Alito and the paternal consent debate (just something to think about)
I was reading something on amptoons.com about the paternal consent debate that will probably grow and grow as Alito's nomination is considered.
(For those of you who are a) not losers or b) not paying attention to American politics, Alito is Bush's new Supreme Court nominee. As a judge, he voted in favor of requiring that women get permission from their husbands before getting abortions. He lost that one, thankfully.)
I came across this quote by someone who is in favor of requiring that a woman inform her husband before getting an abortion, but not necessarily get his consent:
Paternal consent, in my view, goes too far in infringing on the woman's bodily autonomy; paternal notification, on the other hand--with exemptions when there is domestic violence or other complicating factors--may not be such an onerous measure.
At face value, what this debater is saying seems true: I can't think of any case aside from one of domestic abuse (or something related) where it would cause any serious problems for a woman to inform the father of her baby that she was getting an abortion. In fact, I think that in most cases, she really ought to do him the courtesy of telling him.
But this should never be made into law. To require paternal notification would be to say, "It doesn't seem like this will cause you much trouble; you should be able to handle it." This breaks Major Social Rule #1, which is "Never presume to tell anyone what they can deal with." (Of course, this rule is one of the reasons why abortion in general should always be legal, completely without restrictions. But that's something else.)
It's like MLK said: "Few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action."
In other words, "Just because you don't understand my plight doesn't mean I don't have one. Don't try to tell me it's not important. Don't try to tell me I can handle it."
One thing that I didn't get is that the Casey court's decision and the debates center on the consent of a married woman's husband but, as far as I can tell, have nothing to do with the consent of an unmarried father. I can't think of any way to account for this. As I've said, I think a father has no legal rights in this situation, but that lack of rights doesn't change based on marital status.
The post where I got the first quote from is here; there is a sizable exerpt from the court decision in question, which also makes a very good point. One line, however, ("A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.") is sort of chilling. My state senate just passed a bill requiring pregnant teenagers to get consent from their parents before getting an abortion. My Governor is a Democrat and I think he'll veto it, but it's still a scary concept. The girl in question here, the one who may be told, "Nah, you're too young to decide this kind of thing," could be me. This is dark stuff.
P.S. Ruie, I was this close to filtering this post so you couldn't see it, but I decided that would be unfair. But please, we are both way too tired to pretend we're still at the zenith of our DC days. Let's be friends.
(For those of you who are a) not losers or b) not paying attention to American politics, Alito is Bush's new Supreme Court nominee. As a judge, he voted in favor of requiring that women get permission from their husbands before getting abortions. He lost that one, thankfully.)
I came across this quote by someone who is in favor of requiring that a woman inform her husband before getting an abortion, but not necessarily get his consent:
Paternal consent, in my view, goes too far in infringing on the woman's bodily autonomy; paternal notification, on the other hand--with exemptions when there is domestic violence or other complicating factors--may not be such an onerous measure.
At face value, what this debater is saying seems true: I can't think of any case aside from one of domestic abuse (or something related) where it would cause any serious problems for a woman to inform the father of her baby that she was getting an abortion. In fact, I think that in most cases, she really ought to do him the courtesy of telling him.
But this should never be made into law. To require paternal notification would be to say, "It doesn't seem like this will cause you much trouble; you should be able to handle it." This breaks Major Social Rule #1, which is "Never presume to tell anyone what they can deal with." (Of course, this rule is one of the reasons why abortion in general should always be legal, completely without restrictions. But that's something else.)
It's like MLK said: "Few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action."
In other words, "Just because you don't understand my plight doesn't mean I don't have one. Don't try to tell me it's not important. Don't try to tell me I can handle it."
One thing that I didn't get is that the Casey court's decision and the debates center on the consent of a married woman's husband but, as far as I can tell, have nothing to do with the consent of an unmarried father. I can't think of any way to account for this. As I've said, I think a father has no legal rights in this situation, but that lack of rights doesn't change based on marital status.
The post where I got the first quote from is here; there is a sizable exerpt from the court decision in question, which also makes a very good point. One line, however, ("A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.") is sort of chilling. My state senate just passed a bill requiring pregnant teenagers to get consent from their parents before getting an abortion. My Governor is a Democrat and I think he'll veto it, but it's still a scary concept. The girl in question here, the one who may be told, "Nah, you're too young to decide this kind of thing," could be me. This is dark stuff.
P.S. Ruie, I was this close to filtering this post so you couldn't see it, but I decided that would be unfair. But please, we are both way too tired to pretend we're still at the zenith of our DC days. Let's be friends.