I'm not going to war over Notifying the Father of a Fetus.

[patrice]

Seems like common sense to me.

[elehhhhna]

1. huh?

[chimpymustgo]

182. Well I WILL go to war. Get the f*ck out of my womb.

I don't need ANYBODY'S permission to have any medical procedure I (or my doctor and I) deem necessary.

If this is not worth going to WAR over - what the hell is?

[BeTheChange]

186. We will go to war for this..

but fuck Iraqiis dying needlessly because of our shitty ass foreign policy. Or screw the fact that our country is screwing up the environment which will effect the whole world. Or, damn the shrinking middle class, or exporting american jobs, killing labor unions, children with no healthcare.

If I cant have an abortion without telling the person who I thought enough of to share my body with, bring the war paint.

Our priorities are screwed up.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

199. I may be wrong,

But I thought the proposed legislation just required notification, not permission?

[malta blue]

2. what if the father of the fetus

was an abusive partner? This blanket statement is just flame bait.

[KyndCulture]

4. Or spousal rape...

total flame bait.

:popcorn:

[whatever4]

16. Yeeeeeeeeup

totally. Popcorn and beer. *hic* and antiacid.

[whatever4]

20. and the fact that it's PERMISSION and not notification is...

a little different, don't ya think?

Who am I kidding, no one seriously considering this IS thinking. Sorry.

[demigoddess]

136. abortion restrictions are women needing society's permission also

And that is a crock, excuse my language. My daughter, born before Roe v Wade is very severely retarded. She was diagnosed in the delivery room. Yet since she was born I have been lied to and insulted by most of the doctors, teachers etc. that I have had to deal with. I have even been accosted by strangers on the street. You would be amazed at the hoops I have had to jump through. Society does not support a pro-life ideal. it is unrealistic of people to allow all of society or even a husband or ex husband the right of permission in any case. I would love to get congress to listen to me for even 5 minutes.

[whatever4]

138. Because "women needing society's permission also" isn't a good influence

when the society isn't healthy. I wish they could listen to you for five minutes too. Seems they like to listen to each other.

[patrice]

30. Rapists should be held responsible for their biological offspring.

NOT with the same rights as even a normall competent person who mangages to get along without raping others, of course.

Right to Life must respect ALL Fetuses.

[malta blue]

31. and the rapist should determine whether the woman has

a baby?

:wtf:

Are you using your brain today?

[patrice]

35. He should be held financially responsible for what she decides to do abou.

about what he did.

Abortion, adoption . . . whatever she decides.

[malta blue]

36. This has nothing to do with financial responsibility

It has everything to do with the conversion of women into chattel

[whatever4]

127. Or the reality of our lives

which is...we aren't the killers. Of anything, by and large. The entire argument over abortion is a farce.

It assumes the reproductive choices are not, as a general rule being adequately managed by women. It assumes that BY LAW our choice must be managed, and that "problems" caused by our bad choices over abortion are too common and too troublesome to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It assumes the law will do a better job than the average woman. The law will do a better job, the law run, almost entirely, by old, white men.

Since when are old, white men more safe and less prone to murder than the average group of women? I say...never.

Everything to do with conversion of women to chattel, assuming a LOW common denominator of us IN GENERAL, by law, for no good reason AT ALL.

We have a third world infant mortality rate, so, how many children, alive and breathing children, are dying needlessly? Perhaps with more senses and more human suffering involved???

So sad that we even have to talk about this. When I was in my twenties, I'd have never thought. Now, all I can realize is, I wasn't really thinking either.

[verse18]

169. Great response

:thumbsup:

[LostinVA]

201. I know -- why are people making this about fiances????

Like, as long as a man says he'll support the child forever, then the woman should have the baby? WTF?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

207. So would that force the woman, or girl, to "notify" the rapist if she

becomes pregnant?

MKJ

[Nobody]

211. If I were ever raped

the first thing I will do is hope that I can get Plan B in time. If not, it's off to the clinic. The police can notify Mr. Rapist that no WAY IN FUCKING HELL am I going to endure a pregnancy after what he did to me. No WAY IN FUCKING HELL would I EVER want to go through NINE FUCKING MONTHS of constant reminder that the agony isn't over and that what he put in my uterus by an act of hate and violence is more important than my having been the victim of a felony.

And if I were ever raped, I'd fight like hell and do my best he would never be able to rape any other women and he'd also be in such a position that he wouldn't be able to be notified.

I have never been raped, I hope I never am. I know too many people who have lived that particular hell.

There are two other situations at least in which there is no compromise whatsoever, and society doesn't get to learn if they apply in any specific woman's specific case.

Let's trust that a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy will talk to people she trusts, but let's not legislate who that person must be.

[halobeam]

217. And by this, I mean it with as much sarcasm as I can muster....

along with all the other things you mentioned... imagine dealing with him for the entire childhood of that child for weekly payments? OMG.

It's bad enough when it's an ex.

[xultar]

195. Spousal rape never happens. Republicans don't do that!

colour me shocked.

[LostinVA]

200. Exactly.....

Marriage is not ownership. And I WILL go to battle to protect a woman's right to control her own body and her own future.

Some doctors tell their patients they need their husband's permission to go on BC.... so, I guess some even here on DU might think that's okay..... there's no difference. This is bull.

[patrice]

25. His rights wouldn't be the same as mine due to his obvious Incompetence.

[malta blue]

27. what does this mean?

[patrice]

87. If he's a rapist, that's not very functional, group-wise.

[stanwyck]

152. OK. I've read all your posts

and they make no sense. None.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
What is clear, is you have no understanding of the crime of rape.
Your "group-wise, functional" speak is meaningless.
I suggest you learn more about this crime.
Do some volunteer work. Visit a rape crisis center. Read.
And if you don't want to fight the nomination of Bush's new pick, fine. We're probably better off without you on our side.

[mainer]

215. If a woman doesn't want to notify her husband...

then there's clearly something seriously wrong with the marriage. And chances are, it's spousal abuse.

[tk2kewl]

3. common courtesy maybe, but it might be the opposite of common sense

in some instances

[Dawgs]

5. Don't agree..

..and, unfortunately this is how many independants will read this ruling.

'No big deal'

[tgnyc]

6. I thought it was notifying the spouse, not necessarily the father

[malta blue]

10. good point eom

[Lex]

21. Exactly. The husband is the property owner of the wife once again. nt

[patrice]

34. If there's a child there is a "man" who IS responsible . . . Shouldn't

They Shouldn't be let off the hook. There are many men who are not held accountable for their own children. I just think that should include ANY fetus too, even if it is to be aborted. He has a financial responsibility for what he helped cause.

There are many men in America who are a bunch of babies. And they avoid financial responsibility for their children, and for their own lies.

[Lex]

47. Please tell me how his financial obligation has ANYthing to do with

the current topic?

The man is financially responsible if he is the father. PERIOD.

HER choice to abort or not doesn't alter that.

[mondo joe]

91. Why do you keep repeating that falsehood? The father bears no financial

burden related to abortion except by choice.

[Occulus]

129. A couple things you've forgotten

1) There are many women who use the dire financial straits of their ex-husbands as a weapon when a child is involved- they see it as a way to "get back at him" and "make him pay". I have seen this happen to people whom I know for myself, so don't bother saying it doesn't. Those women who do so are, in the long run, only further harming their child, but they only see it as revenge.

I'm thinking of a woman who, knowing their ex-husband has piles and piles of legal debts from the divorce, during which he lost his job, and simply cannot meet his obligations as a father because of that. Man-hating women will do this, and since the laws regarding child custody often favor the mother, the father is left 'on the hook' for far more than he can afford and ends up in jail for nonpayment of support. I've actually heard women say things like "I'll just let him get behind on his support and then get him thrown in jail for it" even before the father is behind.

The other part you forget:

Regarding spousal notification, there are many men who, believing their women are their "property", will and do beat, abuse, and degrade their wives. These men would very likely simply say no to an abortion by their wives- if not outright beat them senseless for even asking. If she were to then go and actually have an abortion, she may as well not bother going back, because these same types of men may, possibly, kill their wives if they thought they could get away with it.

I'm sorry if I stepped on any toes with the first part of my post, but like I said, I've seen it happen to people I know on not once but multiple occasions. Many, many people view the laws designed to protect them as swords rather than shields, and it's a very big problem- there seems to be a general "lock 'em up" mentality regarding this issue.

