What principle would justify giving a husband equal rights in a pregnancy?

[BurtWorm]

(Note that Planned Parenthood vs. Casey does not address the *father's* rights, just the "spouse's.")

[Sperk]

1. Got me....does that mean a husband has to get the wife's permission

before he gets a vasectomy? :shrug:

[BurtWorm]

2. Maybe in Scalito's universe.

(But I doubt even he would tolerate that.)

[Spinzonner]

9. There's a Vas Deferens

between those two situations

[zanne]

21. That was good, Spinzonner! nt

[Popol Vuh]

113. Damn that was a good one Spinzonner

:)

[ohio_liberal]

14. Sure, why not?

I had to get a freaking permission slip to get a tubal ligation. We might as well go all out. :(

[Maraya1969]

126. A permission slip from your HUSBAND??? That is outrageous!

[ohio_liberal]

176. Every single one of my friends has had to get one too

I think the doctors are trying to protect themselves from lawsuits by outraged husbands, though none of them have come right out and said it.

[knitter4democracy]

188. Isn't it an Ohio law?

My friend had to get her husband's permission for her hysterectomy in the late sixties due to massive fibroids and bleeding, and she said it was an Ohio law.

[BurtWorm]

189. Do husbands have to get their wife's permission for a vasectomy?

[knitter4democracy]

244. I was asked by the urologist.

It wasn't so much my permission as more that I knew about it. Of course, I went with my hubby to the appointment, so I'm not sure what the doctor was getting at. My midwife had a bigger problem with it than we did for some reason, more worried that we'd made the decision at a bad time (when I was preggers with our second) and that it was permanent.

[ohio_liberal]

198. Maybe in the 60's, but not now

I searched Ohio Revised Code at the time I was asked to have my spouse sign the waiver (5 yrs ago) and there was no law that I could find regarding reproductive rights and spouse notification/permission. There doesn't appear to be anything right now either. It's not just Ohio--this is happening in the Upper Ohio Valley in Ohio and West Virginia. The doctors will not do the procedure without a spouse's consent if you are married. A single woman, now that's no problem, as long as you are of what the doctor considers a reasonable age and already have children.

There are some laws regarding sterilization and what Medicaid will and will not pay, other than that I couldn't find anything.

I forgot to add that my best friend had to drag her husband to the gyno with her. The doctor (a female) wanted to talk to HIM about the procedure.

[knitter4democracy]

243. That's odd, then.

Maybe the doctors are under an incorrect impression or have heard of someone getting sued for doing it without all partners involved in the decision. I wonder why your doctor did that.

[DesEtoiles]

143. O'Connor: A woman does not lose her rights when she gets married

[LostinVA]

169. Or screws another woman and "wastes" his sperm?

[Llewlladdwr]

177. This is already the case.

Or at least it was when I got my vasectomy back in 1988. The Air Force required not only your spouse's consent but that they attend a counseling session with your doctor so that they were aware of what was going on and the possible risks and ramifications of the procedure.

[One_Life_To_Give]

181. Grounds for Divorce I believe

IIRC the inability to father children is enough for a divorce. Purposely preventing ourself from being a father, could be construed as cruel, and malicious.

[tocqueville]

3. 50% of the genes ?

[BurtWorm]

7. 1 minute of the labor?

:eyes:

PS: The "spouse" doesn't necessarily have any genes invested in the pregnancy.

[SoCalDem]

15. Confirmed paternity = 18 yr (at least) of monetary support

[Maraya1969]

127. Good point.

[gollygee]

86. Assuming the husband is the father

otherwise it's 0% of the genes and he still gets a vote?

Sounds like property ownership of the woman's body to me.

[tocqueville]

114. the genes are always there, wherever they come from

my provocation shows that it isn't a genetical issue, but a social
one.

in theory the father "owns" 50% of the fetus. But since sadly in most cases he isn't prepared, able or willing of taking care of the baby when born, the woman should always have a preemptive right to abortion (unless we have a society with TOTAL factual equality between sexes).

This shouldn't be regulated by a judicial intrepretation of a penumbral "right to privacy" depending on whatever judge from whatever president.

it should be a LAW passed in Congress, giving the expression from the majority of Americans that a woman has the right to abort a non viable fetus without motivation. After that period it should be a motivation based on medical or social reasons.

[lostnfound]

161. (Slightly less, actually. Mitochondrial DNA and all that... nt)

[wryter2000]

4. I think that one is going to be their downfall

Everyone has to feel sympathy for parents who don't want their children to have surgery without their knowledge. But this puts a whole nother light on what they're really about. This is too extreme except for the types who terrorized a hospice, for pity's sake.

[sadiesworld]

203. I agree.

Although I don't like the parental notification either b/c it will lead to young girls trying home remedies (or worse) at least it is consistent with the proposition that minors don't have the same rights as adults. Now I guess adult women will have the same restrictions imposed on them as minor girls?

I am fairly moderate on social/cultural issues--at least by DU standards. If this raises MY hackles, you can bet it will not go over well with the overall female population.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

205. I think you mean minors, not minorities?

Or are you making a point about correlation between abortion/gender rights and race?

[sadiesworld]

207. Just misspoke.

Sometimes it really IS that simple.

[Independent thinker]

5. Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act info.

Thought others would like to read the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Section 3209 that is being talked about.

I found it here:

http://www.peopleforlife.org/ctrl_act.html





(a) Spousal notice required. --In order to further the Commonwealth's interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship and to protect a spouse's interests in having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal life of that spouse's child, no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), unless he or she has received a signed statement, which need not be notarized, from the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed, that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion. The statement shall bear a notice that any false statement made therein is punishable be law.

(b) Exceptions. --The statement certifying that the notice required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished where the woman provides the physician a signed statement certifying at least one of the following:

(1) Her spouse is not the father of the child.

(2) Her spouse, after diligent effort, could not be located.

(3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction.

(4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual.

Such statement need not be notarized, but shall bear a notice that any false statements made therein are punishable by law.



Interesting I thought the wife had to get permission from her husband,
and that isn't so. She just has to inform him, unless it's not his
baby or if it is a result of an assault by him or she is afraid he (or someone else) would harm her.

So basicly all she has to do is tell him she is getting an abortion,
now I'm not a woman but I don't see what the big deal is.

[Vickers]

11. The big deal is, there is now a legal record of her intention to have

an abortion, which violates her privacy.

[Independent thinker]

18. She has privacy

They don't keep a record of who had the abortion, just
that she stated she informed her spouse.



Come on people....do some more reading on this so
you don't look dumb!

[Vickers]

22. I didn't say there would be a record of her abortion

but a record of her *intent* to have one.

Now, let's say she doesn't have a baby after all this....what happened? :eyes:

Sorry I'm so dumb. :(

[Maraya1969]

128. I don't think it was so dumb. How do you know the "notice" wouldn't

stay in the medical records? With all the rights we keep losing who is to say the medical records privacy one won't be lost?

[Midlodemocrat]

194. Um. You are not the

'dumb' one in this thread. By any means.

[Beaverhausen]

23. Well that's a nice thing for a new member to say!

I think we know where you are coming from...

[Independent thinker]

29. Just trying to inform

it drives me nutz when people preach about something
they dont know about. They grab a little bit of "info"
from some "source" and go on about it screaming, all
the time looking dumb cause they completely misunderstood
the facts.

If you are going to argue for/against something you
NEED to know what you are talking about.


Hope I'm coming across as informative, not crass

[raccoon]

179. Well, please tell us your sources for the "info" you

posted in another threat, with the message title

"Just say o to Federal healthcare"

[BurtWorm]

85. So if she can lie, why have such a requirement anyway?

And what is the principle justifying it, IT?

[Maraya1969]

129. Are you telling me that Planned Parenthood does not keep any

medical records? I would think they do even though they are not privy to the general public just like other medical records.

[Maraya1969]

135. Not just that she "stated" It has to be in writing.

"except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), unless he or she has received a signed statement, which need not be notarized,"

[LostinVA]

172. *yawn* Go play in your usual playground

What a patronizing low poster.....

[One_Life_To_Give]

227. Record, Would be in her files anyway

Wouldn't the medical facility have records of any visits made?

[Vickers]

234. Medical files are private, legal files are public

Generally speaking.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

40. Yes, massa

what this statute says, basically, is that a woman has no control over her body-she is a man's chattel. Next:


There is no provision for a woman who is in the process of getting a divorce from a jerk and doesn't want to have the child, for one thing. And if you've never been involved in a messy divorce where a woman is trying to get rid of a dead beat husband who she KNOWS won't support another kid, you really don't know what it's like. And don't give me the old saw that men can be compelled to pay support. I know too many scoffers who don't.

