[Pharmboy]

The way I understand it, the PA case was not about the husband "having a say" in his wife's right to kill the fetus as the writer implies, but strictly about notification. The writer is lting or is unfamiliar with the case.

And, I thought the data in the accompanying graphic would interest freepers.

[SkyPilot]

Add to the majority of abortion supporters are horn dog males between 15 and 35.

Imagine that?

I hesitate to call men who screw without conscious "men", because they are a disgrace.

On the other side of the spectrum, if the courts wish to rule that fathers who want their children to be born have no say whether they can be murdered or not under any circumstances, then the courts must rule that fathers have no obligation to provide child support under any circumstances.

Sound like lunacy? You bet. The courts are out of control.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[sgtbono2002]

Well of course the man who's wife doesnt inform him of an abortion should pack his bags and hit the trail. Only how would he know?

[Alia]

The way I understand it, the PA case was not about the husband "having a say" in his wife's right to kill the fetus as the writer implies, but strictly about notification.

You are right. The author of the story used a generic appellation which is misleading. Very misleading.

But it raised in my mind an "asidem" issue; but ultimately related to the subject at hand, and beyond the issue of rights. That of "healthcare".

I believe there are some HMO's (and such) who might cover abortion. But I believe the vast bulk do not. Which means the "wife" goes to Planned Parenthood or some other abortion provider.

If we take the classic scenario -- hubby carrying the healthinsurance "head name" -- and wife as dependent listed -- if there are complications arising from that abortion -- who pays?

The left wishes abortion to be covered as a "right" in standard healthcare packages.

In this case, say "wife" has an abortion (sans husband notification), who is liable for paying the costs for care in cases of abortion after-complications?

I do not think Planned Parenthood, for example, has such capacities.

And since then the abortion is not "covered", would the household (husband and wife) pay OUT OF POCKET costs relating to that abortion? It would certainly appear so.

The "notification" clause, to my mind, is a very sound matter, and from a range of clearminded concerns.

No, I hope to not see "abortion" covered by HMOs. I think it goes so very against the hypocratic oath and is a slippery slope along the lines of "euthanasia".

Bottomline, I do think the husband should be notified when the wife is choosing to abort, and in this case purely from a consent-to-pay-out-of-pocket medical costs should they be required. (all other arguments aside for the moment.)

[libertylover]

In that case, Judge Alito wanted to uphold a Pennsylvania law that required women to notify their husbands when seeking an abortion.

Look again, I think the writer stated it correctly. It's true though that many others have distorted Alito's ruling.

[fluffy]

That accompanying graphic is incredibly biased. The very first section talks about how the majority of abortions are by the poor, yet the graph shows that their definition of poor is twice the poverty level. WTF?? And that's not all... the claim that 200k - 1.2M abortions per year were performed pre-Roe is patently false; the attorneys who made that claim during Roe have admitted to lying to fluff up their case. The actual number was much lower (~10k).

[tom h]

"And, I thought the data in the accompanying graphic would interest freepers."

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The Guttmacher Institute should know that abortion wasn't illegal before Roe v Wade, just that there were 51 laws which controlled the dirty act.

Also, look at the last graph and see how they distorted the data to look like abortion is widely favored in America. They conclude that roughly 80% of Americans still favor abortion in some circumstances. The same data, viewed another way, concludes that 76% of Americans believe that abortion should be restricted (probably to rape and incest). Who are they trying to fool?

[Ma3lst0rm]

The question of whether a man should have say shouldn't be in question because he certainly should have a say. Maybe a law requiring men to pay for half the cost of the abortion would be a good idea? I personally wouldn't need the law to support me no matter what the case. I'd die fighting for my unborn child. Those who wouldn't don't deserve to be parents and the little cowards who scurry their girlfriends off to secret abortions should be shot or castrated.

[ottersnot]

79 percent support.

Liars. See tag line.