[TahitiNut]

103. It was. If 'spouse' not 'father' then notification might be 'interesting.'

Adultery? Rape?

Should 'notification' requirement be expanded to cover ALL pregnancy during 1st trimester??

After all, if the (property?) 'rights' of the spouse are an issue, then perhaps the spouse has a 'right' to INSIST on an abortion rather than be the legal 'father' of a child he didn't conceive. (Yes, many/most states confer 'fatherhood' as a matter of law upon the husband and that includes child support -- or at least did when the issue came up during my divorce.)

[Tomee450]

130. The decision

whether to have an abortion should be left to the woman. Suppose the spouse is like the husband of Andrea Yates. He wanted a baseball team. What if the wife was tired of having babies but had a husband who wanted more and who would pressure her into not aborting. The judge's decision, imo, was wrong.

[LostinVA]

202. I thought about Andrea Yates when I read about this law.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

7. So you agree to judicial activism re: communication between spouses?

:shrug:

[Epiphany4z]

8. hu?

Considering the number of women in abusive relationships I am sure it will come in real handy. :wtf:

[JDPriestly]

9. What are you talking about?

One of the most common reasons women have abortions is that the father is gone, cannot be found, abusive, you name it. There are instances in which the father wants the child, and the mother does not, but they are the exceptions, not that common. Notification of the father is just a rule to make it harder, more oppressive, more punitive for women to get abortions. It also is a means to make sure there is a legal record of the abortion, and that violates a woman's privacy. How would men like it if they had to get their wife's written permission before they could get their Viagra prescription filled? Huh? Privacy is important.

[ugarte]

11. So if a husband does not give consent?

What then?

[zanne]

What an excellent question!

It goes to the heart of the matter--I think what is being left unsaid is that he wanted the wife to "consult" her husband, and to get his permission. It's not about "poor innocent babies" so much as it's about a woman's independence. Men will not give up their considerable power that easily.

[Lex]

18. Exactly. Abortion is OK if the man gives consent.

Where's the ethical line that they are drawing here?

[patrice]

39. He is not responsible for HOW she decides. He is only Financially

responsible for WHATEVER she decides. He's the Father, that's his role, even if she CHOOSES abortion.

[mondo joe]

43. Then there is no need for her to notify him before aborting.

He is only financially responsible for any child he fathers after it is born.

[patrice]

51. He is financially responsible for her choice, in this case, abortion.

He is responsible because he is the biological father. Women have carried this burden alone too long. American men are a bunch of weaklings if they can't stand up to how many children they are causing to be aborted.

This is a very conservative position and would cause some extreme trouble amongst hypocrit Pro-Lifers.

[mondo joe]

63. To the contrary, he bears no financial responsibility for abortion.

For that matter he bears no responsibility for any child until identified as the father.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

209. It sounds like you're mandating men to pay for abortions.

Hmmm, now that's some legislation that will happen in the age of flying porcine objects.

Really, our first priority is keeping the procedure from being taken away totally. MKJ

[Lex]

44. Yes, she has to get his PERMISSION. So she can't choose.

He can over-rule her "choice" so it's not a choice, is it?

[ohio_liberal]

143. Speaking of "permission"

My doctor required a permission slip signed by my husband in order for me to have a tubal ligation. I know it's not exactly the same thing, but it still pissed me off.

[cynatnite]

177. I've heard of that being done...

I wish someone would challenge that in court.

When I had my tubal my hubby didn't have to sign anything and neither did my sister.

It's a load of crap.

[fleabert]

193. i'd get a new dr. nt

[phylny]

197. Conversely, my husband needed my signed permission to have a

vasectomy 13 years ago.

[LostinVA]

203. I would have went to a different doctor.

Because I think it's exactly the same thing.

[progressivebydesign]

142. I can't tell if you're extremely young or extremely conservative.

your arguments are either naive or partisan.

[peacebaby3]

46. You nailed it! If he doesn't want the woman to have an abortion, is she

forced to have the child anyway? Why else would you have it as law that the father be notified? The only explanation is because he could then force the woman to go through with the pregnancy. Sorry, but until he can take over for the woman immediately, he can't force her to be his breeding property.

[ugarte]

56. The right wing intent is always to force a delay in the abortion

by forcing the woman to see a judge, which is what I imagine would happen if the husband opposes the abortion. The whole idea is to put up roadblocks, effectively denying the intent of R v. Wade.

[peacebaby3]

64. I agree completely. Same thing with parental notification. They know it

will take time to go through the court system and by then, the woman will be too far along in the pregnancy to consider abortion. It is definitely a slick way to end choice.

[randr]

12. And we should use the courts to force men to

notify their wives if and when they impregnate another woman?

[tgnyc]

13. Patrice, Alito wants to force notification of the spouse. What if the

father is a boyfriend, and the woman is separated from her spouse?

[patrice]

65. Her choices are always Primary because she is Pregnant.

If the Family is such a holy institution, His role must be conserved however possible. In the old days, he would give meat from the hunt; today it is Dollars.

We're fighting over who should pay for abortions, right? Seems obvious to me MEN should, though he doesn't own her decision, only part of the fetus, however that turns out starting with her choice, abortion or whatever . . . .

Too many men are let off on this i$$ue . . . .

no pun intended.

[mtnester]

71. This is NOT a fight about WHO PAYS...

it is a fight about WHO DECIDES...you better understand that real quick.

[patrice]

73. It SHOULD be because everything is about ECONOMICS.

Notification would FREAK the Right Wing OUT. "We" will find out WHO is causing all of these horrible Abortions.

[mondo joe]

80. So you want to freak out the RW at the expense of a woman's right to

privacy?

Nice.

[patrice]

93. And you want to let men off of the hook?

The men in this country are a bunch of babies. This is one of the reasons why. Women take too much on themselves and end up burn out and defeated in many cases. We should talk about the Economics of this more, otherwise we are being distracted from the basic tool that has been used to dominate us, getting distracted from the Economics of "issues", since 1492.

[mondo joe]

94. Women don't need you to patroinize them by FORCING them to notify

someone BEFORE termination.

Even if they are to be held financially responsible they can be billed AFTERWARDS.

[cynatnite]

97. If a woman has a baby, yeah, she should nail the father...

but to expect it over an abortion is living in fantasy land. All he's got to do is say either, 'I'm not the father' or 'I don't support it. Why should I pay for it?'.

This isn't about paying for abortion anyway. It's about forcing the woman to get consent from men. If that ain't reproduction slavery, I don't know what is.

It's not and it never was about economics. It's about my right to make choices about my body. Period.

[SteppingRazor]

163. If a woman has a baby, hasn't she already nailed the father?

:evilgrin:

[cynatnite]

174. Well, of course...

:rofl:

[mtnester]

81. The right wing WANTS notification

they WANT ANYONE to notify them when a possible abortion is to take place, they WANT A SOCIETY OF NARCOS, telling on their neighbors/patients/friends/coworkers.

They want abortion to be non-existent, even when the mother's life is in jeopardy. They want a rapist's child to be carried by the mother, they WANT a child from incest to be carried, they WANT a child from sexual predation to be carried...

What they DON'T want is anything to do with that child after it is delivered. Can you say Hallelujah?

[patrice]

98. It shouldn't be done this way. There should be a contract between

biological participants, legally recognizing financial responsibilities, and preserving the woman's choice, BECAUSE she's the one who has the (holy f--ing) Fetus.

This would drive the RW CRAZY.

[mondo joe]

100. Again, Patrice sacrifices women's privacy to serve a goal irritate the RW.

Women are not your pawns.

Consider that.

[donheld]

168. You are exactly right

For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would advocate such a thing.

[mtnester]

101. And contract law is a booming business

It is NOT a contract, it is NONE of anyone's BUSINESS.

So what, you file a brief with the local clerk of courts, saying my wife has my PERMISSION/DOES NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION to get an abortion should she become pregnant?

Do you not see the absurdity of this?

(of course you don't)

[cynatnite]

102. Before anyone picks up a willing partner at a bar...

go wherever, sign a contract, then have sex. :eyes:

The RW would love it. More laws regulating personal choice and privacy. Cops arresting people for having sex without a contract. Oh, boy.

[jane_pippin]

166. Please explain to me how exactly you think this contract would work in the

case of:

1. Rape
2. Incest
3. An abusive marriage

[shanti]

139. woulda, coulda, shoulda!

it's NOT about MONEY, it's about CONTROL!