[Independent thinker]

52. The woman doesn't have to get consent

She simply has to inform.....so you argument holds no water.

Going through a divorce, wish to abort, simply inform and abort.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

58. Bull

being forced to inform someone of what is being done to YOUR body is demeaning. I would guess that you have never been automatically demeaned and looked down upon because you are female. I am assuming you aren't female and didn't have the pleasure of being told that you had to have a note from your husband before you could do things-but I vividly remember times like that. This law is a step backwards towards being chattel again.

[Independent thinker]

68. Blessed

Im blessed with a great wife who makes up 50% of our relationship
and is just as strong/stubborn as I. Neither of us would consider
telling the other what we had to do...etc.

And I abhorr anyone thinking they have some right or control over
another person.

What I am doing is explaining the act, so that you can discuss/argue
it in an informed manner.

Sadly most of the posters have no idea what the act did/did not state.

READ, be informed!

[BurtWorm]

98. What are these principles based on?

"the Commonwealth's interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship and to protect a spouse's interests in having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal life of that spouse's child"

Where did the authors of the law find these principles discussed? The Constitution of the US makes no mention of marriage or children. Does Pennsylvania's?

[readmoreoften]

197. We've done an excellent job of "discussing" in an "informed manner"

Before your first 19 posts.

If you "abhor anyone thinking they have some right or control over another person" then you will clearly be in opposition to spousal notification.

This is a no-brainer.

[LostinVA]

173. Or have your husband beat you up because he's pissed

you "got" preganant....

[Fleshdancer]

46. and THIS is why it was overturned by the Supreme Court:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=833

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 <505 U.S. 833, 838> 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. 887-898.

______

Does that website that you provide, peopleforlife.org, provide the above explanation for why the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Section 3209 was knocked down by the SCOTUS? Certainly a site called peopleforlife.org would want to inform you of all sides of the issue, right? lol!

[jane_pippin]

49. Is there a law that says a husband has to notify his wife if he intends to

undergo a medical procedure?

It's about power.

[bluedawg12]

151. Not a good analogy- a medical procedure was not a result

of a condition that arose from a combined effort that would produce an off spring.

[jane_pippin]

178. That may well be, but my point is

that a law requiring women to notify their husband of anything is ridiculous and it's totally about power.

Is there a law saying a husband must notify his wife if he has a vasectomy? Sure it's the polite thing to do, but is it a law?

There's never going to be an analogy that gets it just right because men can't have kids. All I'm saying is that what a woman does with her body should be between her and her doctor and that's it unless she decides to tell someone. The government has no business getting between her and her doctor, just like it would have no business getting between a man and his doctor.

[BurtWorm]

190. A combined effort that has a slightly better chance of not producing

offspring, you mean, in most cases.

[sandnsea]

64. Because you're not a woman, duh

Because you will never have to carry a child for 9 months, deliver the child, and be the primary caretaker of that child in most instances. That is the very reason you don't see what the big deal is, because YOU will never have those responsibilities.

[One_Life_To_Give]

239. Because you are not totally dependent

on finding a willing partner to produce your own offspring. You may miss the male point of view as well.

[ieoeja]

73. Because she is an adult.

Consider the following:


(a) Spousal notice required. --In order to further the Commonwealth's interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship and to protect a spouse's interests in having happy homelife, no bartendar shall serve a married man, unless he or she has received a signed statement, which need not be notarized, from the man wishing to imbibe, that he has notified his spouse that he is going to be drinking that day. The statement shall bear a notice that any false statement made therein is punishable be law.


Stupid? Yes. Insulting, demeaning? Yes. Would you be pissed at the state trampling on your rights and telling you what you should or should not do just to satisfy some legislator's ideas of what a good husband should be doing? I hope so. I would hate to think anyone is that much of a sheep.

[Maraya1969]

131. hehehe I like that analogy

[colinmom71]

123. My problem with section (a) Spousal notice required....

Is that it compels a woman to render legally protected private medical info to her spouse under threat of legal action (presumably perjury or fraud counts). This notification clause is in conflict with already established medical privacy rights and laws, which maintain an individual's right to keep their own medical history and/or needs private and personal.

That and it's just tacky for the government to presume to micromanage the marital relationship...

[readmoreoften]

196. If you were a woman, you'd see what the 'big deal' is.

note the bold

(3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction.

How many spousal sexual assaults do you think get reported to the cops?

4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual.

any false statements made therein are punishable by law.

So what if she (a) isn't 100% sure her husband will harm her. If it's 50% unsure, is that enough? Or will she be punished by law if he doesn't harm her. How can the court prove that? or (b) what if her spouse has raped her and she does take it to court, but it can't be *proven* that it's rape-- because it usually can't. Can her husband then countersue for not notifying him? Or will the government sue the raped woman.

This is called UNDUE BURDEN.
This is bullshit.
Women will be beat to death and jailed over this.

[One_Life_To_Give]

224. Hope Husband can Sue!

If one of the express reasons for a given couple agreeing to marry,
was to have a family with offspring. Then the husband should be able to sue for breach of contract, if the wife terminates a pregnancy voluntarily without his concurrence.

[BurtWorm]

225. If the couple agrees to marry for that reason and it's in a contract

they sign, maybe he'd have a case.

Did you have such a clause in your marriage contract?

[One_Life_To_Give]

228. Verbal Contract

The part about having kids was only discussed verbally. Never occured to me that it needed to be in writing. (Although I could probably produce witness(s))

But when a couple make commitments to each other. And one party fullfills their commitmments while the other does not. I would say the contract has been breached. What remedies can be sought are up to a court to decide.

[BurtWorm]

230. If your wife went into the marriage agreeing to have kids

then after marriage had an abortion behind your back, something is wrong with the marriage.

Not yours personally, of course. There's something fucked up about any marriage in which reproduction is not freely consented to on both sides. In such cases, I feel sorry for whatever offspring such a fucked up marriage produces.

[One_Life_To_Give]

231. Settle for Grounds for Divorce

FYI - Mrs.OLTG never had one.

And for the sake of argument. If she had I don't think I would of wanted to raise a family with someone that would do that anyway. But it would ne nice to know that I should stop wasting my time coming home to someone who had such little regard for me.

p.s. I did know someone who was told their spouse had done this.

[BurtWorm]

233. But it's not the law's business to babysit yours or anyone else's marriage

right?

:thumbsup:

[One_Life_To_Give]

242. Gov't has no business with this

This is about two people and their doctor.
I can't, wouldn't argue that a woman should not have final say in the matter. But that does not mean that men do not also have alot at stake in making such decisions. Having and raising children is a principal reason why people marry. Unfortunately it can be inferred from some posts here. That men do not have any place or stake in these decisions.

[Vickers]

6. The principle of "The chick is subservient to the dude" ???

:shrug:

FTR, I do not ascribe to that principle.

Personally, I think that if a guy doesn't give "permission" :eyes: for the girl to have an abortion, he should be given a vasectomy. Turnabout is fair play. :-P

[Independent thinker]

10. It's not about permission....

I thought it was, but did some reading.
She does not have to get permission, just has to
state she informed him.

In no way should she have to get permission......

[Vickers]

17. Yeah, that's why I put it in quotes, and I saw your post above and

replied to it from that tack, too.

[Beaverhausen]

32. Nor should she have to inform him

Why would a woman in a "good" marriage not tell her husband?

It is only in bad/abusive relationships that a woman wouldn't be able to tell her husband. And it is none of our business what her reasons are.

[Independent thinker]

38. bad marriage is covered

b) Exceptions. --The statement certifying that the notice required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished where the woman provides the physician a signed statement certifying at least one of the following:

(1) Her spouse is not the father of the child.

(2) Her spouse, after diligent effort, could not be located.

(3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction.

(4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

44. other kinds of bad marriage

include a man who wouldn't hit, but won't support the spouse or provide any form of support for the child.

[Independent thinker]

51. Family court

would handle that. There are ways to deal with dead beat dads.

And just because the woman informs her husband that doesn't mean
she doesn't still choose to have the abortion.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

122. yeah, right

Look, I was drug through a lot of junk with the county courts and my mother never got a dime. Not a dime. Ever. All I got out of it was an intense fear of policemen.

[Beaverhausen]

45. so a woman has to go to court and prove one of these exceptions?

sorry- that's ridiculous. More government intrusion.

[Independent thinker]

53. These are the Exceptions:

(b) Exceptions. --The statement certifying that the notice required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished where the woman provides the physician a signed statement certifying at least one of the following:

(1) Her spouse is not the father of the child.

(2) Her spouse, after diligent effort, could not be located.

(3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction.

(4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual.

