Some want unwed dads to pick up Medicaid’s birth costs

defal33 wrote: [Condoms are] NOT reliable among certain populations for birth control.... because thay are not using them...

Condoms are a much less effective contraceptive method than hormonal methods or the IUD which are only usable by women. But this is beside the point. Even if a man insists on using a condom a woman can (a) poke a little whole in the end of it; or (b) have sex with other men. Normal healthy young women can choose whether or not they want to have a baby. Instead of the social and economic penalties that an unwed mother faced in the past, today she enjoys social acceptance and even enhanced social status, and many economic benefits, plus the satisfactions of having children and probably multiple sexual relationships. Trying to solve the problem by sanctioning the men she chose to the "baby-daddy" is like trying to empty the ocean with a child's beach pail, there will always be another wave, and there is always another man who will supply her, wittingly or unwittingly, sperm.

But it is more politically expedient to demagogue about the "deadbeat dads" and shake-down the men the mother names as the source of sperm (often inaccurately); when the real responsibility lies with the women who have control over their own fertility, and the legislators and government officials who incentivize these unmarried young women, really the dregs of our society, to pop out babies as fast as they can, while making it expensive, by high taxes to pay for these social programs, poor schools, and other policies, for middle and working class married families to reproduce.

Critics say mother and baby would suffer under Shields' proposal because some women would give up Medicaid and forgo prenatal care rather than cooperate in efforts to bill the father for hospital costs.

So the taxpayer's are FORCED to pay for it when the "mothers" refuse?! When someone accepts a handout the recipient isn't usually the person who makes the rules. ONLY IN GOVERNMENT IS THAT TRUE!

In polygamous societies they laugh at the taxpayers. Ask them they will tell you that "bleeding the beast" is a good thing becuase we deserve it and the government is evil.

They are taught to defraud the government and the welfare system was sent to them by God to help them live their lifestyle.

That polygamous dude Tom Green didn't even have a job. He made the women work selling magazines, take care of the gazillion kids and household chores while he sat around doing nothing. The only thing he did was have sex and eat.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I just read recently that men without any children are on welfare. I almost fell off my chair. I thought it was only for single moms in deep trouble.

Time to start taking money out of work checks from the women and the men for any government handouts or medical debts. Welfare should be only 1 year limit emergency loan which should be paid back when they get a job. A work program of hard to fill jobs should be made available.

Eliminate food stamps entirely make the welfare people go to distribution centers to get extremely generic goverment discount bulk food to keep the kids from going hungry. They should not get to pick out whatever they want from the local grocery store with those little cards. Those big blocks of nasty tasting government bulk food would make things very unpleasant. After some time they'll realize that cutting coupons takes more work but is the more pleasant option.

Ever hear of women having kids and not marrying the kids' dad (even though they live together) cuz it cuts into the public assistance? I have. I don't work for a gov't agency, so my opinions are w/o motive.

Babies for fun and profit has its price. Or should.

What I'm saying is that marriage should confer a real and tangible benefit on both men and women.

In the man's case he gets children that are recognized by the world as his. In the woman's case, her children get provided for.

By rendering a slut the equivalent of a married woman in law, the value of marriage is devalued.

And this "law", by overturning the common law of centuries, is unenforceable, since it requires government expenditures greatly in excess of any possible recovery, AND because everybody knows (everybody who does not live in socialistworld, that is), that sticking it in is NOT the same act as standing up before God and man and making those promises.

You stated in 81:
Trying to solve the problem by sanctioning the men she chose to the "baby-daddy" is like trying to empty the ocean with a child's beach pail, there will always be another wave, and there is always another man who will supply her, wittingly or unwittingly, sperm.

With all due respect:
I fail to see why you continue to try to explain away with “Collage like Professor Metaphoric Rhetoric’, the personal responsibilities of the individuals on taking care of children they (two people) bring into this world.

REVIEW: the article is titled, Some want unwed dads to pick up Medicaid’s birth cost, not, The Real Responsibility Lies with the Women who have control over their own Fertility. (she’s got to get the sperm somewhere)

"Reproductive Rights" is one of those public issues where the inequality between the sexes is rarely discussed.

Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights. A man has no "reproductive rights" that a woman is bound to respect, whether in nor out of marriage, to keep the baby or not. The only right that men have is to keep their pants zipped up, as the course of their lives and their hope for posterity is entirely dependent on the woman's "choice".

I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital "reproductive rights " were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable "reproductive right" exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man's income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. Under the law, he is utterly responsible to support any children with his DNA, and often even for those without it. In many states, women are allowed to ABANDON newborn children that they do not want at hospitals or firehouses, no questions asked. Men don't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains her "reproductive rights" if she "chooses" to exercise them.

I don't think either sex should have these "reproductive rights", and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.

Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn't qualify for "reproductive rights" since she probably thinks men aren't human anyway.