[mondo joe]

75. What on earth makes you think this has anything to do with who pays for

the abortion?

Furthermore, the right to abort has NOTHING to do with who "owns" the fetus and everything to do with a woman's right to decide what to do with her oown body.

You are making shit up.

[Blue_In_AK]

190. What is the father is a boyfriend and the wife is NOT separated

from her spouse. Even worse.

[papau]

14. 6 rulings by Alito below that mean he's not qualified for Sup. Ct.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america

Samuel Alito’s America

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade.

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.”

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.”

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law.

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home.

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.”

[BearFlagDemocrat]

19. Hmm

In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law.

He sounds like an activist judge to me.

[papau]

107. "activist judge " ??? - now that truth will not get on CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS

but I agree.

[dogday]

15. Seems like right wing nonsense to me nt

[Lex]

17. The "father of the fetus" is not always "the husband" and furthermore

what if the guy withholds consent?

She's then forced into having the child anyway?

What century are you living in?

[elehhhhna]

67. Furthermore, one can't determine paternity 'til AFTER birth.

[MadHound]

22. Gee, nice empathy there pal, not!

Try putting yourself in the position of a battered woman. Do you think that the abusive father should be notified?

And quite frankly, while I agree that under normal circumstance the father should have some sort of voice, the final say so belongs to the woman. Paternal notification is simply another step down that slippery slope to once again outlawing abortion. You may be willing to take that step, but realize that in doing so you are condemning millions and millions of women to the horrors of pre Roe v Wade. We do not need to go back friend, which is where this nomination will take us.

Nice that you're willing to bargain away rights that don't concern you:eyes: Perhaps you speak to some of the women in your life and see how appreciative they are of your position.

[funflower]

23. You have got to be kidding.

What's going to happen when Mr. Pregnant Woman doesn't agree? Women either have control over their own medical decisions or they don't.

[cynatnite]

24. So the woman should be forced to remain pregnant against her wishes?

Uh, no. When men have a uterus, I'll reconsider. :eyes:

[feistydem]

26. What if a woman became pregnant by someone other than her husband

and just wanted a quiet abortion? It may be 'immoral' --but let's face it, it does happen.

"Hey honey, I need an abortion. Do you approve?"

"But I was working in Japan for 2 months, how could you be pregnant?"

"Well, I was lonely and your buddy Joe stopped by, and well..."

So, men can cheat on a spouse, potentially get another woman pregnant and it can all be kept quiet. But if a woman does the same thing she has to ask her husband if it's okay with him? Wow! That sounds equal.



edited for spelling errors

[Walt Starr]

28. I am

There is one person and one person only who has any rights in making the decision about abortion.

The woman.

Anything else is sexual slavery.

[Azathoth]

40. That's a mighty absolutist position

Every bit as absolutist as the fundie perspective.

[Walt Starr]

54. Yep

I will not be budged. This far and no further.

[mtnester]

59. Thank you.

Thank you thank you...

[converted_democrat]

108. Thank you Walt. n/t

[ninkasi]

170. I agree

This is something that should be left completely up to the woman, period. My husband does not own me.

[Nobody]

213. And I agree with you

Because we either support or don't support the right of a woman to make her own choices about her own medical needs, her own body, her own life.

If there are reasons a right wing conservative think are good reasons to abort, there is no way that right wing conservative will ever become privy to the kind of information needed to know that.

There are myriad reasons to abort, rape, potential death in childbirth, dead fetus (often goes on life of mother category), incest (often is no different from rape except the rapist is a family member), can't afford, too old and fear complications short of death, don't want a child (and this category has a lot of subsets including birth control failed), too young (early teens and this is where the baby as punishment rears its ugly head), no health care coverage, boyfriend vanished when pregnancy was announced, severe birth defects, one that's common among the upper classes of India "But I want a boy...", already have X kids, hubby is abusive, hubby isn't the father, hubby is a sex offender, and gazillions of other reasons.

I guarantee you there will be one or more reasons any given individual will find abhorrent on the above list. That's normal.

We do not need to have a referendum on whether or not a given woman gets an abortion or completes the pregnancy.

We do not have the information (nor should we) about an individual woman's situation or her reasons, so that we may tsk tsk at will.

We do not have the right to know about her life unless she voluntarily tells it to us. We as society do not get a vote. She and those she trusts get a vote. She and those she voluntarily asks for advice get a vote. And even then, only if she wants then to get a vote.

Again: No woman should ever have to get society's approval to obtain legal medical services, and she should not have to jump through several hoops to get them.

As long as society can agree that there is at least one reason that is acceptable, she should be able to abort, and she shouldn't have to prove that the reason applies. Even the pro-birth crowd can usually grudgingly admit to three on the above list.

The onus is not on the woman to prove that her reason is acceptable to complete strangers.

[readmoreoften]

178. And I'm also absolutist about...

Bush being an idiot.
The War in Iraq being wrong.
Homosexuality being acceptable.
Fascism is wrong.

And many many other things. Having POLITICAL BELIEFS is not the opposite of being progressive. Being WISHY-WASHY isn't the same as having nuanced thought.

[KyndCulture]

85. DING DING "sexual slavery" thats the meme here.

[lukasahero]

116. Way to go Walt!

And thank you.

[bunkerbuster1]

29. All Your Uterus Are Belong to Your Husbands!

jesus fucking christ.


($1 to Atrios for the subject header.)

[patrice]

45. You don't understand what I'm saying.

He doesn't get a CHOICE in anything, once she is pregnant (no matter how it happened). He IS financially responsible for WHATEVER she chooses, abortion or adoption or giving it to a family member to raise (for mothers who are minors), whatever the disposition of that FETUS, he is financially responsible.

Men are let off far toooooo frequently on their financial responsibilities for their own Mistakes and Lies. This is bad for the U.S.

[cynatnite]

48. Women do the carrying and delivering...

Women also provide majority of the care afterwards. It's her body and she should NOT be forced to be pregnant if she doesn't want to be.

[patrice]

82. She can choose Abortion. He's still financially re$pon$ible.

Choice is primary. And her choice is preserved over his because she is the one who is pregnant.

(Basic Assumption: Because Freedom is essential to human-ness, Choice is a primary value.)

[cynatnite]

89. And if he proclaims it's not his?

It's not until late in pregnancy before paternity can be established and in most cases that won't happen until it's born.

[malta blue]

90. What is it with you and the FINANCIAL implications of

notification? This is not a financial issue. This is about medical privacy. This is about getting the US Gov't out of a woman's uterus.

[converted_democrat]

111. That isn't the way the court looks at it though, so the rest is really

non-sense.

[Lex]

50. His financial responsibility to his children is a given.

That isn't altered one whit by leaving a woman with the right to choose without notification to her spouse.

[bunkerbuster1]

52. Well, y'see, Scalito has already come down on the side of his "choice."

inasmuch as hubby has to be notified of an elective abortion.

That ain't right. A husband doesn't have to notify his wife if he's knocked up a mistress.

Of course I agree with all the rest. Of course men need to be held accountable for what they do with their penises. I'm all about doing whatever's necessary to bring about some kind of parity to the burden the respective sexes bear.

[Bunny]

76. There is still time to edit your OP, if you want to clarify what you meant

Because your OP does NOT state what you now claim to be saying.

[mondo joe]

88. But you are factually incorrect. He is NOT financially responsible for he

choice to abort, not in any state or any city in the US.

Furthermore, he has options regarding adoption and other choices.

But he is not in any way financially responsible for the option to abort. And if he were, he could simply be notified after the fact.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

210. Your focus on finances is interesting. Have you been burned in the past?

If a woman, or girl, wants to pursue reimbursement, than by all means, she should.

However, if she prefers to manage it on her own, she should have that right and not be forced to demand payment. That's just like the bogus "notification" law...the condescending "it's for your own good" approach. MKJ

[welshTerrier2]

32. here's what the SC said about "husband notification"

the majority opinion was written by O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter (see below) ...

Patrice, i understand why some might see this as "common sense" ... one might even make a case that the sign of a healthy relationship would be one where such important decisions are openly discussed and shared between a wife and a husband ... i'm speculating that this reasoning sits at the core of your views ...