[Beaverhausen]

61. Why do you want women to endanger their health by waiting till they have

...permission from the courts to have an abortion?

Are you even aware that the longer a pregnancy continues the more dangerous the abortion is? Is that what you want for women?

[Independent thinker]

66. Dont need permission

they dont have to seek permission, you really should
read the act you are trying to talk about.

[BurtWorm]

103. Then what is the point of the law?

Hint:

"the Commonwealth's interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship and to protect a spouse's interests in having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal life of that spouse's child"

[Hello_Kitty]

145. Still bullshit

For one thing, why should a woman have to give ANY reason for not telling her spouse if she doesn't want to? And these exceptions require a signed statement (from whom, BTW?) or in the case of spousal rape, a report to law enforcement.

Fuck that shit!!!! :grr: :nuke: :banghead:

[One_Life_To_Give]

229. Control

Why would a woman in a "good" marriage not tell her husband?

To Control and Manipulate her husband.

Abuse can be committed by either spouse.

[Beaverhausen]

232. Then it is NOT a good marriage

if one spouse is controlling or manipulating the other that is not a good marriage - and definitely not one in which to bring children.

[One_Life_To_Give]

235. But not purely a womans concern.

Not that a man should have a "Veto" power over a womans decision. But her decision can have profound effects upon her partners life. And he is entitled to some level of concideration. Which may include whether or not the marriage contract should be maintained or dissolved.

[jane_pippin]

62. No, it's about power. n/t

[TallahasseeGrannie]

8. When they insert the fetus into his body

[beam me up scottie]

16. Ooooo, good one, Grannie!

I've got to remember that one.

:applause:

[Nikki Stone 1]

137. I'll second that

Excellent

[beam me up scottie]

12. I lived in Pennsylvania

during that disgusting chapter of history.

I think I scared the hell out of my then husband when I nearly went postal every time somebody brought that up.:mad:

[BurtWorm]

33. It's such a blatant throwback to pre-Victorian morality.

It represents a worldview in which the wife has no right to privacy.

[Independent thinker]

47. privacy from her husband?

What privacy is required in a married relationship?

If it's a bad relationship where she is afraid for her safety she
DOES NOT have to inform him.

If it isn't his baby she DOES NOT have to inform him.

So what really is the big deal?

If your spouse was going to have a surgical procedure wouldn't you
want to know?

Let's admit it, most people are bringing this up because it's
something they think can be used against Alito. And I have to say
it won't work.

Find something of substance, this isn't of substance.

BUT if you wish to argue this cause still PLEASE read the act
and know what you are talking about!

: -)

[BurtWorm]

70. Is marriage an end of privacy?

Are you entitled to know everything about your spouse? Is your spouse entitled to know everything about you?

[jane_pippin]

79. Why should there be a law saying I have to tell my husband anything?

Are there laws that say he has to tell me information about what he does with his body?

Yes, ideally a man and woman would sit down together, have a little chat, and decide together. You've mentioned the provisions for women in "special circumstances." Fine.

Except here's the thing:
You wouldn't need those provisions if this law didn't exist in the first place because women would be making their own decisions without government involvement. But of course that would imply women are capable of making their own decisions, and we can't have that can we.

I guess I just have a really big problem with the government telling me I am REQUIRED to tell anybody other than my doctors about my medical decisions. Call me crazy.

[ljm2002]

82. "Privacy from her husband?"

See, here's the point: it isn't up to you, or to me, or more specifically the state, to decide for any person or for any couple what their relationship is like, or whether the wife *should* or *should not* feel comfortable letting her husband know about intimate issues. You, apparently have no problem with this because the law carefully lays out *some* possible reasons why a woman might not want to notify her husband. So of course it would be okay with you if the husband was required to notify his wife of a vasectomy, or if he had one reversed? Interesting, isn't it, how you just *never* run across laws requiring husbands to get permission from their wives for anything...

And as to your point about "if your spouse was going to have a surgical procedure, wouldn't you want to know?" Well of course pretty much everyone will answer yes to that question. The question at hand, however, is whether we want the state to *mandate* it. And to that I would say a hearty "Not only no, but Hell No!"

You really need to think about the broader implications before spouting off. Just trying to help you out here, so's y'all don't go and make yerself look dumb or nothin'...

[Iris]

221. "if your spouse was going to have a surgical procedure, wouldn't you want

want to know"

The question here is whether or not your spouse WANTS YOU to know.

Sure, it seems extreme, but the fact is, privacy is a basic human right and even within a marriage, individuals have the right to make their own decisions about their bodies and what they wish to keep private.

[ljm2002]

245. I think you missed my point...

...which was that while most of us would answer yes to the question, the state has no business getting into it at all.

And of course I agree with you, that it is still up to each of us as individuals whether we want anyone else to know, including our spouse. In an ideal relationship, I'd expect that a wife or a husband would want their spouse to know. But so what? It's not up to me, or you, or anyone else -- and least of all the state -- to mandate that any husband or wife *must* want their spouse to know about anything at all. That is between them. And the state is the very worst choice for such matters.

Guess I wasn't very clear. This is a very emotional topic for many of us and things like that are one reason the rabid right is so good at exploiting it -- lots of sound and fury, not so much light, easy to appeal to the gut feelings.

[Sperk]

90. whaaaa?????????????? if it's a bad relationship she doesn't have to tell

him? if it's not his baby she doesn't have to tell him????? it's not about permission?????? what is the point???? any woman can just say it's a bad relationship or it's not her husbands??? WTF??? why should a person have to tell a medical provider or anyone else for that matter that a pregnancy is a result of sex with someone other than her husband???

does my husband have to tell me about any procedure he has????

[1monster]

117. Yes, privacy is necessary within a marriage.

Marriage is a sharing. The sharing needs to be voluntary. If it is enforced, then it is worthless.

I don't share everything with my husband, and I'm sure he doesn't share everything with me. My mind is my own and so is my body. His mind and body belong to him. And I wouldn't want it any other way.

And if a woman plans to have an abortion, but has not told her husband, then her reasons are her own and not the state's or anyone else she chooses not to tell. I'm sure that she has valid reasons.

[Bouncy Ball]

133. What privacy is required in a married relationship, you ask?

In a trusting relationship, you grant each other the right to privacy.

Just because I'm married doesn't mean I gave up all privacy. Neither did he.

I don't open mail addressed only to him. He doesn't open mail addressed only to me.

I don't look in his wallet, he doesn't look in my purse. If one of us closes a door for privacy, that is respected.

How about this? Years and years ago, my father in law decided he wanted a vasectomy. My mother in law wasn't so sure. She wanted a third child. He most definitely did NOT. They argued for a year over it. Finally he went and had it done. It was still his body, right?

Did he have the right to do that? Certainly. Extend the implications of that.

[lukasahero]

187. Excellent points, Bouncy.

The mail thing is especially apt but the wallet/purse thing is a real personal analogy that I'm sure almost everyone can relate to. Excellent.

[kestrel91316]

149. Women retain their status as autonomous human beings

even after marriage. They have an absolute right to privacy. They do not lose this right upon marriage (though if we could guarantee that the husband also lost all right to privacy upon marriage then we might have some jumping-off point for discussion).

Ownership of women has gone the way of dinosaurs. It ain't comin' back.

[Warren DeMontague]

155. Bullshit, it "won't work"

Tell 150 Million American Women that they're not capable of deciding ON THEIR OWN whether or not something like abortion can or should be discussed with their "spouse"... I'm not saying I'd like to be in a marriage where my wife wouldn't talk to me about something like that, but I sure as hell don't think it's the purview of GOVERNMENT.

What is the big deal? Who is going to be in charge of this vast apparatus for making sure women "inform" their husbands? Who is going to enforce it? With whose tax dollars? Mine? Fuck that noise- my tax dollars are FAR too busy paying for bullshit lie-based wars abroad, and making sure cancer ridden grannies aren't easing their chemo nausea by smoking pot. Maybe YOU'VE got enough cash in the bank that you don't mind financing a federal bureau of FORCING WOMEN TO TALK TO THEIR HUSBANDS about a PERSONAL CHOICE, bub, but I sure as fuck don't. And, okay, 'if she's afraid for her safety' or 'if it isn't his baby'-- um, who is going to verify that? The same judges who won't grant hearings to underage girls under parental notification statutes?

The BIG DEAL is, you've got a guy here who believes that it is the GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS what married couples -adults- talk about, what they do with their own bodies, what they do with their own reproductive systems.

Alito has a paternalistic attitude towards women and their bodies which essentially harkens back to the days when wives were the property of their husbands. You think women won't mind... I would advise you to get away from your buggy and your butter churn more often.