My point is that men have no "reproductive right" that is INDEPENDENT of a woman's choice, wheras women have options that can be and are exercised independently of a man's wishes. Note that this feminine reproductive veto extends to nullification of the man's wishes whether the man wants the child or not, whether in or out of marriage. While I am acutely aware that this is in large part due to the uniqueness of the reproductive process, this nevertheless leaves the man without any independent ability to influence the woman legally.

I am not even necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, but I do find it curious that we often behave as though the only party affected by the birth of a child is the woman, and to prevent a negative influence on the course of her life we must preserve her right to kill her unborn child. If unmarried, she can "choose" to keep the child and can enlist the support of the state to forcibly take money from the sperm donor against his will. And if he wants the child, then he must yield to her choice to abort. Legally he is told that he has no option other than the one that the woman "chooses" to give him.

Again, I think that BOTH parties should allow a normal pregnancy to take it's course, and come to a mutually agreed upon resolution. But if we insist upon a regime where a "reproductive right" is allowed for only half of the human race, than I think that men should have some LEGAL option to influence the woman's "choice" in either direction, rather than act as though this isn't a significant life altering event for them as well. The one option that I would absolutely forbid, of course is a forced abortion.

Having said all this, I do think it unlikely to happen. Men are legally held to the strictest of standard of responsibility where conception is concerned.

You want poppa to pony up..I got no problem with it, but make sure mommy does too.... takes two to tango.

Fighting for the right of men to "veto" their own flesh and blood is only adding to the victimization of babies/children.

I don't see how anyone, men or women, can claim legitimately claim "rights" by taking them from babies/children. Just because currently women legally can, doesn't make it right that men should claim the same "rights".

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I didn't say that they SHOULD have that option. I am pointing out that women DO presently have such an option (even to kill their inconvienient unborn, to my mind the worst veto possible) which extends to the exercise of it even in an otherwise stable MARRIAGE. While I acknowledge that I has a man have the same right to an abortion that a woman has, I am sure that you will acknowledge that this practically leaves me no "reproductive right" other than abstinence that a woman is bound to respect. I do believe that Roe vs Wade should be overturned with an eye toward the elimination of all such "reproductive rights" by the 50 state legislatures. (physical life and health of the mother excepted)

When one party is not committed to child rearing outside of marriage, then the state should encourage adoption by NOT providing werlfare bennies and child support enforcement mechanisms. If no suitable adoptive familky is available, then bring on the state to force child support outside the clear commitment that marriage entails.

DMZFrank wrote: Reproductive rights does not exist as a legal concept for men, and men are regularly told that they have responsibilities and not rights.

As pointed out by Jim Noble on this thread, at one time the law took a more balanced approach, which was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1973. ( GOMEZ v. PEREZ ). The "equal protection" logic no doubt was driven by egalitarianism, the "civil rights" agenda, and feminism. Texas has a version of the "Equal Rights Amendment" in its constitution. An unwed father argued that since women had a right to avoid unwanted motherhood through abortion [or adoption], "equal protection" for men would allow them to avoid unwanted fatherhood by disclaiming paternity. The Texas court denied him by saying, (1) Women have the liberty go give birth, and (2) GOMEZ v. PEREZ gave illegitimate children the right to paternal child support.

Tennessee also decided that a father has no 14 Amendment "equal protection" to avoid the responsibilities of paternity, stating, Our own Tennessee Supreme Court has stated, the right of procreational autonomy is composed of two rights of equal significance -- the right to procreate and the right to avoid procreation. Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. 1992). Procreational autonomy, however, is irrelevant to paternity actions.

Tennessee approvingly cited a New York decision,

For example, in L. Pamela P. v. Frank S., 449 N.E.2d 713 (N.Y. 1983), a paternity suit was brought against a putative father by a mother who had deliberately misrepresented her use of contraception. 449 N.E.2d at 714. The father asserted that the paternity suit, with its imposition of a support obligation, constituted state infringement upon his constitutional right to decide whether to father a child. Id. at 715. The court, however, reasoned the following: Clearly, [the father] has a constitutionally protected right to decide for himself whether to father a child. This right is deemed so fundamental that governmental interference in this area of decision-making may be justified only by compelling State interests. . . . . This aspect of the right to privacy has never been extended so far as to regulate the conduct of private actors as between themselves. . . . . [The father seeks to] be relieved of his obligation to support a child he did not [deliberately] have. But [the father's] constitutional entitlement to avoid procreation does not encompass a right to avoid a child support obligation simply because another private person has not fully respected his desires in this regard. However unfairly [the father] may have been treated by [the mother's] failure to allow him an equal voice in the decision to conceive a child, such a wrong does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

The Supremes also in MICHAEL H. v. GERALD D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989) decided that a natural father had no right to establish paternity against a mother's wishes.

One aspect of forcing unwilling fathers to provide support to mothers is their ability to provide for wanted children. Typically support would be at 25% of gross income; and child support is not tax-deductable. The needs of the father's other children who live with him are not considered (no "equal protection" for them). On the other hand, an unmarried woman who has multiple children with different fathers (or names multiple fathers, especially those with higher incomes) can receive multiple streams of income, as well as public benefits.