But there's a huge difference between what might be subjectively considered by some to be healthy, open communication in a marriage versus the imposition on a woman to proceed solely based on her values and her choices ... if you read the SC decision (see below) the court specifically said the focus had to be not on the 99% for whom the law would not be relevant (i.e. those for whom it might be "common sense") but rather the focus should be on the 1% who, for whatever reason, would choose not to openly discuss a planned abortion with their husbands ...

imagine situations where the relationship was not a good one or where the husband was strongly opposed to abortion or where the wife became pregnant from another man ... this is where the legal reasoning needs to focus ... even in these situations, some might believe a wife should always tell her husband the truth ... but requiring her to do so should not be a burden imposed by law ...

that's the distinction being made in the posts that disagree with you ... your "common sense, this is the way marriage should be" really is fine to the extent it conveys your subjective views of marriage ... it is NOT fine when it imposes a legal burden on women to comply with them ... at that point, as the SC reasoned, your are imposing an "undue burden" ...

source: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html

2. Section 3209's husband notification provision constitutes an undue burden and is therefore invalid. A significant number of women will likely be prevented from obtaining an abortion just as surely as if Pennsylvania had outlawed the procedure entirely. The fact that § 3209 may affect fewer than one percent of women seeking abortions does not save it from facial invalidity, since the proper focus of constitutional inquiry is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom it is irrelevant. Furthermore, it cannot be claimed that the father's interest in the fetus' welfare is equal to the mother's protected liberty, since it is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the fetus will have a far greater impact on the pregnant woman's bodily integrity than it will on the husband. Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women but repugnant to this Court's present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. See Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 69. Pp. 46-58.

[malta blue]

33. thanks for the actual information

however, I think you are giving the OP too much credit. Apparently rapists should take responsibility for their biological offspring too and therefore should be notified. See posts above.

[cynatnite]

62. Thank you for explaining...

imagine situations where the relationship was not a good one or where the husband was strongly opposed to abortion or where the wife became pregnant from another man ... this is where the legal reasoning needs to focus ... even in these situations, some might believe a wife should always tell her husband the truth ... but requiring her to do so should not be a burden imposed by law ...

This whole topic reminds me of 'Godfather II'. Michael's wife got an abortion without his knowledge. If Alito had his way, she would have been required to go to him. Who knows how that would've turned out with someone like him on the bench.

I do believe in most relationships the two people discuss it and come to a decision. There will be those where for one reason or antoher, the woman will go ahead and have an abortion. Common sense does say it should be discussed, but in now way should it ever be legislated.

[hippiegranny]

37. It is a medical privacy issue.

End. Of. Story.

[georgia10]

38. would you go to war

over evangelism in public schools?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2201486

[mondo joe]

41. Then you misunderstand the right to choose and the right to privacy.

But these are clearly not concerns of yours.

[The Magistrate]

42. This Is Not A Situation, Sir

In which a man has any rights a woman is bound to respect....

[Azathoth]

49. Statements like that are the reason guys like Alito get confirmed n/t

[Lex]

53. Explain please.

[Azathoth]

60. The majority of the public supports Roe V. Wade in principle

But moderates do not feel comfortable with absolutist positions. When you get into issues like parental notification and the rights of the father, the moderate center begins to peel away from the hardliners on both sides. Coming out with a statement that basically says "Screw the dad. If the mother wants to abort his unborn child and not even tell him, then that's just tough for him" will cause an knee-jerk reaction and alienate a lot of potentially sympathetic people.

[SidDithers]

165. It's not an unborn child...nt

Sid

[readmoreoften]

180. So on what grounds DO you support Roe v. Wade?

If the husband can say no????

Sorry, the 'moderate center' generally understands that men don't make decisions over women's bodies. Not even their wives, not even their daughters.

YOU have an issue with it, not 'the moderate center.'

[Azathoth]

191. I support Roe v. Wade on the same grounds set forth in the decision

Namely, that the government cannot violate an individual's right to privacy by injecting itself arbitrarily into people's private medical decisions. Despite what some on this board might think, it is not a constitutional guarantee to abortion under all circumstances. It is a guarantee of privacy from arbitrary government interference. The right to privacy is not absolute, however. Children, for instance, have no right to privacy from their parents/legal guardians.

I'd caution you not to delude yourself into believing that the general consensus on abortion here at DU is in ANY way indicative of the mainstream public's views. It's not. Some of the posts here would be downright offensive to many who consider themselves moderately pro-choice.

Personally, I'm basically liberal on the abortion issue. I strongly believe in the right to privacy and the need for women to have access to safe abortion procedures. I also, however, recognize that issues like parental notification and the rights of the father present troubling moral dilemmas for many people, and I get offended by the "Fuck the other side. It's my way or nothing!" rhetoric used by the extreme elements on both side of the debate.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

212. The obligation to notify a rapist, an abusive husband or incestuous family

member, so they can further terrorize the woman?

It boils down to saying, we have to let them woman make the decision, end of discussion.

Some women will make decisions that "moderates" may be uncomfortable with, but it's none of their business.

And it will insure that women in the above untenable situations will not be further harmed and have control over their bodies and lives. MKJ

[purji]

204. What rights are you willing to give up

to placate the "moderates"?

[patrice]

55. What is so RW about notifying Fathers that they owe $ for Abortions.

[The Magistrate]

61. Any Requirement, Sir

That a woman consult any other person, in any degree and for any reason, in the process of doing what she thinks best for her own situation on discivering herself to be pregnant, is an intolerable and unwarranted interferance with her liberty as a human being to direct her own life.

[mondo joe]

70. They don't owe anything. That is a matter between the parents to

determine, and there is no need to require a woman to notify anyone of a her choice unless she chooses to do so.

[NYC Liberal]

92. What if she doesn't NEED his money..or doesn't want it?

What then, huh?

[mondo joe]

95. Patrice doesn't care what women want. He is happpy to decide for them.

Don't you get that?

[NYC Liberal]

106. I suppose some people want to go back to the "days of yore" when

women were subjugated to their husbands.

Funny how almost all of the people arguing for it are MEN.........

[Spazito]

124. Specious argument

Okay, the father is responsible for the cost of the abortion, if one buys your argument (I don't). I guess you are fighting for the father to pay the bill AFTER a woman has made her choice as regards her own body without having to get permission from ANYONE, right? I bet not!

[The Magistrate]

58. Do You Think So, Sir?

The law in question was struck down, which would seem to indicate at least that the current judicial consensus agrees with that view.

If this wretch is confirmed, it will be because the other side has manage to get a lock on the Senate, and has a sufficiency of votes to press its agenda, whatever might actually be the rights and wrongs of the thing, or the view of it most widely held by the people of the country, very few of whom consider the question of abortion to be paramount.

[Azathoth]

83. It does indeed represent the current judicial consensus at the moment

But the issue of the rights of the father presents a moral dillemma for many who would otherwise be sympathetic to the pro-choice cause. Categorically writing off the issue as you did risks alienating a lot of those people.

...or the view of it most widely held by the people of the country, very few of whom consider the question of abortion to be paramount.

If this is true, then it doesn't really make sense to make Alito's stance on abortion the foundation of our opposition to his nomination.

[The Magistrate]

105. This Is Not A Moral Dilemna, Sir

It is an issue of property rights, and a matter in which no such right can exist without tyranny.

One of the features of a democratic polity, Sir, is that committed minorities can have an influence disproportionate to their number, sometimes outlandishly so, in matters where most people do not feel strongly. This matter is one of those. It is the anti-abortionists who have driven this nomination, and it will be upholders of women's choice and rights to their own lives who will be the most determined constituency in opposition. The anti-abortion screamers are, in fact, rather noxious to the great mass of our people, who rightly view those creatures as dedicated to interference in the lives of others, a thing our people do not much like. Highlighting them, and their support for this wretch, particularly their glee that he will be the key to re-criminalizing abortion, seems to me an excellent line to follow, accordingly. The great thing is make the people hate an element of the enemy's strength, to isolate it, amd renmder it a liability.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Azathoth]

131. Not a moral dilemma? Property rights?

Methinks the good Magistrate hath spent too much time sequestered in his chambers, altogether insulated from the reality of the common man.

First, parental notification and the rights of the father do indeed present a most troublesome moral dilemma for a great many moderates and centrists.

Second, I would have to disagree with your characterization of the matter as as issue of property rights. BOTH parents have a Constitutionally protected right to custody of their children -- a matter entirely separate from the issue of property rights. Should one parent abscond with the children without the consent of the other parent, that parent would be guilty of kidnapping. If the father has a clear, Constitutional right to his children after they are born, it isn't too much of a stretch to suggest that he should have at least some say in their welfare before they are born.

