Posted on 08/04/2007 1:14:36 PM PDT by wagglebee
Led by Republican Rep. John Adams, several state legislators have introduced the bill that they say isn't intended to just make a point or be controversial.
"This is important because there are always two parents and fathers should have a say in the birth or the destruction of that child," Adams told the Record-Courier newspaper. "In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say."
Under the measure, women would not be able to have an abortion without written consent from the father.
In a case where the paternity of the baby is not established, the woman seeking the abortion would have to provide a list of potential fathers and the abortion practitioner would be required to do a paternity test and obtain permission from the father for the abortion.
Anyone who has or does an abortion without the father's consent or anyone wrongfully giving permission for an abortion would be guilty of a first degree misdemeanor.
Denise Mackura, the head of Ohio Right to Life, told the newspaper the bill is a good idea because it highlights how fathers are left out of the abortion process.
"I'm really pleased that this has been proposed for one reason -- it draws attention to the fact that many men are concerned and care for their unborn children," she said.
"You have no idea how many men call telling me about their girlfriends who plan to abort, asking what they can do to help her. They do want to help and they should have a voice," she added.
However, the paternal rights bill would likely hit a constitutional roadblock if it became law.
The Supreme Court ruled in the Danforth case that spousal consent statutes are unconstitutional if the statutes allow the husband to unilaterally prohibit the abortion in the first trimester.
A subsequent case, Coe v. Gerstein, saw the high court extend that decision to a spousal consent law regardless of the stage of the woman's pregnancy.
Then, in the Supreme Court's 1992 Casey decision, a spousal notification provision, requiring a married woman to tell her husband she intends to have an abortion (but not needing his consent), did not survive the "undue burden" test, and it was struck down as being unconstitutional.
Mackura told the newspaper that she acknowledged the constitutional concerns but called the bill a "step in the right direction."
"Currently, even in a marriage situation, a man has no right to even be informed of an abortion. But if a woman doesn't have an abortion, men sure have a lot of responsibility then. It's really not fair," she concluded.
Abortion advocates confirmed they would strongly oppose the bill and NARAL Pro-choice Ohio executive director Kellie Copeland told the newspaper it was "extreme" and motivated by election loses.
Related web sites:
Ohio Right to Life - http://www.ohiolife.org
Ohio Legislature - http://www.legislature.state.oh.us
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Ohio Ping
This will make all these guys think twice before they get an underage girl pregnant. She can’t get an abortion without his signature, which is an admission of guilt. And if she has the baby, DNA will prove it is his.
I agree. Fathers should have a say. If I knew a baby of mine was aborted, I would be crushed.
Supreme Court ruled a few weeks back that the Congress could write and pass lawas regulating abortion. Now we get a chance to see if it’s OK for state legislatures to do so.
Why should it? There's no constitutional right to an abortion.
Pro DAD!
although I agree, this could end up backfiring where a mom wants the child and dad wants the abortion. Than what would happen? Dads take mom to court to make her have an abortion? Who knows. I’m all for any and all ways to stop abortion, but not sure if this is the way to go.
Uh-huh. Okay, then, no point in arguing with you. However, them folks in them black robes that say otherwise are the ones who will be striking this law down.
Not with this USSC.
And what if the woman isn't married? Is anyone going to do a paternity test first to establish that the person giving consent is actually the father? (What about inside a marriage??)
I'll assume that there are some excemptions for when Daddy's a rapist or Bill Clinton (oh, but I repeat myself).
Can it a hunch or a prediction, but if they aren’t willing to strike down abortion altogether then this law won’t pass muster. If it stays legal than yes, this will be found to be an “undue burden”.
I’m afraid you may be right.
“Call it a hunch . . .”
About time. If either parent wants to not murder the unborn child, then the kid’s life is spared. It’s not quite as strong/right as simply defending the kid no matter who finds him/her inconvenient, but it’s a step in the right direction. Neither parent is secondary.
If a man is responsible for paying the bills in perpetuity of a woman chooses to have a child, I don’t see why he shouldn’t be brought in early on in the decision-making process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.