[lukasahero]

185. Nice rant! Thanks for this.

:yourock:

[beam me up scottie]

63. Tell that to the ignoramuses that think they jointly own a wife's womb.

I don't remember signing over joint custody of my body.

[dbonds]

13. The case stated 'Notification' not 'Consent'

On Edit:
And it had an allowance for if the woman thought the child belonged to someone else.

[beam me up scottie]

26. So forcing women to notify their husbands is okie dokie with you?

As long as there's an allowance for the sluts that slept around, of course.
:sarcasm:

[dbonds]

35. I didn't say it was okay. Just what the case stated.

While in my opinion, if the pregnancy is between the husband and wife, I think the wife should talk to the husband about it. I do not think their should be law requiring that. Just a personal morals thing. I can see times when it would not be wise to have to tell the spouse.

[Beaverhausen]

39. and in a good marriage they do talk about it

geez- why wouldn't they?

And if the wife for whatever reason fears telling her husband she is pregnant and doesn't want to have the baby there is probably a very good reason - and the reason is none of the government's business.

[verse18]

19. "It Takes Two to Tango"

[Bunny]

124. Well, when "two" can both be pregnant, and carry the fetus for

nine months, then go through labor and delivery, then you may have a point.

Well, no you wouldn't have a point, but you get the picture.

[cally]

20. The key issue is what the law should require and

an I would do in my personal life. In an ideal relationship, then I believe the choice to have children should be a joint decision. The woman does bear the health consequence of pregnancy and childbirth so her decision should have more weight. The reality is that all relationships are not ideal. I don't believe laws should require notification or consent.

[Ravenseye]

24. Welll

I'm just trying to think of circumstances when a woman shouldn't be able to do whatever she wants....it's hard...

What if the woman is pregnant, and either has a brain tumor that causes her to not be sane anymore...i'm talking cat lady BRAGGLE BRAGGLE type nuts...Would power of attorney give the father the right to not allow the insane woman to abort the child? What if she was just highly depressed. She had a chemical disorder causing her to be hatefull towards the fetus?

I know...extreme cases that probably would never happen. I just don't like laws that dont' provide loopholes or address for all possible circumstances.

At the same time you have to protect the woman who is fleeing an abusive spouse, etc.

Tough question. Makes me think that it'd be best to have a family courts judge have to determine whether notification is necessary.

I don't know though.

[kestrel91316]

152. You think a woman with a brain tumor should be forced to bear a child

against her wishes? If she is truly non compos mentis, then they can get medical and legal power of attorney and then she can't legally consent to care - those decisions are made for her by others. But that requires a competency evaluation or legal proceedings.

NO FORCED PREGNANCY. EVER.

[Ravenseye]

174. That's not what I said

I'm just trying to come up with reasons against paternal notification, like possible exceptions. As I said in my post, it's hard to imagine a possible loophole, but if we don't take the time to think about it, then it's sort of mentally lazy don't you think?

[DBoon]

25. and where in the constitution is this principle found?

Answer me, strict constructionists!

[Vickers]

30. Excellent point, lol!

Minutemen fan?

Edit: d'oh! Just saw your icon thingie. :spank:

[hughee99]

120. Wouldn't a strict constructionist support this?

The state passed this law and it got challenged in court. The court sided with the state legislature NOT that this should be a law, but that the state has the right to pass this law, or that it is not the federal government's place to intervene. The state would also have the right to revoke this law at any time. During the Texas sodomy case, the "strict constructionists" position wasn't that there should be a law against sodomy, just that the federal government didn't have the right to tell a state that they couldn't pass a law against it. The strict constructionists would point to the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights on this, I would imagine. My 2 cents, anyway.

[CottonBear]

27. Mandatory chemical castration of men until a women want to reproduce.

In other words, the woman would have total control over her reproductive status.

[prolesunited]

28. They don't and never should

In an ideal world, a couple would make any decisions jointly.

However, carrying a fetus to term and delivery puts a women's life at risk. It should be up to her and her doctor what she wants to do.

No one should force a woman to risk death or any other life-altering condition against her will. And some of these effects aren't even felt to later. For example, women who get high blood pressure during pregnancy, but it goes away following delivery, are much more likely to develop high blood pressure later in life.

[Independent thinker]

34. Consent of spouse IS NOT REQUIRED

All she has to do is state she informed her husband, AND there are
several clauses for when she doesn't have to inform him.

Go up a few posts and read the actual act we are talking about.

[crispini]

43. All she has to do is sign a scary legal document...

that states she informed her spouse, and lying on that document is PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Most honorable women are going to fear signing a document that is a lie. So this law, effectively, the same thing as forcing her to tell her husband.

Forcing her to tell her husband, in some marriages, may very well mean that she will be emotionally abused or browbeaten into having that child.

Charming.

[BurtWorm]

80. The clause was shot down by the USSC, IT.

So it's a moot point. Except that the new nominee to the court thought it was a cool idea.

[WindRavenX]

159. Go read "A Doll's House"

Then maybe you'll sing a different tune :eyes:

[spindrifter]

31. Goes back to several Old Testament

principles--women as property, children as property necessary to work the land, slavery. Hopefully, SCOTUS won't forget the high price humanity has paid to uphold these principles.

[Independent thinker]

36. Do husband's have any rights?

If you read the act the husband is supposed to be informed, except for certain circumstances, that's it.

Is that too much? Should the husband have no rights?

What say you?

[Beaverhausen]

54. If the husband doesn't know his wife if pregnant there must be a problem

...with the marriage. It is not up to anyone else to butt into their relationship and make her "prove" anything.

[beam me up scottie]

56. No.

None.

[spindrifter]

57. Go back and read the question--

that is what my answer is directed to. I said nothing in my post about whether the husband should or should not be informed. And yes, I do not believe the husband owns either the wife or the child--born or unborn. Have a nice day.

[sandnsea]

69. He has the right to trust and respect his wife

And if he can't muster up enough trust and respect to comprehend that she has the right to make decisions about pregnancy, then FUCK HIM.

[Sperk]

94. if the husband gets another woman pregnant should it be a law that he

notify his wife???

[BurtWorm]

111. Are you ever going to answer the question of where the right to know

if your wife is pregnant would come from in the Constitution? Could you please just answer that question, whether you agree with the law or not?

[Maraya1969]

147. NO the husband has no rights to MY uterus just like the state has

no rights to it. If I had to tell my batshit crazy husband that I was pregnant and was not going through with it all Hell would have broken out. I am certain the would want me to have the child because he was such a control freakazoid.

And that is why we are divorced.

[kestrel91316]

154. The husband has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to force his wife to bear

a child against her wishes. It is no different than rape, AFAIAC.

[porphyrian]

37. What's equal in a pregnancy?

Until men can just as easily carry the baby as women, I'm not sure that it can ever be truly equal. That said, I do feel that the husband should have some iota of a say as the sperm donor and, presumably, the person who takes care of the things the wife cannot during the times before and after childbirth. However, I'm not convinced this is a decision to be made by the legislature, either. Every married couple's situation is unique, and they should come to their own consensus and agreement about how to handle pregnancy. This doesn't really answer your question, though.

If the wife were mentally incapacitated in such a way that she could not be expected to make a decision on her own, such as being severely schizophrenic or in a coma, then maybe the husband should have an equal say as to what direction the pregnancy should go. Other than that, it's the ultimately the woman's body and her decision.

[ComerPerro]

41. Tricky situation. This cannot be legislated properly

I imagine situations like this are sticky becuase, ideally, the situation should never come up.

If the husband/boyfriend/father/whatever is around and is involved and within the law, then there isn't any reason why the wife/girlfriend/mother/whatever should let him know about her decision.

And in those cases, there shouldn't be a need to require consent, because the couple will have talked it over anyway.

But if the husband/boyfriend/father/whatever is abusive, a deadbeat, or just flat-out gone, then its irrelevant what he thinks. He has made his position clear by his actions. He doesn't care one way or the other, and there is therefore no reason for him to get involved.

Of course, there is always a potential for a situation where a woman who is involved in a relationship with a man who is within the law and is an active participant in her life might go through the procedure without telling him.

But, I doubt this is very common. And, women like this would just lie anyway, and say that they have no husband.

I know it seems like I'm talking in circles. But I think the position I've arrived at is:

There is no reason why a woman shouldn't have the father involved in her decision as long as he is involved and is within the law.

However, requiring notification of the father is not only uninforcable, but it also opens up worlds of trouble and invites the potential for even further complications.

[Nikki Stone 1]

42. In reality, most women discuss pregnancy options with their husbands,

boyfriends, partners. There are some cases, though, in which women cannot notify a spouse without severe repercussions. For example, in some cases, notifying an abusive spouse effectively takes any choice away from the woman or leads to further abuse. This is why legally requiring notification is problematic.

In most cases, notification is a normal event. But to legally require it can be a problem. That is why notification should not be a law.

[Independent thinker]

55. notifcation has exceptions

Please people, read and be informed about this act.


(b) Exceptions. --The statement certifying that the notice required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished where the woman provides the physician a signed statement certifying at least one of the following:

(1) Her spouse is not the father of the child.

(2) Her spouse, after diligent effort, could not be located.

(3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction.

(4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual.

[Beaverhausen]

67. please be informed about reality and what life is like in the real world

Then come back and have this discussion.

[Nikki Stone 1]

72. Amen. Thanks for this.

...

[Nikki Stone 1]

71. I've read the act, dear heart. Why don't you read the SC decision?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=833

[Independent thinker]

83. Not arguing for or against the act

I've been trying to inform others about the act.

95% of the people are making statements that are false about the act.
I agree with the SC's ruling on the act, I just want others to be able
to discuss/argue about it in an informed manner.

Otherwise they accomplish nothing but look dumb.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

118. Thank goodness you are here to "inform" all of us

[chimpymustgo]

81. A woman shouldn't HAVE to notify a DAMN SOUL what she plans to do

with her own body.

Simple as that. Ideal world, we hope for maximum communication and support.

But WHERE in the Constitution is a woman REQUIRED to notify and husband, father, friend what she plans to do with her body.

THAT is legislating from the bench.

[calmblueocean]

84. Seriously, think about what you're saying.

You've been plastering these "exceptions" up and down the thread like they actually mean something.

So if the man sexually assaults his wife, and his wife HASN'T reported it -- perhaps because, I dunno, she's afraid of him? Afraid of losing her kids, or her job, or the respect of her family, which she knows could happen if her angry husband finds out and wants to hurt her -- she's legally *forced* to notify him? A man doesn't have to "bodily injure" you to be a threat. Jesus.

I don't think you've spent 5 minutes imagining what this law would've meant to real women.

[Beaverhausen]

91. exactly- very well said

:yourock:

[Independent thinker]

92. Finally someone with a brain

If you read my post you know I'm simply trying to inform others
what the act does/does not say, and that I agree witht the courts
overturning it.

I strongly agree that there are other dangers then "the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual" to worry about. And if I was a woman reason enough to NOT inform the husband.

But you do need to KNOW the act in order to make a statement like you did.


Bravo for you.

[chimpymustgo]

100. And it ain't you. Where is spousal notification in the Constitution?

Whenever you can...

[coda]

115. He said that he agreed with it being overturned. nt

[CTyankee]

102. Earth to Independent Thinker

You've posted this a number of times, already. What many are questioning here is why is this a matter for the government to get involved in? Where is the constitutional basis for it? Is it up to the government to enforce marital communications? Where is THAT written? We may all agree that communication between husband and wife is a good thing, but THAT IS NOT THE POINT. Sheesh, what exactly IS your point?

[JerseygirlCT]

184. So?

It's still HER BODY. No one but her will have to carry that pregnancy. No one but her has a say in whether that happens.

If her husband and she have a good relationship, I cannot imagine why she wouldn't include him in her decision. But by what twisted logic should the government involve themselves in that discussion and decision? Legislate what husbands and wives discuss? Will we begin to legislate how they decide to balance the checkbook next?

This is a privacy issue, and a speech issue.

[BurtWorm]

75. Of course.

It's another instance of conservative jurisprudence attempting to instruct people how to be married.

In other instances, compelling a woman to notify her husband is as good as making her wear a scarlet A.

[Orrex]

48. Does he bear equal responsibility of supporting the child post-birth?

If so, then it seems that he's entitled to at least some rights during gestation.

Someone in this thread cited the man's "one minute of labor" as an argument that his level of involvement in the pregancy is much lower than the woman's. Well, that's hard to refute, except to say that the woman's conscious role in the conception isn't much greater than the man's.

If the man can be held under obligation once the child is born, then I can't see why he should have no say during the preganancy itself.

Critics will assert that unscrupulous males will cry "abort the thing" and have done with it. I expect that this would indeed occur in some cases. But what if the father does want the child, while the woman does not?

Does the woman's right to speak on behalf of the fetus (one way or the other) absolutely trump the man's rights?


I'm not making any concrete claims here--just offering a few more points for consideration.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

78. I know from personal experience

that it is easy for a man to get away with NEVER paying child support, and to figuratively thumb their nose at the mother of his children.

[Orrex]

96. Well, such assholes should be forced to pay, obviously.

But what about the fathers who aren't assholes? Surely there must be one or two out there?

Does every father forfeit his rights re: the child from the moment of orgasm to the moment the cord is cut?

[BurtWorm]

110. Okay, but what Constitutional principle would justify a man having any

rights over a woman's pregnancy? Conservatives are fond of claiming the Constitution says nothing about a right to privacy. How would they construct a constitutional right to know if one's wife has an abortion or not?

[Orrex]

125. Here's a suggestion, as devil's advocate

Does the man have no right to privacy analogous to that of the woman? Might it be argued, for example, that the analysis of his DNA is a violation of his privacy if done solely on the basis of the woman's say-so? Why does her claim trump his rights in that case? Does he have any recourse? I know that some have asserted that forfeiture of one's DNA does not constitute a violation of privacy (e.g., we shed DNA in skin and hair all day long), but if courts are now hearing cases on the Constitutionality of DNA-typing all criminal suspects upon arrest, might they also question the DNA-typing of a non-criminal on the basis of another's testimony?

Or let's take another route: Due process and search-and-seizure. If the man contests the mother's claim, is a court order required in order to force a DNA test? What if the order is denied? What other evidence might a woman bring to bear?

Outside of right-to-privacy, does the Constitution give the pregnant woman any rights over the child inside her? Can a father not enjoy similar rights, so that if she wishes to abort it and he does not, his wish is not ignored outright? Let's avoid "implant the fetus in him" and other sci-fi suggestions for the moment. If the man is held responsible for support and if the man contributed 50% of the child's genes, why should he have no rights except those granted by the woman's whim?

Note to potential flamethrowers: I'm offering these suggestions as "what if" statements, rather than as my own convictions. I'm concerned that it's of questionable logic to place all of the eggs in the woman's basket, so to speak, while simultaneously requiring the full support of the man, with or without his consent.

[BurtWorm]

191. I'd say a woman would have to show probable cause

why a particular man's DNA might match her child's; in which case, she has a right to a test, because fathers are obligated by law to support their children. But a man should have a right to maintain his genetic privacy, if you will, until she proves probable cause. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I just play at being a legal expert on DU. ;) )

But this is not at all the same as a woman's right to privacy over her reproductive system, even within her marriage. Recall that the law the SC shot down concerned notification of the husband, not the father. Is this just because the law presumes a naive "the husband is the father" stance? I doubt it. In "The Third Chimpanzee," Jared Diamond discusses the cruel lengths laws and customs around the world go to to protect a husband's ostensible right to ensure his paternity of his wife's children. These include infibulation (the sewing of a wife's labia after intercourse) and clitorectomy (designed to reduce a woman's sexual pleasure and ostensibly her desire). I think this notification law is a relic of that tradition of the law that makes a wife's ovaries the presumed property of the husband, that makes the husband's genetic endowment central to the question of offspring in a marriage because without DNA testing, his endowment is always less sure than hers.

But is there a constitutional reason why marriage should be presumed, as it is in cultures that promote infibulation and clitorectomy, to be for the promotion of a man's (oh, and a woman's) genetic endowment? I can't see one. Can you? Or anyone?

[RB TexLa]

134. Under current law he and the fetus have rights

They both end at the moment the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy. Under the law an "unborn child" can inherit property, can be part of a lawsuit, is protected under many safety laws. A father can call the police on a pregnant wife who is abusing drugs or otherwise creating a safety issue for the fetus. But the rights to control and regulate one's own body freely granted in Roe v. Henry Wade ends all of these the moment a woman choses termination as no one but her has a say in what happens to her body. Abortion law is very difficult but the right of one to control their own body is and should be absolute. I should not have to notify anyone of anything I want done to me medically and neither should anyone else. I think if the "inform your spouse" law were not to have been overturned I have a good idea what changes would be made to it soon after. Some of my worries


edited to fix link, first one posted

[kestrel91316]

156. NO MAN ever has any right to force a woman to bear a child against

her wishes. EVER.

[MindPilot]

50. mandatory vasectomies for all boys at age twelve

Then after age 25, he has passed the four-year college level parenting course, been cleared by a panel of lawyers and psychologists, been married for five years, and swears out an affidavit that he is without a doubt ready and willing to be a father, the procedure can be reversed.

[Karenina]

59. Good one!

:thumbsup:

[beam me up scottie]

60. Sounds fair.

:evilgrin:

[Orrex]

65. Tubal ligations for girls at age twelve then too, I suppose?

[MindPilot]

104. Of course! But only if the father (or older brother) is notified.

Or in lieu of the father, a judge, male guidance counselor or a female basketball coach may grant consent. :)

I'm kidding of course, but the real bottom line here is that we need to take a whole different tack on the issue of reproductive rights. This is a bigger issue than just "a woman's right to choose..." We need to get government out from between doctors and patients, period. We need the government and the church out of our sex lives. We need better birth control. Why is there not a pill for men? Why are there not vaccinations to prevent STDs? Why are the courts and the legislators not REQUIRING pharmaceutical companies to develop them?
We need to grow up, get beyond sophomoric giggling about sex, and teach kids something more useful than "don't". Too many people become parents when they are not ready, and the ONLY way out of that is education.

Any discussion of reproductive rights always degenerates into another "asshole daddy doesn't pay child support" vs "ignorant slut got herself knocked up" battle in the gender wars. It ain't productive.

[Alcibiades]

77. Good way to keep the birthrate down

and a pretty massive intrusion into people's privacy. The parenting course should start in kindergarten, and last 13 years.

If they had psychological testing for fathers, half of us wouldn't be here. I know I wouldn't.

Could we please test the mothers, too? My mother's pretty damn crazy!

[Orrex]

182. This point is probably past, but it just occurred to me

Consider:

One male can, in theory, impregnate numerous females in a single day, so that a male might sire, say, 90 offspring per month.

But a single female can, at maximum, deliver only a handful of offspring per year (assuming multiple births and minimal gestation times).

If the goal is to keep down the birthrate, vasectomies are a low-efficiency way to do it.

But if the goal is to use a vasectomy to prevent a particluar male from impregnating anyone, then it would probably work, sure.

As you observe, though, it's a massive intrusion.

[Nikki Stone 1]

87. Reversing vasectomies is painful. Or so I am told.

...

[MindPilot]

99. It's a win-win situation.

He avoids not only the pain of the surgery, but also the pain of writing that support check for the kid he never wanted.

[purji]

168. so is having a baby n/t

[Independent thinker]

74. Does anyone actually want to know the truth

about the Pennsylvania abortion act section 3209? I've been tryin to
inform posters about the act but they are trying to argue against it,
and about 95% of the time they no nothing about the act.

If you are going to argue a point, make sure you know the truth so
you can argue intelligently.

Full text is available here: http://www.peopleforlife.org/ctrl_act.html

And here is the section most are trying to argue about, and are making
incorrect assumptions what it states.


3209. Spousal notice.

(a) Spousal notice required. --In order to further the Commonwealth's interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship and to protect a spouse's interests in having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal life of that spouse's child, no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), unless he or she has received a signed statement, which need not be notarized, from the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed, that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion. The statement shall bear a notice that any false statement made therein is punishable be law.

(b) Exceptions. --The statement certifying that the notice required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished where the woman provides the physician a signed statement certifying at least one of the following:

(1) Her spouse is not the father of the child.

(2) Her spouse, after diligent effort, could not be located.

(3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction.

(4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual.

Such statement need not be notarized, but shall bear a notice that any false statements made therein are punishable by law.

[Alcibiades]

89. What a shitty law

"which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction."

So what if her dad raped her and she's a minor? This happened in my family.

This would make for shitty law. Thanks for letting us know about it! Now all the folks in PA can get to work contacting their representatives (this means you!)

[Nikki Stone 1]

95. Exactly. If you are abused, raped, etc. and DON'T report it, you cannot

claim any exemption and have to inform your spouse.

[Nikki Stone 1]

93. Do you? (Have your read the SC opinion yet?)

We've read your posts, hon. These same arguments were made when this thing came out.

Essentially, dear heart, the problem is that in certain cases, notification is an undue burden. (The undue burden test has guided Supreme Court decisions about Roe v. Wade). Read the SC decision. I'll provide the link again if you lost it.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=833

[chimpymustgo]

97. Where is this in the CONSTITUTION? Spousal notification?

Eh?

[Nederland]

238. You sound like a Republican

90% of what government does these days isn't in the Constitution and personally I wouldn't want to see us scaled back to the 1920's.

[Lars39]

105. It reads like the woman is in frickin' grade school.

There is no way in hell I'd sign it.

[coda]

106. Exceptions noted

But the first three lines are what's relevant here.

3209. Spousal notice.

(a) Spousal notice required. --In order to further the Commonwealth's interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship and to protect a spouse's interests in having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal life of that spouse's child....


Maybe the Commonwealth should just focus on promoting its own integrity and allow an adult woman to decide what best promotes the integrity of her marriage in re: to disclosures of her medical decisions.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

119. It's so clear that you are correct that

in your own mind, everyone else is dum, or doesn't want to know the truth, or has no brain.

Sometimes it isn't the exact letter of a law, sometimes you have to be a part of the group it applies to in order to understand what it means. What it connotes, how it feels, how it demeans etc to have to do anything at all in the way of consulting a spouse about your own body.

[Midlodemocrat]

195. Why are you defending this law so vigorously?

Would you be arguing the same if the law required a man to 'notify' his spouse if he had a vasectomy? I had a friend who had one without his wife's knowledge. She was pretty upset; she wanted more kids.

This law is just as absurd as the man who defended it. No one, no one has the right to order me to tell ANYONE about a medical procedure.


Next thing you know, they will have women keeping track of their menstrual periods.

[woo me with science]

209. how does stating the FACTS of the law

when people are misrepresenting it right and left on these boards, equal defending it?

I am opposed to it too, but I sure prefer to know the actual law rather than rely on the silly rumors flying around DU. There are posts standing now with TITLES stating that the law requires the husband's consent. This is simply not the case.

[Midlodemocrat]

212. First of all,

I wasn't responding to you.

Secondly, the contemptuous tone of the poster to whom I was responding makes me think he is indeed defending this law.

It IS possible to state the facts without such a condescending tone.

And the 'silly rumors' that you refer to are people taking this reprehensible law to the next level. No one should have the ability to dictate my right to medical care. No one. I should not have to inform ANYONE, if I choose not to.

[woo me with science]

213. LOL....This is a public message board.

I am allowed to reply to anyone, last time I checked. You can be as incensed about someone else's opinion (or "tone") as you like, but the placement of your angry response was unfortunate, IMO. I would argue that it is useful to have the actual facts of the law at hand when having a discussion about it. Your response made it look as though you resented someone's actually posting that information.

[BurtWorm]

214. LOL indeed.

:eyes:

(You really think the poster she was responding to was on a mission to inform people?)

[Midlodemocrat]

217. Ha.

Thanks, BW!

You are dead on with that post.

:thumbsup:

[woo me with science]

220. Does it matter here?

The post gave important information. Sorely needed information, judging by some of the misinformation flying around DU with respect to this case. Choosing to attack in response to *this* post was bad form, IMO, unless you want to look like you are so blind in your argument that you are hostile to facts. It is sad to me when people get so rabid in their opposition to particular people or ideas, that they can't even accept basic, factual information when it comes from them.

[BurtWorm]

222. antfarm, with all due respect, we've covered that ground already.

The SC saw through the same smokescreen you and IT can't see through. Which is why they ruled this law unconstitutional.

[Midlodemocrat]

216. LOL. What are you smoking?

I don't resent someone posting information I already know. I can read.

His tone was and is contemptuous. He is new to this board and people don't like being talked down to in that manner, especially by someone they don't know.

And, because it is a public message, of which I am a member, I am entitled to challenge someone on the rude manner in which they post to people I have come to like and respect, like the OP.

Posting information is fine, but insinuating that people are stupid, isn't. By any stretch.

[Hollow Shells]

200. If the Husband/Father is against it, he can have the government

punish the Mother by saying that he did not know, even if he did. It turns the abortion into a he said/she said scenario, with the Mother baring all the burden.

[woo me with science]

208. thank you.

this has been driving me nuts, the rumors flying around.

[Beaverhausen]

215. well now that you are in this thread too, I ask again...

...as someone also asked above...Why pass the law when there are so many exceptions? It would be useless. The state can't legislate good marriages, just like it can't legislate good parent/child relationships which is why I also don't support parental notification of abortions for minors.

You seem to be defending this law when in fact the only person who likes it is Alito.

[ieoeja]

76. Mental Incompetence?

Hooked up on life support?

[gollygee]

88. Property ownership

the woman is the man's property. He owns her body, including her uterus, and anything growing in it, whether his genetic material went into its creation or not.