Third, there are approximately equal numbers of "committed" (read: absolutist) abortion activists on either side. In fact, your own protests suggest that you yourself hold views on abortion every bit as uncompromising as those you dismiss as "screamers". I regret to inform you that much of the country falls somewhere in between the two positions.

All of that being said, however, I wholeheartedly agree that tying Alito to the loudest, most obnoxious elements of the anti-abortion movement is a good opposition strategy.

[The Magistrate]

135. Dilemna It May Be, Sir

But it is not a moral dilemna. The origin of marriage as we know it was the ownership of a woman's reproductive capability, and the exclusive right of the husband to its use. Things this old and deeply entrenched do not much alter, even if the form of language used to describe them shifts somewhat over time. The essential element of liberation for women is the recognition of her mastery over her reproductive capability, and her right as a human being to direct her own life and fate so far as unalterable surrounding circumstances will allow. The right to procure an abortion and terminate a pregnancy if she feels that is the best course for her life is merely an element of this, but my commitment to it is absolute, stemming from my whole-hearted agreement with the basic principle of human liberty and self-direction for all involved.

It is a pleasure to see we are in agreement, however, on the adviseability of holdng up the most reprehensible elemnet of the enemy's coalition to the public gaze in full sunlight, that they should have the opportunity to be properly repulsed by its despicable character.

[Bridget Burke]

164. Who is "insulated from the reality of the common man"?

A woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy decides whether to have the baby or not by considering her situation & her wishes. Her "situation" includes the presence or absence of a supportive man (AKA father of the fetus) & the attitudes of family members. Ideally, these others will have a voice in the decision that she makes.

In a less than ideal world, we have abusive or absent men & abusive or absent parents. That is the reality of at least some "common women."

As far as notification of parents of minors goes--this idea has some merit. But a loophole is absolutely necessary--such as getting permission from a Judge. Here in Texas, they are trying to close the loophole.

As far as adult women go, I'm afraid I'm another of those "absolutists." I don't give a flying fuck about your imaginary "moderates & centrists."

[woo me with science]

57. You are missing the larger point.

The GOVERNMENT has no business being involved in this sort of issue in the first place. Just because something is common sense doesn't mean that the GOVERNMENT should be put in charge of it. This is a health issue, and the GOVERNMENT has no place in regulating it. The right to privacy from GOVERNMENT must be upheld, or you are opening the door GOVERNMENT control of health decisions involving abortions and even contraceptives! Sure, it's common sense to want the spouse notified in most cases, but that is absolutely NOT the role of the GOVERNMENT, to enforce that.

[crispini]

66. The notification is designed to FORCE her to give him rights over her body

What about this don't you get?

[elehhhhna]

68. The new, updated marriage vows will be cute.

[patrice]

72. Wrong. No one has any rights over anyone else that they don't EXPRESSLY

give. Notification doesn't suspend the Constitution.

Your agrument is a red herring. Intentional?

[crispini]

77. No, I am trying to make you see the POINT.

In Scalito's world, a woman should be forced to "notify" her husband. What other purpose would that serve than to allow him to -- if he were so inclined -- negotiate, argue, browbeat, or just plain terrify her into having the child?

You tell me. What other reason is there for a woman to be forced to notify her husband?

[crispini]

125. Helllllooooo? Care to answer me?

I really would like to know. What other reason is there for a woman to be forced to notify her husband?

[stanwyck]

153. While I admire your trying

this is a lost cause. We're dealing with someone unable, or unwilling, to contribute rational thoughts.

[adigal]

69. Would you go to war over a judge allowing a 10 year old to

be strip searched when the warrant is for her father?? Huh? Or do you only care until the child is born?

[gollygee]

74. If they're notified, the wife is made vunerable to being beaten

possibly to death.

If she feels she needs to keep it a secret, she's got a reason. Healthy marriages don't have this come up as an issue.

[enough]

78. I AM, as the mother of two young women in their 20's.

I wish and hope that they will always be in a situation where such a decision would be made in consultation with the "father" of the fetus. But if they are not, it is not the government's business to tell them what they are required to do.

[malta blue]

79. We should all fight!

Let's hear it for another voice of reason among the many who have checked in here today

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

84. Sounds like you don't understand the issue at all.

Perhaps you should seek to educate yourself before looking like a fool.

[DanCa]

86. So can a father condemn the mother to death if something tragicly goes

wrong with the birth? I think the only say so a man has in abortion is the sex act itself. We can say no were not animals.

[jane_pippin]

96. Yeah. My mom should have been required to ask her abusive husband

for permission to have that abortion she had.

Oh wait. She did tell him about it first and he kicked the baby right out of her instead! I guess that solved the "who should pay for the abortion" question. (The second time she just went to get an abortion on her own. I always get confused about which of my mother's fetuses were her choice to have and which were beaten out of her. Silly me.)

[patrice]

104. No one's asking. She's telling. Her decisions are the starting point,

Because she is the one with the (**Right Wing's holy-f--ing**) Fetus.

A by product would be that we would find out who's causing all of the horrible Abortions to happen. I mean these horrible women aren't Virgins!!

[jane_pippin]

109. So he could beat the shit out of her after the fact instead of before?

She shouldn't be required by law to tell him about it at all if she doesn't want to.

[NYC Liberal]

119. And why should she be FORCED to tell, if she doesn't want to?

This is 2005, not 1805, and women are not chattels of their husbands.

[jane_pippin]

158. By the way

you seem to have missed the part where I told you that she DID tell him she was going to have an abortion and he kicked her and beat her so badly that she miscarried anyway.

A "by product" might well be that you get to do some kind of opposition research, but another is that women could get hurt or killed. I don't understand why you or anyone would want to force them into a position that for some--not all of course, but one is too many--will result in them getting physically attacked.

I didn't want to come back to this thread but it's been bugging me that a woman getting beaten didn't even seem to register with you, and I had to get this out of my system.

[DanCa]

110. My mom told me storries of how pregnant teens thru themselves off steps

In school just to loose the baby. I am all for education and adoption but outlawing abortion is not the way to go. The rwingers just dont give a crap about anyone but themselves.

[gollygee]

121. They still do taht in places where there are parental notification laws

I know someone who drank dangerous chemicals and almost died because she didn't want her parents to find out. She was dying and was afraid to wake up her parents to take her to the hospital because she knew if she went to the hospital they'd find out she got pregnant.

[jane_pippin]

123. That's just it. These kind of stipulations assume a scenario

in which husband and wife sit down, have a talk, and decide together what's going to happen. That's all well and good, but not every situation is like that and imposing requirements on all people when such requirements would actually cause harm to women in situations that aren't as rosy is just not right.

[DanCa]

126. The only one who should rose clored glasses is elton john :D

Just tryin to put some levity in this discussion. Other than that i agree with ya 100 percent,

[jane_pippin]

128. Mission accomplished. :D n/t

[Lone_Star_Dem]

99. Your argument is that a wife should notify her spouse prior to an abortion

because he's to be held financially responsible? I'm not clear on this and would appreciate if you help me understand.

It's important to point out that in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case it was not a matter of notifying the father, but that a married woman had to notify her husband. The two are not mutually exclusive. It did not state that any woman, married or not, should notify the man the sperm came from.

Why would a married woman, who is already planning to have an abortion, need to tell her spouse? Remember, this has nothing to do with if he's the father or not, it's only due to his marriage that it was implied he was entitled to this private information.

[patrice]

112. Just a thought experiment in a "What if . . " we called the RW's bluff

on this issue.

They'd hate it, because we'd see that the RW is causing a significant number of those abortions that the Right-to-Lifers object to so much. We could compare the info to Red and Blue states etc.

[cynatnite]

113. They've got gawd on their side...

The rw fundies will preach and pound on their bibles to their heart's content. They would never take an ounce of responsibility to save their asses. They are the 'pass the buck' party.

[DanCa]

115. It's all just Devils and Dust isn't it.

Thet got god on thier side, there just tryin' to survive
You take a god filled soul and fill it with devils and dust. - Bruce Springsteen.

[mtnester]

114. No thanks. n/t

[lukasahero]

122. A "thought experiment" at the risk of women's lives. Nice. eom

[patrice]

147. You're assuming women can't make functional choices.

Wouldn't it be good for women to have sex only with those whom they could notify?

