Proposed Ohio Law Would Require Biological Father’s Consent

[eagle_eye222001]

[url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/"]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/[/url]

Columbus, Ohio, Jul 25, 2009 / 06:47 am (CNA).- An Ohio state legislator has introduced a bill that requires written permission from an unborn baby’s biological father before an abortion.

Rep. John Adams, a Republican from Sidney, Ohio, calls his bill H.B. 252 "Father’s Rights Regarding Abortion," Politics Daily reports. The legislation has more than a dozen co-sponsors in the Ohio House of Representatives, where Rep. Adams is Minority Whip.

"When the fetus that is the subject of the procedure is viable, no person shall perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman without the written informed consent of the father of the fetus," the bill’s text reads. "When the fetus that is the subject of the procedure is not viable, no person shall perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman without the written informed consent of the father of the fetus."

The bill would make abortion without a father’s permission or naming a "false biological father" into a first-degree misdemeanor with a maximum $1,000 fine. A second occasion of providing false information would be considered a fifth-degree felony.

In cases where the father is unknown, the pregnant woman would be required to submit a list of possible fathers and her doctor would have to conduct paternity tests so that permission to abort may be sought. In cases of rape or incest, the bill requires proof in the form of a court document, police report or indictment.

According to Politics Daily, Rep. Adams proposed similar legislation in 2007 but it failed after protests from Planned Parenthood.

CNA spoke with Rep. Adams in Friday afternoon phone interview.

He said that currently the law allows a father to have "no say" if a mother of his child wants to get an abortion.

"And that’s what the purpose of the bill is, to give him a say in whether that child can be terminated or not."

He characterized present law as engaging in "reproductive discrimination."

"It takes two to have a child. I don’t know why a father doesn’t have a say currently."

Asked whether Planned Parenthood was again protesting the bill, Rep. Adams said he believed it was.

CNA noted that some media reports describe the bill as advancing "A Man’s Right to Choose."

When asked his opinion of that description, Rep. Adams replied:

"Groups are going to say whatever they want to about the bill. I’ve been very clear about the purpose is.

"What you have is, the father of the child has no say. If the mother of the child decides to keep the child, that father has 18 years of financial responsibility.

"Basically it’s leveling the playing field."

Asked whether he thought the bill could make men more morally complicit in abortions that do take place, he said he didn’t know.

"I’ve had men tell me [about the abortion of their children] ‘I wish I’d have known’ and ‘I wish that the outcome could’ve been different.’ That was the motivation for proposing the bill," he explained to CNA.

CNA also contacted Right to Life for Ohio and received a response from its legal counsel Mark Lally.

He said the bill intends to address the "inequity" in the treatment of the rights of mothers and fathers with regard to abortion.

"Although many fathers feel a strong parental bond to their unborn children and wish to protect them, current court rulings permit the mother to have an abortion for any reason and provide no rights to fathers who object to their child's death."

If the law were passed, Lally said, it would only change the outcome of abortion decisions when the father objected to the abortion.

"If the bill became law, it would be challenged as unconstitutional and could provide the courts with an opportunity to reconsider current rulings."

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/red+hot+chili+peppers/track/hard+to+concentrate"]Red Hot Chili Peppers - Hard To Concentrate[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

Edited July 27, 2009 by Lil Red

[CatherineM]

I was in a miscarriage support group with a man whose girlfriend had an abortion without his knowledge. They put him in our group because the issues he was dealing with were closer to ours than the post-abortion women's group. He apparently kept accusing them of murder, which is valid, but not so helpful for a group of women who have repented, and are attempting to recover. He was just completely destroyed.

Don't know if they will be able to get this passed, but the first real inroads into court that worked for gays wanting to marry was when they stopped saying you are discriminating against us because we are gay, and are discriminating against us because of our sex. You know, "if I was a woman, you'd let me marry my boyfriend, but because I'm a man, you won't." This may be a way of getting around the privacy barrier set by Roe vs. Wade.

[Hassan]

I'm pretty sure this has already been struck down as unconstitutional.

[pat22]

well.... i Think this is good you guys don't seem so sure

[MissyP89]

I don't know if this would really help, especially when you consider a lot of the time, pressure to abort comes from the father of the child. (That isn't meant to be taken as bitterness of feminism, just the truth.)

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='pat22' post='1931703' date='Jul 25 2009, 01:44 PM']well.... i Think this is good you guys don't seem so sure[/quote]


I'm open to changing my opinion, but I do think it is a good thing, important even.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1931740' date='Jul 25 2009, 02:11 PM']I don't know if this would really help, especially when you consider a lot of the time, pressure to abort comes from the father of the child. (That isn't meant to be taken as bitterness of feminism, just the truth.)[/quote]

That's a good point. In cases where the father is against the abortion, the mom would probably just lie about paternity. It is surprising how many women don't know who the fathers of their children are. I remember when they added that to the welfare act so the government could go after deadbeats. So many women didn't know. I know intellectually how that happens, but I still don't understand how it happens.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1931678' date='Jul 25 2009, 01:21 PM']I'm pretty sure this has already been struck down as unconstitutional.[/quote]

I'm more concerned that our laws forbid things which the Church teaches that states should forbid.