Shouldn't Men Have a Choice, Too?
by Glenn Sacks (e-mail: GSacks@liberator.net) [February 20th, 2002]
Jennifer was crushed when she was told that a baby was on the way. She wants to have children, but the right way--after she has found the right person and is married. But in Jennifer's country, she has no choice. "Jenn" cannot give the child up for adoption, and she cannot terminate the pregnancy. It is her burden to bear, for the next two decades, like it or not.

“The courts force my husband and I to support a child he never agreed to...”

What country is it which compels a person to have a child they don't want? Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia?
No, it's the United States--not for Jenn, but for Ken.
Ken Johnson, a 10 year veteran of the Seattle Fire Department, wanted to be a father, but with the right woman, and at the right time. Three years ago he and his wife separated after six years of marriage, and each began to date. Ken had a brief affair with "Cathy," which resulted in a pregnancy. Ken begged Cathy to put the child up for adoption or to terminate the pregnancy, but Cathy refused. Now Ken and his wife, who reconciled two and a half years ago, can't start a family of their own because almost half of Ken's net income goes to support the child he didn't want to have. He says:
"People tell me that Cathy should have the choice whether to keep the child or not because it's her body so it's her choice. I agree. But what about my body? I make my living rushing into burning buildings. I put my life and my safety on the line every time I go to work, and now I'm on the hook for 18 years. With the child support demands on me, there's no way I'll ever be able to quit. What about my choice?"
Johnson is part of a growing movement of men who bristle at being "coerced fathers," and who have enlisted in a "Choice for Men" movement whose goals are every bit as legitimate as the goals of the women's reproductive rights movement. They note that one million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year by either adoption, abortion, or abandonment, and demand that men, like women, be given reproductive options. They point out that, unlike women, men have no reliable contraception available to them, since the failure rate of condoms is substantial, and vasectomies are generally only worthwhile for older men who have already married and had children.
The Choice for Men movement seeks to give "coerced fathers" the right to relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities within a month of learning of a pregnancy, just as mothers do when they choose to give their children up for adoption. These men would be obligated to provide legitimate financial compensation to cover natal medical expenses, the mother's loss of income during pregnancy, etc. The right would only apply to pregnancies which occurred outside of marriage.
Some of those who fought for women's reproductive choices agree with choice for men. Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women, writes:
"If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring a pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support ... autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."
To date, courts have refused to consider fathers' reproductive rights even in the most extreme cases, including: when child support is demanded from men who were as young as 12 when they were statutorily raped by older women; when women have taken the semen from a used condom and inserted it in themselves, including from condoms used only in oral sex; and when women concealed the pregnancy from the man (denying him the right to be a father) and then sued for back and current child support eight or ten years later.
"It doesn't make sense to me," Ken's wife Patti says. "The courts force my husband and I to support a child he never agreed to, but make it financially impossible for him to have a child with the woman he loves and married."

This is sickening. Creating new ways to classify human beings "unwanted" is utterly sickening.

Turning one's back on one's own flesh and blood offspring is immoral no matter how hard one tries to justify it.

Ken Johnson, a 10 year veteran of the Seattle Fire Department, wanted to be a father, but with the right woman, and at the right time…

should have put a rain coat on his "little fireman, if he was not ready for the responsibility of having a child.

"Choice for Men" Don’t let your dick ruin your life, Use a rubber, its quite effective when used.

I have a general question. How is it that a biological father (willing or unwittingly) would have little or no rights/say, to an unborn child, and the mother has all of the rights and or decisions, including demanding child support or having the pregnancy terminated…

THEN how is it when a child that is given up for adoption by the mother, the biological father can then claim the child and sometimes be successful from take the child from an adoptive family?

I hope the way I am explaining this makes sense to someone…Sorry if way off the subject…

How can women keep pumping out kids with no reasonable means to support them?

wic, medicaid, public housing....etc They have all the support they need.

"This is sickening. Creating new ways to classify human beings "unwanted" is utterly sickening."

Turning one's back on one's own flesh and blood offspring is immoral no matter how hard one tries to justify it.

You are right. It IS immoral. But infinitely less so than having the right to chop them up into little pieces and having them evacuated from thew womb with a vacuum cleaner, or having a medical hitman poke a scissors into their skulls and having their brains suctioned out. All because they represent an inconvienience to mom or her male sperm donor, if he can convince her.

But the feminazis have elevated this "Right" to near sacremental status, and those of who who advocate a COMPARABLE "right" for men under this regime feel that the "Right" that we seek, while bad is nowhere NEAR as heinous as abortion. We also feel that it would tend to restore the sort of social cohesion that existed prior to Gomez vs Perez by disincentivizing "baby momism."

Exactly.

Wisest thing anyone could say.

Welfare is the primary cause of dystfunctional families in this country.

Welfare is the symptom. The cause is the loss of the stigma attached to unmarried parents.