[beam me up scottie]

109. Bingo.

No matter how much whining they do about trust and husband's rights and blah blah blah, it's all about ownership.

[ErisFiveFingers]

121. USSC on overturning 3209...

----
In keeping with our rejection of the common law understanding of a woman's role within the family, the Court held in Danforth that the Constitution does not permit a State to require a married woman to obtain her husband's consent before undergoing an abortion. 428 U.S., at 69 . The principles that guided the Court in Danforth should be our guides today. For the great many women who are victims of abuse inflicted by their husbands, or whose children are the victims of such abuse, a spousal notice requirement enables the husband to wield an effective veto over his wife's decision. Whether the prospect of notification itself deters such women from seeking abortions, or whether the husband, through physical force or psychological pressure or economic coercion, prevents his wife from obtaining an abortion until it is too late, the notice requirement will often be tantamount to the veto found unconstitutional in Danforth. The women most affected by this law - those who most reasonably fear the consequences of notifying their husbands that they are pregnant - are in the gravest danger. <505 U.S. 833, 898>

The husband's interest in the life of the child his wife is carrying does not permit the State to empower him with this troubling degree of authority over his wife. The contrary view leads to consequences reminiscent of the common law. A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices. If a husband's interest in the potential life of the child outweighs a wife's liberty, the State could require a married woman to notify her husband before she uses a post-fertilization contraceptive. Perhaps next in line would be a statute requiring pregnant married women to notify their husbands before engaging in conduct causing risks to the fetus. After all, if the husband's interest in the fetus' safety is a sufficient predicate for state regulation, the State could reasonably conclude that pregnant wives should notify their husbands before drinking alcohol or smoking. Perhaps married women should notify their husbands before using contraceptives or before undergoing any type of surgery that may have complications affecting the husband's interest in his wife's reproductive organs. And if a husband's interest justifies notice in any of these cases, one might reasonably argue that it justifies exactly what the Danforth Court held it did not justify - a requirement of the husband's consent as well. A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.

Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry. The Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of governmental power, even where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the individual's family. These considerations confirm our conclusion that 3209 is invalid. <505 U.S. 833, 899>
----

[BurtWorm]

192. Key sentence right here (nullifying IT's point)

"The women most affected by this law - those who most reasonably fear the consequences of notifying their husbands that they are pregnant - are in the gravest danger."

[bobbieinok]

101. off the topic??? what if husband/partner thought woman used birth

control/was told she used birth control and then discovered she didn't

man did not want a child but was presented with one anyway along with the obligation of child support

should there be a law that woman must tell man she is or is not using birth control and vice versa????????

in 'good' relationships, there would be communication....must state write a law to demand communication and honesty?????.....seems like there's an awful lot of state intereference here

[gollygee]

107. If he's that concerned, he needs to wear a condom. n/t

[MindPilot]

116. ALWAYS wear a condom (or get a vasectomy)

unless you really enjoy writing support checks.

[Orrex]

136. Quid pro quo

The woman should ALWAYS make sure that the man is wearing a condom (or get a tubal ligation).

Unless she really enjoys nine months of pregnancy and eighteen years of litigation.

[Totally Committed]

108. Until women have sole, private, total rights to their own bodies,

"freedom" and "equality" are just myths. We are still chattle unto the men in society. That the Democrats are backing off of this fight disgusts me.

This is not about abortion, it's about whether or not my entire body is mine. Period.

Can you imagine of the law told white good ole boys only part of their bodies were theirs, and even women they didn't know or weren't in a relationship with could decide whther or not they had to father a child against their will? There would be rioting in the streets.

[Orrex]

130. Total rights require total responsibility, too

If a woman claims sole right to her body, then she must be willing to claim full responsibility for allowing ejaculation to occur within her vagina (barring duress, of course, which must be prosecuted fully).

Equally, a man claiming sole right to his own body must be willing to claim responsibility for his choice of where to ejaculate.

So where does that leave us? The two cancel each other out, do they not? What, then, is the default option?

[Erika]

138. Uh, you think the woman shouldn't claim sole right to her body?

That's one strange statement.

[Orrex]

140. If I'm not mistaken, here's what I wrote:

If a woman claims sole right to her body, then she must be willing to claim full responsibility for allowing ejaculation to occur within her vagina (barring duress, of course, which must be prosecuted fully).

Equally, a man claiming sole right to his own body must be willing to claim responsibility for his choice of where to ejaculate.

So where does that leave us? The two cancel each other out, do they not? What, then, is the default option?

Where, in that passage or any other, did I claim that the woman should not have sole right to her body? Does the requiring of responsibility equal the denial of rights, in your view?

Now that's a strange statement.

[Warren DeMontague]

146. Responsibility entails MAKING THE CHOICE as to what to do

about the pregnancy.

If you take the choice out of the woman's hands, you're putting it in someone else's- her husband's, Rick Santorum's, Pat Robertson's, George Bush's.

THE WOMAN IN WHOM A PREGNANCY IS TAKING PLACE is the ONLY PERSON qualified to make any decisions about it.

Otherwise, what do you have? Criminalized abortions? Okay, what about women who drink when pregnant? Smoke? Deliberately try to not be pregnant? Are they criminals? Are they going to be prosecuted like abortion doctors? Are they going to be held in "protective custody", perhaps kept fed on tubes and in straightjackets, to keep them from harming the fetus inside them, which has been granted more rights to the woman's body than she has herself?

Again, any way you slice it, you are putting the state in the position of forcing women to remain pregnant against their will.

The old "responsibility" saw is just that- a saw- and another excuse to grind an axe at sexually active women (and men). People have the right- and the RESPONSIBILITY- to mind their own fucking business when it comes to other people's sex lives and reproductive systems.

[Orrex]

153. Some good points there, but your central point is flawed as stated

THE WOMAN IN WHOM A PREGNANCY IS TAKING PLACE is the ONLY PERSON qualified to make any decisions about it.

Many in this forum identify correctly abortion as a medical procedure that the woman undergoes. However, appendectomy is also a medical procedure. Is the person having his appendix removed the only person qualified to make any decisions about it?

There's a difference between being in sole position to make decisions and being qualified to make decisions.

Or do you recognize no such difference?

[Warren DeMontague]

157. The person having his appendix removed-- and his/her doctor.

Justify involving -sorry, justify having the LAW involve anyone else.. say, a spouse, or a total stranger- in the decision making process. please.

Beyond that, you're just playing semantic games.

[Orrex]

160. Deleted because I just got my head out of my ass

[Warren DeMontague]

163. Explain how that situation would take place, in reality.

Who is forefeiting any argument, Jack? You still haven't answered any of my questions.

And no. PersonB has NO RIGHT to be informed of PersonA's medical decisions. Sorry. Too bad.

Here's one for you- PersonA needs a kidney. PersonB is the only person who is a compatible donor. Does PersonA have a "right" to PersonB's kidney? Does PersonA's "right to life" supercede PersonB's right to PersonB's own body?

Now, PersonC doesn't have the kidney, or the need for the Kidney. Explain to me why PersonC has a 'right' to be involved, or even informed, with regards to the decision making process of PersonB.

[Warren DeMontague]

164. The breeze is cooler out here.

Don't feel bad. Mine gets stuck there, too, sometimes.

:hi:

[LizW]

150. Women already have total responsibility

They don't have to "claim it".

If there is a pregnancy, it's there, growing inside her. No amount of denial or wishing will change it.

If she carries the pregnancy to term, a baby is going to be born, and when it is, she is expected, on penalty of law, to feed and clothe the child, take care of it, keep it warm and safe, and get it medical treatment if needed. If she refuses or fails in any way, she will be punished.

At the very minimum, she is responsible for finding someone else to take care of the child. If she doesn't, she will be punished. Often, she is required to get the father's permission to give the child to someone else to care for.

There are no circumstances under which a woman can just walk away.

A man, on the other hand, can walk away. He can disappear, he can deny, he can fight every step of the way if he so chooses. Even if ordered by a court, he can refuse to pay, and not be charged with child abuse for starving his child. The responsibility for pursuing the father, for enforcing his responsibility, rests on the woman. She is then vilified for doing this, as if she were greedy or vindictive.

[Orrex]

158. What about the men who aren't assholes?

Do you believe that such creatures exist?

As far as I'm concerned, a deadbeat father should be held responsible for the care and support of the child, and he should face a damn stiff penalty for shirking that responsibility. I have no problem with that.

However, I am greatly uncomfortable with the apparent assumption in this thread that every male in the equation must be a power-hungry chattel-owning patriarchal domineering keep-the-wimmens-down megalomaniac. What about the one-in-a-billion male who happens to want the child? I see no justification for subjecting him entirely to the whim of the mother, except some kind of crazed payback-vindictiveness on the part of the hypothetical mother's advocates.

