fathers say in abortion Options

[Divergent Realit...]

here

Several Ohio state representatives who normally take an anti-abortion stance are now pushing pro-choice legislation - sort of.

Led by Rep. John Adams, a group of state legislators have submitted a bill that would give fathers of unborn children a final say in whether or not an abortion can take place.

It's a measure that, supporters say, would finally give fathers a choice.

"This is important because there are always two parents and fathers should have a say in the birth or the destruction of that child," said Adams, a Republican from Sidney. "I didn't bring it up to draw attention to myself or to be controversial. In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say."

As written, the bill would ban women from seeking an abortion without written consent from the father of the fetus. In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would be required to submit a list of possible fathers. The physician would be forced to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort.

Claiming to not know the father's identity is not a viable excuse, according to the proposed legislation. Simply put: no father means no abortion.

"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," said Denise Mackura, the director of the Ohio Right to Life Society. "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."

With the proposal, men would be guaranteed that voice under penalty of law. First time violators would by tried for abortion fraud, a first degree misdemeanor. The same would be the case for men who falsely claim to be fathers and for medical workers who knowingly perform an abortion without paternal consent.

In addition, women would be required to present a police report in order to prove a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

As is the case whenever abortion is the topic, sharp opposition has come from members of the House, along with multiple activist groups. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Activist League and the Ohio Right to Life Society have both spoken out against the legislation.

"This extreme bill shows just how far some of our state legislators are willing to go to rally a far-right base that is frustrated with the pro-choice gains made in the last election," said NARAL Pro-choice Ohio executive director Kellie Copeland. "It is completely out of touch with Ohio's mainstream values. This measure is a clear attack on a woman's freedom and privacy."

The proposal came less than two weeks after Rep. Tom Brinkman proposed legislation that would ban all abortions in Ohio. Brinkman, a Republican from Cincinnati, was one of eight representatives to co-sponsor Adams' bill.

With the recent liberal swing in Ohio state government, neither bill is likely to come to fruition. However, Adams' less extreme proposal has an outside chance of becoming law - a law that would have a major impact in Portage County and surrounding areas.

Portage has been among the leading Ohio counties in abortion-to-birth ratios since abortion was legalized in 1973. Since 1996, about 20 percent of Portage County pregnancies have been aborted - the seventh highest percentage in the state according to information from the Ohio Department of Health. The total comes to more than 4,300 abortions in 10 years.

Cuyahoga County has the highest abortion percentage with more than 30 percent of its residents' pregnancies being terminated. Summit County is also near the top of the list with a 21 percent termination rate.

Mackura doesn't think those numbers are likely to change anytime soon, though. Precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court indicates that, even if Adams' bill passed, it would likely be ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

"Simply taking a look at this as a possibility is a step in the right direction," Mackura said. "Pregnancy is a unique human condition and obviously a woman is affected differently than a man. As a woman, I can sympathize. However, to completely take rights away from the father is unfair.

"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."

[kcroxyoursox]

"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," said Denise Mackura, the director of the Ohio Right to Life Society.

As is the case whenever abortion is the topic, sharp opposition has come from members of the House, along with multiple activist groups. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Activist League and the Ohio Right to Life Society have both spoken out against the legislation.

Well, which is it? Is the Ohio Right to Life Society "really pleased" or are they in "sharp opposition" ?


And I think this bill is dumb. A wolf in sheep's clothing. 'We can't outright ban abortion, so let's make it next to impossible for it to happen.' The women who get raped, molested, or who don't know who the daddy is probably need legal abortion the most, yet they're the ones who get hurt the most by this. When a medical miracle occurs and men have the ability to carry a fetus to term for nine months inside of them, then they can have as much of a say as women do. Until then, sorry guys, my body my decision.

Further, how does this affect those in opposite situations where the man wants her to abort and she wants to keep? Should she not be able to keep it unless they both come to agreement? Or is it the fact that she decides what she wants to do with her body now a relevant issue?

[FORSAKENR320]

Further, how does this affect those in opposite situations where the man wants her to abort and she wants to keep? Should she not be able to keep it unless they both come to agreement? Or is it the fact that she decides what she wants to do with her body now a relevant issue?

it gives the man a chance out of that parent trap. right now, he doesn't want the kid, but he's the one going to have to pay for it anyway. and before you start getting into that feminist bullshit, look at the target group yu're talking about. the women of that group don't work. having it on file that the man did not approve of the child from the beginning, and the woman went through with the pregnancy anyway should allow the man a better chance of not having to pay child support.


from your previous post, it appears you support abortion. and i do too. but 21 male chromosones also go into that child. i believe the male should also have an equal say. but like you, i don't see how this can be accomplished when the woman carries the child through pregnancy.