God, what a VICTIMOLOGY you perpetuate!

Women shouldn't be told they can't manage their own lives, that means including MEN, in a manner that actually WORKS. You shouldn't tell them otherwise!

[Beaverhausen]

150. Women have no choice when they are raped

[lukasahero]

159. Did you really mean to reply to me?

don't know where you got the whole "victimology" thing. I was just commenting on your little "experiment" - that you would sacrifice the health and safety of women just for a little "experiment".

As for women only having sex with those they can notify, talk to me when rape is history about that one... :eyes:

[mondo joe]

221. You're assuming women only choose to abort because of dysfunctional choice

And I'm frankly surprised at how utterly insulting you have been to women throughout this thread.

[warrens]

117. Yeah, good idea. Save a psycho the trouble of hunting down his bitch

Teach her to run off just cuz he got a little fancy with his hands and belt.

[Saphire]

118. Just suppose she doesn't know who the father is??? What then?

[Cats Against Frist]

120. WTF? I'm for some common-sense restrictions on abortion

but this is not one of them. This law would be terrible, and would give the father an unequal advantage in the situation -- he can mandate that a child be born -- that the woman has to carry it in her body? And if it's just notification -- then it's without teeth, and has other obviously nefarious purposes, such as getting abortions on the record, and making life more traumatic for rape victims, abuse victims and incest victims.

There is nothing right about this law -- and even though I am aware that many men have their babies aborted, either without knowing, or against their consent -- there's no viable recourse except for SEVERELY harming the woman. It's pro-fetus trash.

[whatever4]

132. I have to say, in looking at the big picture

That when you say "common-sense restrictions on abortion", I reject it, because I feel that, in the hands of women exclusively, we've already got a built-in restriction against abortion.

We have to admit this about ourselves. We ARE less violent, by far less violent, and far far less prone to acts of murder. In leaving abortion in the hands of women, well, it's probably as safe as we can make it.

Between rape, spousal abuse and pervasive male dominance, I don't think men ought to have one BIT of say over abortion. They're JUST as likely to push for one, when they don't want the baby, but OH so not as involved in the pain, the costs, or the risk. And for women doing it in secret or against "his" wishes, we REALLY ought to give her the benefit of the doubt as to it being a necessity for her to do it that way. For her life.

Keep it in our hands.

Look at it this way: If there were a woman, or ten or a few dozen, that wanted to abort their fetus late in the pregnancy...any women that willing to do that to her child...do we even WANT her to have that baby? ANY baby? I say no. I say, worst case scenario, what those nuts always point to, is this situation and it's pathetic because why in the WORLD would you want women like that to have those babies?? Even worse case, though it's not a good way to end any form of life, imagine what it means if those most awful cases were born anyway. Who takes care of them. Who cares? No one. Just that god-awful bitch that wanted to abort something she could see and feel and should have loved.

No, I say, women like that, get them the earliest abortion possible, and let that be the way to end horrific abortions, the type no one here would want to have.

Unless their lives depended on it. Life of the mother. What a joke. It only applies to current, very predictable health dangers now, doesn't it. Sure. I have to say, do you really think the state will believe your life is at risk, until after you've died? Perhaps the proving will take too long, perhaps the doctor doesn't agree. And, you don't die, you just have a debilitating stroke, and so, it all worked out. So sorry for the kids, sanctity of life! See, even those worst-case situations, I don't see them having a good end, in the hands of men. We just...aren't a priority. Ever. It isn't going to change.

All we can do is change our reaction to it.

To begin with, stop expecting them to act like women. They aren't women. They don't care the same way we do, and never will. That's just how it is.

[cynatnite]

134. The only common sense abortion is...

To leave it in the hands of women and their physicians. We all have our own self-imposed restrictions, IMO. The difference is most women aren't looking to force them on everyone else.

Sometimes I want to scream at some of these men who think they have a say over our bodies and what we do with them. If men were capable of having babies abortion clinics would be as common as gas stations.

You said it all very well!

[whatever4]

137. Thanks, you did too :) Crossed fingers on this monster nominee nm

[Flying Dream Blues]

145. Beautifully said. And it also comes down to: If you don't

agree with abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE.

I guess this is the part I don't understand. I disagree with raising children to hate people of other races, or to teach them that other people are going to hell because they have a different religion. So, I didn't raise my children that way.

I happen to think it is a crime against nature to kill animals for pure sport, never planning to eat the animal. So, I don't hunt.

How is it that we have allowed abortion to become an issue that other people have a say in? It's nobody else's business, even if they think someone will go to hell for it, it's still their choice.

[alarimer]

133. It's bullshit

no man, not even a husband, has any say in the matter. NONE.

[patrice]

149. Oh, so these are VIRGIN births?

That's bullshit coddling spoling, namby-pamby BABY-MEN, and letting them get away with being a bunch of Children. No wonder they're just a bunch of drunk, impotent, chicken-hawks, when supposedly STRONG WOMEN (hah!) let them get away with fucking around and not experienceing the consequences.

I call BULLSHIT on that!!!

Not on MY life you don't, and not for the young women of the country either. Men are BABIES and women are VICTIMS who can't do anything about their problems with Fetuses. Shit, "we've" all been brainwashed.

Bunch of real creative thinkers around here. :sarcasm:

[crispini]

151. Wait a minute.

You've got this weird idea that by doing this we'll be "empowering" women or something.

What the hell kind of way is it to empower a woman by forcing her to notify her husband if she wants to have an abortion? It's the ultimate nanny state! "You, madam, must be forced to do this, for your own good." WTF?

Look, I totally agree with you that men should bear the consenquences of their actions. But this idea DOES NOT DO THAT! Not at all! And anyway it has nothing to do with the FATHER of the fetus-- it has to do with the HUSBAND of the WOMAN. To me the whole idea is repugnant. It speaks of making a woman chattel, making her subordinate to her husband. It reeks to high heaven.

[welshTerrier2]

160. Patrice, you are all tangled up on this issue

if i understand what you're saying, you're arguing that fathers have a responsibility ... no one here disagrees with that ...

but you're all twisted and tangled in what you're arguing ...

the "husband notification" law did NOT prevent women from seeking support and compensation from their babies' fathers ... and the SC ruling that knocked down the "husband notification" provision of the PA law did NOT do that either ...

your entire premise is bullshit ... again, NOTHING in the current law prevents a woman from holding fathers accountable ...

by overturning the "husband notification" provision, the SC correctly left the CHOICE of whether to communicate about a planned abortion completely up to the pregnant woman ... what exactly is your problem with that ?????

do you really want women to be forced by law to notify their husbands??? shouldn't the choice be theirs???

your argument makes no sense ...

[stanwyck]

162. At least we're thinking

your posts don't address our questions. And, as noted by others, you seem to equate notification with responsibility. So, the victim of incest has to notify the father. Bizarre. We've already endured the circus of a rapist suing for parental rights. And you seem to be echoing that thought...afterall, he's being "responsible."
Maybe you want to join in with the fundie judges who order the rapists to marry their victims.
Your "strong" women don't have to notify anyone. Got that? Not their father, their boyfriend, their uncle, their teacher, their rapist...Nobody.
Strong women's bodies belong to...strong women.
Not men.
Are you able to understand?

[coda]

167. But that isn't this laws' function patrice

I understand what you're saying re: men and their responsibility, but with this law, who is going to be liable for charges/fines for failure to notify?

[mondo joe]

220. Strong women are able to decide for themselves whether they want

the father notified or not.

Why do you want to deny them the right to decide?

[second edition]

140. Rulings of this nature, go far beyond your scope of reasoning ! n/t

[progressivebydesign]

141. You've obviously never been in an abusive relationship.

Had you been, you'd know how DEADLY that proposition can be. And.. so.. what if the spouse decides they want the baby? Do they imprison the woman at home until she gives birth, so that she doesn't slip out for an abortion? Does she kill herself rather than have the abuser's baby? Or, if the woman has committed adultery, do you think the spouse should be notified of her abortion?

Chip.. chip.. chip... I hear our rights being chipped away daily by so-called liberals.

[Cleita]

144. Some fathers of fetuses don't care to know. Why would

you inform them? Common sense, it seems, would dictate that most pregnancies would be with the knowledge of both parents.

[m_welby]

146. no, i can't say forcible notification is a good thing.