Under the proposed matriarchy, the woman can string the eager father along until one day she decides to abort the fetus, and the man has no recourse. That, to me, seems as barbaric as forcing every pregnant woman to go to term.

So let's see if I've got it now:

Women, do whatever you want from start to finish.
Men, stay the fuck away until your child is born.

Is that about right?

[Warren DeMontague]

162. the men who aren't assholes understand that it's the WOMAN'S body.

"Under the proposed matriarchy, the woman can string the eager father along until one day she decides to abort the fetus, and the man has no recourse. That, to me, seems as barbaric as forcing every pregnant woman to go to term."

What planet are you living on? 'string the eager father along'? For what? That's like the idea that women are staying pregnant for eight months, then getting late term abortions at the last minute because they decide they "look fat". It's a completely bizzarro reality you're describing.

Yes, men and women should have relationships based upon open communication, particularly regarding childbearing. But fuck me if that has anything to do with the government's business.

You want to talk about responsibility vis a vis sex, maybe it's your responsibility as a man (and I'm one, too, BTW) not to get involved with anyone if you're such a poor judge of character that you're going to find out late in the game that she's playing some kind of weird head games with you and your desire to be a father.

[Orrex]

165. Holy shit, I may have just achieved comprehension!

Bear with me, here's how it went down:

I wrote (paraphrased): What if the man gets involved with an asshole but wants the child?

You wrote: maybe it's your responsibility as a man (and I'm one, too, BTW) not to get involved with anyone if you're such a poor judge of character that you're going to find out late in the game that she's playing some kind of weird head games with you and your desire to be a father.

To which I was about to reply: Maybe the involuntarily pregnant woman should have realized that she was getting involved with an asshole, and she should have dumped him. And the preganancy is then her responsibility.

And then I realized what the next line should be: "As is the abortion."

Clock it: Nov 1, 2005 @ 1:33 ET

Mind you, I'm still uncomfortable with the pervasive men-are-abusers and women-are-victims vibe going on throughout the larger thread, but at least I'm onto the main point now.

Geez.

[Warren DeMontague]

166. Right on.

Every once in a while I get in a debate and I see my thoughts evolve through its course. If I were as open-minded as I claim to be, it would probably happen more often. :thumbsup:

FTR, I don't believe men are abusers-- or women are victims-- either.
Actually, I'm more into a bedrock socially libertarian head space where individuals of both genders should have control over their own bodies... and stuff like marital communication- while certainly what one would want, expect, or hope for in these kinds of situations- isn't the rightful domain of government.

[LizW]

175. Wow.

What a bizarre, defensive non-response to everything I said.

You mentioned the woman's responsibility and what you thought it should be. I described what it is, in reality, right now.

Do you disagree with what I've described? Are the laws different where you live?

[Orrex]

180. Hey, read further down from my post

It took a while, but I think I'm on board now!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

112. Martin Luther & John Knox emoted the principles.

"Women...have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end that they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children." (Martin Luther)

“Nature doth paint them further to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble and foolish; and experience hath declared them to be unconstant, variable, cruel, and lacking the spirit of counsel.” (John Knox, Scottish Presbyterian leader. From title of pamphlet The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, 1558.

[BlueIris]

132. Hmmm, let me see: none.

Get vasectomies, you lazy, whining "but I don't have a choice, how unfair" misogynists. I feel sorry for the women you've inflicted yourself on, if those are the insensitives, ignorant prejudices you have.

[RB TexLa]

141. Very True

I have never had any sympathy for a man who leaves the decision of fathering a child up to someone else. We have the power to stop pregnancy before it ever starts. One trip to the doctor and you never have to sit wondering "what will she do."

[Pharlo]

139. Well, from what I can see,

this proposal is just anti-marriage.

Why would a woman get married if she is to lose any type of freedom, particularly her privacy.

If the birthrate to unmarried females seems high now, pass laws like this one, and they'll go even higher.

[Warren DeMontague]

142. 50% of a Uterus.

Now, personally, I wouldn't want to be in a marriage that didn't have open communication- but that's not for the GOVERNMENT to LEGISLATE.

When you're talking about the LAW, the ONLY person who should LOGICALLY have ANY say over what takes place inside a WOMAN'S OWN BODY is THAT WOMAN HERSELF.

End Of Story.

[bluedawg12]

144. If there was an agreement between the couple that they

were pair bonded and if conception was an expectation.

Beyond that, it comes down to a woman knowing her partner and what he expects and her sense of fairness because in reality a man may never know a woman is pregnant unless she reveals it to him.

It part of the human condition and which government would do well to stay out of.

In the case of reproduction the host vessel, the woman, calls the shots because she can decide to tell the man or not. Nothing seems so personal as this, and nothing can be screwed up by law and lawyers, as much as this, if it were made into a code of law.

Look how screwed up marriage and divorce is thanks to divorce laws.

[Baconfoot]

148. Le solution!:Magic any fertilized eggs into an external mechano-uterus

THen have the magic external mechano-uterus place the fertilized egg into suspended animation!
That way either the mom or the dad can decide whether to terminate the pregnancy or either POTENTIAL parent can negotiate for sole ownership of said fertilized egg. And there's plenty of time to negotiate because of the suspended animation feature!

Oh wait...
There's no such thing as magic.

:-(

[REP]

167. When He Gets Pregnant

Then he has equal rights in a pregnancy.

[Skidmore]

170. Yessireeebob!

[radwriter0555]

171. The wife in a terminal coma while carrying a vital fetus.

At that point he should have the right to make all decisions regarding that fetus.

[RB TexLa]

183. unless there is an advance directive addressing the situation

[radwriter0555]

193. of course...

but it must be said.

[kevinbgoode]

186. Seems to me that the only thing I got out of this is that

the Republicans are apparently doing everything possible to sabotage marriage. If I was a woman and was forced to tell a "husband" or seek his opinion about handling something about my body, I would damned well REFUSE to ever marry.

[Hollow Shells]

199. The Husband/Father should have equal rights, or total rights if

the Mother suffers a brain injury and slips into a coma or becomes so profoundly mentally disabled that she can no longer understand what her pregnancy is or means. It would then be up to the Husband/Father to hopefully uphold her last expressed wishes concerning the pregnancy.

[Vickers]

201. I wonder what percentage of pregnancies fall under this situation...

.00000000001% or so?

[Hollow Shells]

204. Probably something like that.

I have only heard of one case, I believe that the Mother was brain dead or nearly brain dead. He chose to continue the pregnancy.

[BurtWorm]

206. Maybe that's enough to justify making all women inform their spouses.

:eyes:

It's the one bad apple principle.

[Vickers]

210. Yeah, Burt, that is kinda my point...why go to all this trouble for that

infinitesimal number of folks it will "help." :eyes:

:toast:

[BurtWorm]

211. I knew that was your point, V.

:toast:

The SC decision that overruled Alito pointed out that this act would most hurt women who were most in danger from having to inform their husbands. They seem to have intuited that this law was meant to inflict pain and punish.

[The Flaming Red Head]

237. Wasn't that disgusting. Millions of dollars spent

and the baby still died. What an arrogant prick.

[catmother]

202. none. n/t

[WinkyDink]

218. Michael Corleone was pretty upset.

But "all this must END!"

How can the law discriminate against married women, as opposed to unmarried?

[GumboYaYa]

219. there is the theoretical answer and the realistic answer....

Theoretically, hell no, no man should have control over any woman's body.

Realistically, if two people are in a committed relationship and desire to maintain that long-term, any decision as momentous as having or not having a child should be disussed and decided by mutual consent. Certainly this is not necessitated by any control the male partner exercises over the female partner, but rather by the shared goal of maintaining a mutually committed relationship based on trust and love.

If there is no such committed relationship, the woman owes no obligation to the man whatsoever and should solely make the decision.

[One_Life_To_Give]

223. Contract Law

It really depends on the language inside the marriage contract.
One can argue that the parties to the contract own a 50% interest in their spouse. Hence each party should notify and obtain consent from the other for any procedure.

We could also speculate on a contract that termed any potential offspring as a joint asset of the marriage.

[LittleClarkie]

226. The fact that we are humans and not tribbles, maybe?

It does take two.

[The Flaming Red Head]

236. Nothing. A damn good reason to not ever get married

again. Marriage sounds more like slavery to me.

[Ian David]

241. Ooh! Good point! Judge Alito is ANTI-MARRIAGE!

He's sending a message that women should not get married, or else their vaginas will be the property of their husband!

[Ian David]

240. If the father was raped by the mother? n/t