[CatholicCid]

"What you have is, the father of the child has no say. If the mother of the child decides to keep the child, that father has 18 years of financial responsibility.

Interesting, and true, statement. Will try and see if this is passed.

[Hassan]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1932052' date='Jul 25 2009, 09:28 PM']"What you have is, the father of the child has no say. If the mother of the child decides to keep the child, that father has 18 years of financial responsibility.

Interesting, and true, statement. Will try and see if this is passed.[/quote]

I don't see their point. An abortion frees them of financial responsibility, so I don't see how that is relevant to this story. If a woman chooses to have an abortion it is a function of what the courts have ruled as her constitutionally protected right to privacy and the father has no say as his sexual history with her does not usurp her rights. If he doesn't want to pay child support then he needs to "keep it in his pants". By having sex with the woman he knew that if she got pregnant and choose to continue the pregnancy than he would be partially responsible for his child's welfare. I don't see how allowing a man to have sex with a woman and then kick her to the curb if she becomes pregnant and doesn't want an abortion is somehow more fair.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1932059' date='Jul 25 2009, 09:36 PM']I don't see their point. An abortion frees them of financial responsibility, so I don't see how that is relevant to this story. If a woman chooses to have an abortion it is a function of what the courts have ruled as her constitutionally protected right to privacy and the father has no say as his sexual history with her does not usurp her rights. If he doesn't want to pay child support then he needs to "keep it in his pants". By having sex with the woman he knew that if she got pregnant and choose to continue the pregnancy than he would be partially responsible for his child's welfare. I don't see how allowing a man to have sex with a woman and then kick her to the curb if she becomes pregnant and doesn't want an abortion is somehow more fair.[/quote]

Actually, I saw it as interesting for the opposite reason. It seems a somewhat logical step in the road we have taken.

Our laws appear to reflect that a child, before birth, does not deserve the protection a child deserves (specifically, the mother can choose to abort the child). Once a child is conceived, the mother can choose to abort that child. The father, regardless of his wishes, has no say in this matter. Our laws see it as a 'choice' the woman can make. If the woman chooses to have the child, then the man is financially responsible in supporting the child.

If we look at the situation in an 'equal' fashion, removing gender, ect... from the equation, then it would seem to be somewhat unfair to the man. After a consensual agreement between a man and a woman, the man has no say in whether he will or will not have a financial obligation in 9 months time. If the woman chooses to have the child, the man has a financial obligation to keep. But why does he have this obligation? As you said, a man knows that intercourse can lead to conception and that he also knows he will be financially responsible to any child 'allowed' to be born. The woman, on the other hand, has the 'choice' in whether she should undergo this joy and whether or not there will be any 'financial obligations' to be met (which is a said statement in itself). She also knew, however, that intercourse can lead to conception. (It does take two to tango.) She is allowed two choices to the man's one. That seems to be the point, at least in my opinion. They call it "reproductive discrimination". It takes two to lead to conception, so should it not take two to 'choose' life for the child?

Logically, perhaps, it would then be 'fair' to have the man decide whether or not to provide his financial obligation of his own free will. As the woman can 'choose' to have allow the child to be born or not, would not a logical step in this pattern be to allow the man to state whether or not he wished to have the child and then have the financial obligation follow suit?

That being said and if any of that made sense, that is what I've always seen our current legal logic leading too and is why I found the statement "interesting".

Personally, I've always found the above to be quite horrific and on what many call the 'slippery slope'. Abortion is wrong and so is trying to dodge one's responsibilities as a parent.

I should also clarify that by saying "Will try and see if this is passed", I meant that I will be following the story and watching for updates.

Edited July 26, 2009 by CatholicCid

[Jesus_lol]

this doesnt say that a man can now legally force an abortion, merely that it requires his permission and the womans, to have one.

i like it.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1932314' date='Jul 26 2009, 03:35 AM']this doesnt say that a man can now legally force an abortion, merely that it requires his permission and the womans, to have one.

i like it.[/quote]

He doesn't have any right to hold a veto over her

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1932317' date='Jul 26 2009, 02:41 AM']He doesn't have any right to hold a veto over her [/quote]

So in cases of consensual sex, a man should have no right over his child?

[Hassan]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1932329' date='Jul 26 2009, 04:14 AM']So in cases of consensual sex, a man should have no right over his child?[/quote]


He's not the one carying it or going through labor.

I understand your point. I really do and it is a fair one. However he does not cary the baby, the mother does. I don't see where he gets a right to veto her actions in this case.