On the other hand, do not try and tell me that I have less rights to my unborn child than the mother just because she is carrying it. That is just as prejudiced and descriminatory as telling a woman that she has to get permission from her husband.

I would hope that in a good relationship this decision would (and should) be made by both parents. there are many instances where this would be impossible and/or dangerous so obviously it can not be legislated.

personally, I wouldn't last in a relationship with someone if they were unable to share one of the most difficult, painful, and heartbreaking decisions in our life. It would be obvious she didn't trust me and I certainly couldn't trust her, not the best foundation for a relationship or parenthood for that matter.

[SidDithers]

171. But if you want the "unborn child", and the mother doesn't...

her wishes trump yours. Every. Single. Time.

Sid

[m_welby]

172. i see, so i get no say. how bigoted.

It is a decision for her and I to make together, it has nothing to do with you.

In reality, OUR COLLECTIVE NEEDS TRUMP OUR INDIVIDUAL WISHES. Thats what being a couple is all about. You seem to think a couple can't make a choice like this together, that it has to be her choice, thats rather arrogant.

Can a woman make a decision like this on her own? Of course she can.

[Solon]

175. Her body, her choice...

it really is that simple.

[SidDithers]

176. No, I don't think you understand...

so I'll speak slowly. You cannot force a woman to carry to term against her will. If she wants an abortion, she's entitled to one. Period. End of story.

Certainly, couples can and often do make this decision together. But make no mistake, in ALL cases, the right of the woman to control her own body is paramount.

That's not bigotry, that's the right to privacy.

Sid

[mondo joe]

219. Sorry but your collective couple does not own her body.

Unless she chooses to look at it that way.

[hippiegranny]

173. Who here thinks we're talking about people in healthy

relationships.... Raise your hand.

[coda]

148. Well let's make sure all fetuses/miscarriages make the cut.

They're bringing the war to your doorstep and they'll soon be in your home.

Of course criminalizing your failure to report losses of "products of conception" may not feel like war...as long as you comply.

No hint or sniff of an agenda, just talkin' fetuses, common sense, n common courtesy here. :shrug:


---

HB1677, “Report of Fetal Death by mother, penalty”
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?051+sum+HB1677

It sounds preposterous to talk about criminalizing women who suffer miscarriages, but one Virginia legislator is proposing just that. HB1677, “Report of Fetal Death by mother, penalty” is a bill introduced by John A. Cosgrove (R) of Chesapeake. Cosgrove’s bill requires any woman who experiences “fetal death” without a doctor’s assistance to report this to the local law-enforcement agency within twelve hours of the miscarriage. Failure to do so is punishable as a Class 1 Misdemeanor.

Background: Reporting of Fetal Deaths

Almost all states mandate reporting of fetal deaths to vital statistics bureaus. These statistics are then collected nationally by the CDC. In most states, health care providers must provide statistics on fetal deaths after 20 weeks gestation (or at a certain fetal weight approximating 20 weeks gestation). Virginia is one of only 7 states, however, that mandate the reporting of deaths of all “products of conception” regardless of gestational age. This includes both spontaneous losses of pregnancy and induced terminations of pregnancy, though the required data fields are different for abortions.

In Virginia, all losses of pregnancy must be reported by health care providers according to current law. The reality, though, is that countless women experience spontaneous abortions in the first few gestational weeks without even being aware of pregnancy, so not all pregnancies of early gestational age are reported. Women who experience miscarriages at home without a doctor’s care may not even think to inform their doctors, especially if the pregnancy is so early that they have not yet even sought prenatal care. Until this bill, though, no one has suggested it was in the interest of the Commonwealth of Virginia to track down these unreported losses of "products of conception".


The Bill: text
When a fetal death occurs without medical attendance, it shall be the woman's responsibility to report the death to the law-enforcement agency in the jurisdiction of which the delivery occurs within 12 hours after the delivery. A violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

[meg]

154. Of course. She's his property and so is the fetus

as well as the born children. Woman and children are just chattle there for any use the husband thinks suits him.

Oh, I forgot. This isn't the stone age.

[Qanisqineq]

155. WHY THIS IS A BAD IDEA

I can give you a personal example of why this is a bad idea:

When I was 18 I left home the day after graduation and moved in with "the love of my life". We had been dating for nearly a year. My parents hated him and I couldn't understand why because he treated me so well.

Two weeks after moving in was the first time he hit me. Over time it escalated into throwing me against walls, dislocating my shoulder, forcing me to have sex, etc. This wasn't all the time, it happened maybe every 3-4 months so it "wasn't so bad".

Five years later when I was 23, I moved out into my own apartment. Did it on a weekend when he was out of town. Three weeks later had a nervous breakdown and was put in the "hospital" :eyes: for a week. I got out of the hospital, felt like I did need him (as he always said I could never make it on my own) and made the mistake of starting to talk to him again. A couple months later I found out I was pregnant.

There was no way in hell I could have told him. No way in hell. While we were together I got pregnant once and had an abortion. He finally agreed to it after weeks of me crying (I was getting close to 4 months) but said he would not allow me to abort his child if I got pregnant again. And if I wanted to leave, he would take the child because he would claim I was mentally unstable (attempted suicide in high school). If I had told him about the second time, he would have done everything possible to stop the abortion. He would have used the baby as a reason to break me down and convince me to come back to him.

I can't even put into words the extent to which he would have gone to stop the abortion and get me back. Nor the ramifications of him knowing about the abortion. For 4 years he wouldn't leave me alone -- he stopped when I got married and then sent me thousands of dollars worth of receipts for gifts he purchased and wanted me to pay back.

No. Bad idea.

[Hello_Kitty]

183. Oh my god! What a terrible, terrible, thing to go through!

I'm so sorry that happened to you and glad you are no longer in that awful situation :hug:

And it's a textbook perfect example of why women should NEVER be forced to inform a spouse or parent in order to have an abortion. Face it, if it's a healthy relationship then the matter will be discussed. If there's a reason a woman or girl doesn't want to let her husband or relatives know she's a aborting, it's probably a damn good one so LEAVE IT ALONE!!

Why can't people get it through their heads that not everyone lives in a Brady Bunch or Cosby type of family?

[TrogL]

156. None of his damn business

Especially if by rape, incest, casual encounter...

[Generator]

157. Ugh I've never seen you before but now IGNORE

[BeTheChange]

187. Do not say that you are using our ignore feature to block a particular...

member - FYI (From the Rules link at the top of your screen)

[AZBlue]

161. But this would lead us down the path to overturn Roe v. Wade

There's a lot of discussion already in this thread about rape, incest and abusive relationships, so I will let what has been already stated on thos subjects stand.

However, chipping away at the overall right to an abortion is just playing into the neo-con's hands. They want to slowly edge closer and closer to Roe v. Wade until there's nothing left but to just overturn it and then that's gone too. It's part practicality and part mind-game. We CAN'T give in one inch on this issue.

[BattyDem]

179. My body, my choice

Anything less than that makes me property - of a man or of the state.

[patricia92243]

181. Notifying the father of fetus? Why? So he can overrule the woman on the

destiny of her own body? Bah! Humbug!

This is just one step in the old dominance of men over women - I'll go to war in a heartbeat over it.

[Hello_Kitty]

184. Or beat the shit out of her, or threaten to take the kids away etc....

A good friend of mine's ex tried to take her son away from her because of a subsequent abortion she had. He tried to use it as "proof" that she didn't like kids.

[Ilsa]

185. I keep seeing that scene from The Godfather II where Kay

tells Michael that she didn't have a miscarriage. "It was an abortion, Michael. An abortion..." and how he freaks out on her.

[Baconfoot]

188. You don't have to go to war Patrice. WE will look out for your rights.

That way if you ever find yourself in the same situation that more than one woman I'm close to found themselves in, you won't have to do... well let's not even say what you won't have to do - you won't have to do it.

We will look out for your rights.

Don't sweat it.

Rights don't require anyone to acknowledge them.
You've got rights whether you like it or not.

But I will say - it seems you have NO response regarding the rape or incest issue. If you want to be taken well... even casually let alone seriously you should really come up with a response.

The "strong woman" stuff doesn't cut it... well it doesn't cut it in ANY case but you should see that it's not even remotely plausible in cases of rape and incest.

There's nothing "weak" about aborting a fetus created by incest without telling your parent or guardian or spouse.

