claim its absurdly outdated purely because it is not gender neutral, gender neutrality is a relativlely recent idea.
I would probably want to know how big the issue is before I spent legislative time amending a law, it is not unlimited after all. There are going to be more pressing matters, particularly if no men are actually being raped by anaesthetists.
I would bet that this law is a direct result of some instances of women being molested by doctors or dentists at some point in the past.
oklahoma has some notoriously dumb laws (which might serve as better examples for this thread).
from thissite,
there is a short list of a few ridiculous laws near the bottom, but in college we did a case study on the fact that premarital and oral sex is against the law in oklahoma. our social studies professor brought a local newspaper clipping on a story where a peeping tom caught a couple breaking (apparently) both laws (at the same time) and he turned them in–and they got in trouble.
he was touted as a civil servant.
…what?!
One town where I worked has a bunch of quaint old laws that were still on the books. They remained on the books because, basically, nobody knew they were there. When I pointed out these laws, it was felt that it wasn’t a priority to remove them; it would take time, the cost with hiring an attorney to explore the implications of removing the laws, and so on. A few selections:
Snark is illegal.
It shall be unlawful for any person within the corporate limits of the town to willfully disturb the peace of others by [snip] Repeating or uttering slander, scandal, malicious gossip or rumor, calculated to provoke a breach of the peace …
As is cross-dressing.
It shall be unlawful for any person within the corporate limits of the town to be found in a state of nudity, or in a dress not belonging to his sex, or in an indecent exposure of his person.
And my favorite.
*Sec. 50-20. - Vagrants
(a) The following shall be deemed vagrants:
(1) Rogues, vagabonds, idle or dissolute persons who go about begging;
(2) Common gamblers;
(3) Persons who use juggling or unlawful games or plays;
(4) Common pipers and fiddlers;
(5) Common drunkards;
(6) Common night walkers;
(7) Thieves, pilferers, traders in stolen property;
(8) Lewd, wanton and lascivious persons;
(9) Keepers of gambling places;
(10) Common railers and brawlers;
(11) Persons who neglect their calling or employment or are without reasonable continuous employment or regular income and who have not sufficient property to sustain themselves and misspend what they earn without providing for themselves or for the support of their families;
(12) Persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object, habitual loafers, idle and disorderly persons;
(13) Persons neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by frequenting houses of ill fame, gaming houses or tippling shops;
(14) Persons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children; and
(15) All ablebodied persons over the age of 18 years who are without means of support and remain in idleness.
(b) Vagrants shall be punished as provided in section 1-11 *
Still on the books.
There’s a ton of zany old laws in my hometown that remain on the books. Cites included.
- The zoning code allows everybody to have a “milch cow” in their yard.
- All businesses must have spittoons.
- The front doors of residences where someone has one of a long list of old-timey diseases (you know; the vapors, the shimmies, Portuguese influenza, Sherman’s March, etc) must be posted with warning signs in English, and either Polish, Italian or German.
- Shoeshines are banned on Sunday after 1:00 PM.
- A bunch of laws regarding steam locomotives, horsecar franchises, and the like.
Most (all?) states still have anti-abortion laws on the books and the minute SCOTUS overturns Roe vs. Wade they will be enforcing them.
I think it remote that Loving would be overturned, but it were, any state whose anti-miscegenation law was still on the books could enforce it.
Virginia’s tourism slogan has long been “Virginia is for lovers.” A few years ago, the story goes, the legislature considered decriminalizing adultery, but there was not a majority to do so, and the measure failed. Someone suggested that the slogan be changed to “Virginia is for very good friends.”
I served on such a commission for the state of Minnesota.
Among the ‘obsolete’ laws on the books was one outlawing sodomy. It had not been enforced for decades, since it was ruled unconstitutional by a Minnesota Court. And later the US Supreme Court ruled the same for all the USA. But we were told that if our recommendation included dropping this law, all the Republican legislators would vote against it, because they were afraid they would be attacked for ‘legalizing sodomy’.
The Minnesota law on adultery only applied to men. (Basically, it was stealing the virginity that properly belonged to a woman’s husband or father, if unmarried.) Any attempt to reform that to be gender-neutral was opposed by the same conservative Republicans.
There was a law on the books prohibiting sale of vehicles on Sunday. We were told that the automobile dealers association, and the ‘union’ of auto salespersons, would strongly oppose dropping this law. This was the only thing that kept them from being open on Sunday, and they wanted at least 1 day off per week.
All these laws stayed on the books, because there were various groups that wanted them. Because they weren’t obsolete to that group, but benefited them. Or even if they were obsolete, some group wanted them kept to demonstrate ‘moral disapproval’. So the laws stay.