Abortion Policy Proposal

Preface May 10th, 2020
As we all know, if, as widely anticipated, the Supreme Court overturns Rove v. Wade, it is not tantamount to banning abortion. It simply recognizes that in our federal system this is a policy decision to be left to the states. It is unlikely California will restrict abortion while Oklahoma or Texas might.
So, expecting debate about abortion policy to soon blossom in various state chambers, I offer an updated proposes abortion policy.

Abortion Policy Statement
While I recognize abortion as killing, infanticide, I also recognize that society sanctions killing in various contexts: soldiers, police officers, correctional officers, etc. are so sanctioned by our society. So I can support abortion rights but not as currently practiced. I believe we should recognize it as killing that is within the province of the mother but if the pregnancy is the result of consensual sex then the father’s rights should be respected as well. Thus when a woman becomes pregnant in that situation she can elect to carry it to birth or not. During the pregnancy, while she has the option for abortion, the father can elect to assume parental rights or not. If the father elects to reject parental rights then the mother assumes full responsibility for raising the child and the father has no child support obligations. If the mother cares not to raise the child but is willing to carry it to term if the father will assume parental responsibility she can choose to do so but is not obligated to do so. This is an important step in the evolution of abortion in society wherein we begin to treat women as equally capable and responsible.

In the case of a pregnancy resulting from non-consensual sex then if it is established through due process that the male is the aggressor then he will lose what rights he has as described above and may become liable for child support should the mother carry it to term. Similarly if it is established through due process that the female is the aggressor in she may or may not carry it to term but she has no call on the male for child support.

Henry Hazlitt’s single lesson on economics can apply in fashioning abortion policy:
“The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”
That seems relevant to things we might not necessarily consider economic policy, and the abortion policy explored herein certainly has economic implications.
And what likely effects can we anticipate should we bring a measure of egalitarianism to women’s and men’s reproductive rights? And what objections thereto?
Certainly there will be the leftist feminists who will decry it as some manner of oppression, if nothing else because that is the language of their agitation. What it does represent is a diminishment of the female’s one sided exercise of power in the prenatal relationship.
To what effect though will such a policy carry us?
Initially one might predict a flurry of post-coupling changes of mind resulting in accusations of rape. I’d have to guess that such a phenomenon would die down soon enough for a couple of reasons, one being that if the motivation is to secure child support obligations from the father it will become apparent that a father in prison, or even out but with a felony conviction, is a poor financial mark.
Another expected development would be a change in people’s behavior as the new policy seeps into the collective consciousness. One might suppose that either heterosexual promiscuity declines and/or greater care is taken in practicing birth control, both by women and men. An eventual aim would be that couples procreate with intent and a commitment to parenthood. Women would, it’s hoped, not engage in pregnancy producing behavior without some emotional investment on the part of both parties.
Alternatively it also seems possible that some women would accept the father not engaging and would then raise the child themselves with a preponderance of support coming from the government. Given a significant plurality of said situations, is it not conceivable that the government would be stimulated to absorb a parental role in addition to providing financial aid? A generation or two of G.I. babies…, hmm…, Brave New World anyone?
While this proposal does represent some diminishment of the female’s exercise of power in the prenatal relationship, she still has the ultimate decision as to whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not.
As with other changes to social policy that affect individuals’ significantly, it would have to be instituted on a from-this-point-forward basis, grandfathering the situations that developed prior.

Points to include:
1.) The mother is obligated to inform the father of the pregnancy in time for his choices to be made;
a.) If she fails to do so she loses the right to make any claim against the father;
b.) Unless it is demonstrable that communicating with the father in a timely fashion has been impossible;
c.) She also has a duty to be aware of her pregnancy in a timely manner
2.) Recently there have been attempts to create a legal safe haven for so-called live birth abortions – these are not acceptable as once the baby is breathing outside the womb he or she is unarguably a United States citizen with civil rights.