Dig it?

No?

All I ask is that when you encounter some acquaintance or friend who lands in some situation like this (and the odds are that you will) that you not be too hard on yourself...

and then come work for the good guys: The Democrats
and in particular: The Progressive Democrats

They are never going to compromise on your right to have an abortion even if you, momentarily, can't see that you have one.

[ljm2002]

189. Common sense?????

Should a man who sleeps with a woman other than his wife be required to notify his wife? If you were his wife, wouldn't you want to know? It's only logical, there oughtta be a law!

And what about a husband who spends his paycheck on drinks at the local bar. What's a poor wife to do? Hey, I know: there oughtta be a law!

The thing is this: just how much do you really want the state to be in your personal business? Because that is where laws like this inevitably end up. We can all point to examples where we could say, "if I were the spouse, I'd want to know, I'd want to have some say". But the fact of the matter is, as adults, we get to make our own decisions, as imperfect human beings. Why anyone would assume that the state is a more perfect arbiter of our relationships than we who are in them, I will never understand.

[BlueIris]

192. Didn't think I could be any more offended by the content of DU tonight...

but here's a lower place.

This is obviously a waste of the effort I expend to type it, but: WOMEN HAVE A RIGHT TO MEDICAL PRIVACY JUST LIKE MEN DO NO MATTER WHAT THEIR HEALTH SITUATION IS.

I feel very, very sorry for anyone so ignorant that they don't understand what a fundamental human right and civil liberty is. How does such ignorance continue to exist?

Oh, right, misogyny. And people who don't have the opportunity to get any form of real education.

Sad.

[Warren DeMontague]

194. Fine. See ya later.

Don't let your common sense hit ya on the ass on the way out. I have a Constitution to protect.

[REP]

196. What Color is The Sky Where You Are?

Just asking. Common sense is different where you are from where I am, which is in the real fucking world. You can go notify your abusive husband, your drug-addicted boyfriend, your violent incestuous father, or the stranger who raped you. The rest of us will continue to prefer to be treated like adults. But thanks!

[Nothing Without Hope]

198. Alito is on record for attacking BASIC CIVIL LIBERTIES, not just Roe

And we make a grave mistake if we concentrate our attack solely on his oppostion to Roe v Wade. Many people oppose abortion for a variety of reasons, but of those, a good number will be appalled by Alito's stands on OTHER ISSUES.

See these two threads for more info as well as (in a reply) links to THREE PETITIONS to defeat Alito:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2204776
thread title (10/31): Why Alito? Booman explains: Roe destroyed, Bush’s crimes buried. Petition:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2206263
thread title (10/31): Not just Roe - Think Progress gives ALITO's awful civil rights positions:

And also the insight and advice in this piece at Steve Gilliard's blog:

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2005/11/cry-for-help.html
(posted by gaije, Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 03:28:53 PM PDT)

(snip)

With this nomination, Bush is forcing Republican senators to go on record for or against Roe, as they enter the 2006 campaign season. Two thirds of Americans support Roe v. Wade. The Senate knows that. Any senator who votes for Alito will be saying good-bye to all those votes. Moderate republicans, swing voters, countless previously apathetic voters, will be going Democratic. The Democratic party will be galvanized around a single issue like it hasn't been in years, and its coffers overflowing. For a GOP senator, that's no good, it's no good at all.

Vote against him though, and they'll alienate the religious right. All that reliable fundraising, voter turnout & volunteer manpower down the drain. That's no good either. Apparently, someone forgot to tell Bush he's not supposed to put them in this position (Maybe that was Scooter's job.).

(snip)

Democrats are not going to be able to get behind this one, unless they're looking to retire.] Roberts they had to give a little benefit of the doubt, but this one's just impossible. The nuclear option's not going to fly on this one either. Frist's power is somewhat diminished, thanks to that pesky SEC investigation (so many investigations these days, so hard to keep track!). The GOP rank and file are caught between a rock & a hard, hard place here. They may just be thinking a fillibuster's their best out. How many do you really think are going to be willing to fall on their swords for the least popular (and worst) president ever? Their much vaunted "message discipline," has been slipping away for weeks, as they've realized Bush's ship is sinking, and they'd better jump off well before November 2006.

The thing to do here, is to base our opposition to Alito on everything but his anti-Roe potential. It'll take the GOP by surprise, they'll be all prepared with their "litmus test," talking points, and defenseless in the face of other questions. It also offers them some cover for a no vote.

(snip)

This blog piece ends with a suggested list of NON-ROE topics on which Alito has demonstrated extreme views that need to be publicized. It's much the same list, re-worded, as in the Think Progress list given in the opening post of this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2206263
thread title (10/31): Not just Roe - Think Progress gives ALITO's awful civil rights positions:

Let's research, organize and frame talking points around the many outrageous positions Alito has taken. Then blast them to the media, the public, Congress, and take this to the wall. There are reasons to believe that if we give them an out (i.e., reasons besides Roe v Wade opposition), at least some moderate Republicans will join this fight.

And we must INSIST VEHEMENTLY that ALL the Dems stand against this would-be destroyer of civil liberties.

For example (headings from the Think Progress piece linked to earlier in this post:

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION:
ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION:
ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT:
ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES:
ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS:

And I'm betting that if we dig, we will find many other Alito positions consistent with his extremist, radical GOP views. What does he think of torture? Of the constitutional "right" of the president to declare war (others in Bush's DOJ think that ONLY he can declare war)? Of the right to trial and an attorney despite the Patriot Act? And on and on.

It's NOT just Roe v Wade, and I DO believe we should FIGHT!

[mmonk]

205. I will. And for equal protection under the law, established

civil rights laws, environmental protection, separation of church and state, and anyting else that makes a free, humane, modern and decent country.

[LWolf]

206. What a nice long thread.

It's all about Alito, and not really about reproductive rights, if I read it correctly. It really doesn't do any good to talk about common sense; if the supreme court nominee is the point, then there will be war regardless.

If reproductive rights are the point, there will still be war, because neither "side" allows for anything broader than their narrow interpretation. They are on opposite sides of the same black/white absolutist coin. The life/choice issue isn't that simple. It never has been, it never will be, and it will never be resolved until both sides consent to give up the absolutes and dive into the messy realities.

[Bridget Burke]

208. So--tell us more about the "Absolutists"

Not the "Totally Against Abortion Absolutists"--I know about them.

I'd like to hear more about the Other Absolutists. The ones who want to compel every woman to have an abortion? No--there aren't any! Freedom of Choice seems to be the Absolute; it would protect all women's reproductive lives. What, exactly, should they (we) "give up"?

[LWolf]

214. Ok.

The absolutists who will stick to a woman's right to choose beyond the bearing and the moment of birth.

Those who believe that any woman, no matter how many babies she has already born and neglected, or how unprepared she may be to actually care for the child she chooses to give birth to, may choose to carry a child to term, to keep that child. At least until she has neglected the child long enough to force the child into our dysfunctional foster care system.

Those who believe that a man's choice ends at the point of ejaculation, while the woman's choice continues after orgasm for a lifetime.

I don't have any problem with a woman, finding herself pregnant, considering the options and making a choice. I have an issue with what happens to others when she makes an irresponsible choice. Because that sancrosanct choice doesn't end with her. It impacts other people's lives.

I don't see an absolute that's ok on either side of the reproduction wars. I see that the issue of unplanned pregnancy has more layers, and is more nuanced, than either side wants to deal with. I understand that; I don't want to see any legal or religious control of a woman's body. I do want all PEOPLE to make responsible reproductive choices, men and women both, because irresponsibility in this area has a whole range of negative impacts outside the life of the person choosing. I don't know how to legislate that; I don't know that it should be legislated. I do think it should always be part of the conversation. I don't think you make an issue go away by sweeping it under the rug and pretending that it doesn't exist.

[sallyseven]

216. If the father really cares. Most of the women who

get abortions either have been abandoned or they are battered. Who would want to ask. Besides it is not their business. It is her body.

[Mr. Blonde]

218. I'm a little late to the thread but this might help

There are exceptions to the ruling. They are as follows, "(1) is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her."

So many of the arguements against this ruling brought up in this thread are nullified by the exceptions to the rule. And of course a woman must only prove she told her husband not bring a permission slip. I'm curious how many women who don't fall into one of the exceptions wouldn't discuss the matter with their husband before having an abortion. It would seem like something that would come up.