Reply
Mon 1 Jan, 2007 10:10 am
Under a bill recently passed by the Michigan House of Representatives, men could go to jail.
House Bill 5882 creates the Coercive Abortion Prevention Act. Its purpose is to prohibit the putative father of a pregnant woman's child from coercing or intimidating the woman into terminating her pregnancy. While preventing violence or threats of violence against pregnant women is an admirable goal, the proposal goes way beyond this by interfering with constitutionally protected personal prerogatives.
The proposal actually makes it a crime for a man to "change or attempt to change an existing housing or cohabitation arrangement" with a pregnant significant other, to "file or attempt to file for a divorce" from his pregnant wife or to "withdraw or attempt to withdraw financial support" from a woman whom he has been supporting -- if it is determined that the man is doing these things to try to pressure the woman to terminate her pregnancy.
This violates men's rights. The U.S. Constitution's protected liberty interests safeguard privacy in areas such as contraception, abortion, marriage, procreation, child rearing and sexual conduct between consenting adults.
Do Michigan legislators believe these protections don't also cover the basic personal choices the proposal proscribes?
The bill is also laden with unfair assumptions of male perfidy. There are many reasons why a man might be unhappy over his wife's or girlfriend's pregnancy, and consider ending his relationship with her. He may doubt that the child she is carrying is his. He may feel he was deceived into the pregnancy. She may lash out at him during her pregnancy-related mood swings, and he may take offense.
A talented prosecuting attorney who may be looking for publicity could frame a man's decision as an attempt to coerce an abortion.
The accused need not be convicted to suffer egregious harm -- the cost of criminal defense is often ruinous, and the emotional toll can be worse.
The physical dangers from which House Bill 5882's supporters seek to protect pregnant women are real. It's debatable whether the bill's anti-violence provisions are good law, because the acts it specifies are already illegal.
However, protecting women from violence is one thing -- punishing men for their peaceful, private conduct in their personal relationships is quite another.
Sounds to me like another step toward making it illegal to talk back to a woman.
Your response (without source, so itr's obviously your own text), says correctly that that quoted bill only passed the House of Representatives until now - which clearly means: it's not illegal as you point out in your headline.
The so-called Coercive Abortion Bills are intended to protect women from being forced or intimidated into having abortions .... is siad by pro-livers and the conservatves.
Glad, you're against them, too.
It sounds more like the government is interfering in the private business of its citizens. What a crock!
Walter Hinteler wrote:Your response (without source, so itr's obviously your own text), says correctly that that quoted bill only passed the House of Representatives until now - which clearly means: it's not illegal as you point out in your headline.
The so-called Coercive Abortion Bills are intended to protect women from being forced or intimidated into having abortions .... is siad by pro-livers and the conservatves.
Glad, you're against them, too.
But the way it is worded makes it illegal to split up with her,or to refuse to pay her rent,or otherwise alter your relationship with her.
From your own link...
Quote:A misdemeanor charge for actions that do not physically threaten a woman, but clearly constitute a coercive element (relationship, financial or housing arrangements) would subject the perpetrator to fines up to $2000.
I used your link so that you cant accuse me of using a biased link.
Now,why should it be illegal,and why should I pay a fine,if I decide to move out,or to break up with her?
Since when did that become the govts business?
Seems only fitting. The right to lifers want to stick women with unwanted pregnancy. It is only right that the man who participated in that occurrence also be stuck with the woman.
It appears to be poetic justice. The men object to being stuck with the woman but have no regrets about insisting the woman be stuck with their child to birth.
Choice for one, is choice for all. Maybe now we'll see more men out there marching for the right to choose for themselves and the women in their lives.
I hope more states consider such a law.
I agree with Butrflynet's response - it is only right that the man who participated in that occurrence also be stuck with the woman.
It sounds to me that it is only illegal if you threaten or do these things in an attempt to make her get an abortion.
Move out, break up, do whatever as long as staying there, staying together is not conditional on her having an abortion.
Really I doubt any woman would want to stay with a man who threatens her with such stuff. A man like that, I think, would be prone to abusing or killing the woman in question.
The government has firmly entrenched themselves in the abortion debate and by the name of this law it seems that they are are further moving in on it. But I agree with you that it shouldn't be any of the government's damn business.
Phoenix32890 wrote:It sounds more like the government is interfering in the private business of its citizens. What a crock!
That bill amends the penal code, and the penal code interfers in private businesses of citizens.
Quote:punishing men for their peaceful, private conduct in their personal relationships is quite another.
Is coercing a woman to have an abortion "peaceful, private conduct"?
mysteryman, why don't you credit the original authors of the material you posted?
~~~~~~~~~~~
The piece is from the Opinions section of the Detroit News on November 30, 2006.
It was part of a Yes/No presentation.
The corresponding Opinion piece from the Right to Life folks was published the same day.
Does abortion coercion bill trample rights?
Quote:Studies indicate that there is a correlation between domestic violence and repeat abortions.
Critics also claim CAPA should also protect women from being forced to carry a child they do not want. This is not necessary since existing law is clear in that it is a woman's choice and hers alone to abort.
A married woman has the legal right to keep an abortion secret from her husband. A minor may secretly obtain a judicial bypass to avoid parental knowledge.
This proposal will not clog up overburdened courts and send people to jail because it is designed to be a deterrent. CAPA will change behavior regarding personal and intimate relationships.
This legislation is revolutionary first in the nation. This can also be a coming together of all factions who are interested in rescuing women from harm.
Suanne Thompson is the legislative liaison for Right to Life of Michigan in Lansing.
ehBeth wrote:mysteryman, why don't you credit the original authors of the material you posted?
~~~~~~~~~~~
The piece is from the Opinions section of the Detroit News on November 30, 2006.
It was part of a Yes/No presentation.
The corresponding Opinion piece from the Right to Life folks was published the same day.
Does abortion coercion bill trample rights?
Quote:Studies indicate that there is a correlation between domestic violence and repeat abortions.
Critics also claim CAPA should also protect women from being forced to carry a child they do not want. This is not necessary since existing law is clear in that it is a woman's choice and hers alone to abort.
A married woman has the legal right to keep an abortion secret from her husband. A minor may secretly obtain a judicial bypass to avoid parental knowledge.
This proposal will not clog up overburdened courts and send people to jail because it is designed to be a deterrent. CAPA will change behavior regarding personal and intimate relationships.
This legislation is revolutionary first in the nation. This can also be a coming together of all factions who are interested in rescuing women from harm.
Suanne Thompson is the legislative liaison for Right to Life of Michigan in Lansing.
Because I got it from another forum like this one.
I didnt get from the Detroit News.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace