June 4, 2015

"Wisconsin Abortion Ban Would Allow Father To Sue For Emotional Distress."

Huffpo headline.
Wisconsin Assembly Bill 237 would ban abortions after 20 weeks "postfertilization," which doctors would measure as 22 weeks of pregnancy since pregnancies are usually measured from the woman's last menstrual period. If the bill becomes law, doctors who perform an abortion after this time could be charged with a felony and fined up to $10,000, or face up to three and a half years in prison.

In addition to those penalties, the bill would allow the father to sue the doctor for damages, "including damages for personal injury and emotional and psychological distress," if the doctor performs or attempts to perform an abortion after the 20-week limit. The man does not need to be married to the woman or even in a relationship with her to sue her doctor, as long as the pregnancy is not a result of sexual assault or incest. The bill also says the woman can sue.

59 comments:

Rusty said...

Good.

Fen said...

Men are finally getting reproductive rights.

AJ Lynch said...

Let's see how crazy libruls can get when they object to this reasonable proposal. Althouse - would you like to give us a preview?

rhhardin said...

In Japan pregnancies are 10 months long, which explains the low birth rate.

Rae said...

Let me get some popcorn, this is gonna be fun to watch...

Elliott A said...

With Neonatology continuing to push back the point at which a fetus is viable to 24 weeks, 20 is a good cutoff. The question becomes what happens in the future when any fetus can survive? This will make abortion a much harder sell.

traditionalguy said...

But how can court calculate damages to the emitter of a sperm cell gone wild and clumping into a fetal position inside a woman. That implies a family relation ship...almost like a humans believe in because of Religious Myths.

n.n said...

They acknowledge that human life begins from conception, but still defer to a woman's judgment to establish or reject the baby's human rights. Baby steps, I suppose. At least the father's rights have been reaffirmed. With progress, the evil solution (i.e. pro-choice) will be overturned, and a woman's fantasy masquerading as a sincerely held faith will be rejected. And then the lawsuits and trials for the abortion industry, lobbyists, advocates, and activists will begin... Millions of human lives were sacrificed to appease the Party and Feminists during the sexual revolution and a subsequent effort to establish and maintain a false gender equivalence.

Bay Area Guy said...

If the law can impose child support obligations on the man, when the baby is born, then clearly the law and courts are saying that the father has some legal duty.

If so, does he have any corresponding rights? Logic would dictate yes.

rhhardin said...

They acknowledge that human life begins from conception

Human as opposed to wolf.

Being "a human" is different. The criteria aren't the same.

It's just ordinary usage. Respecting ordinary usage is another matter.

Ordinary usage though does respect the interests humans have.

hombre said...

hombre said...

"If the law can impose child support obligations on the man, when the baby is born, then clearly the law and courts are saying that the father has some legal duty. If so, does he have any corresponding rights? Logic would dictate yes."

Logic? We're talking about the baby-killing feminist left and the U.S. Courts here. What has logic got to do with anything?

Sebastian said...

"If the law can impose child support obligations on the man . . . If so, does he have any corresponding rights?"

An equal protection claim by a man forced to pay child support for a baby he had preferred to abort would be fun. Courts might not be very amenable, but still.

Bob Boyd said...

@ rhhardin

I was talking to some Iraqis a few years ago and the subject of Bedouins came up and how much they love their camels. In the course of the conversation I asked how the Bedouins make a living from the camels. Are they raised for their hides? The milk? The meat? I asked. "Oh yes, some like the meat" I was told.
Three of the Iraqis did not speak English so the discussion was being interpreted by a fourth guy, Jassim.
After some back and forth in Arabic, Jassim turned to me and said, "Bassim wants me to tell you that if a man eats camel his wife will carry a baby ten months, not nine." Jassim looked at me after he said this as though he wasn't sure how I would take the news.
"How many times does a man have to eat camel before this happens?" I asked.
Jassim relayed my question. I heard Bassim say with certainty, "Clawthay". The others each repeated this number, but with a question marks in their voices. There was more discussion in Arabic, but it ended with Bassim stating firmly again, "Clawthay. Clawthay."
Jassim turned back to me and said, "Maybe three."

The Godfather said...

If I had to choose, I'd prefer that the father have the right to object to aborting his child than that he had the right to insist that his child be aborted.

Biology tells us that a child, born or unborn, is as much the product of the father as the mother. Yes, of course, it's the mother that carries the child and gives birth to the child if not aborted, so the rights and duties of the parents are not the same. But both ought to have rights.

Sebastian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sebastian said...

Here's the Caitlyn Jenner/Rick Santorum, AA-approved solution to the child support issue:

"If he says he’s a woman, then he’s a woman. My responsibility as a human being is to love and accept everybody. Not to criticize people for who they are"

If a father says he's a nephew, then he's a nephew.

Our responsibility is to accept fathers who don't think they are fathers.

I gather paternity tests are hanging on in some places, but we already know that mere DNA doesn't determine who or what people are, so they'll be gone soon.

n.n said...

rhhardin:

The objective difference between a human and animal, plant life is the observed degrees of freedom exercised by individual processes (i.e. incorporated entities) throughout their evolution. Well, that, and tribal (e.g. correlated, derivative, adopted) affiliation motivate a common deference (e.g. compassion) to unwanted, inconvenient, and underperforming members, especially within the same family.

Yeah, I'm mixing metaphors. At its most basic, life is a systemic process capable of effecting independent, coherent causality. Humans are exceptional in that we have demonstrated the greatest range of this quality. At least that which can be observed and replicated within the scientific domain.

To paraphrase MLK: Debasement of human life anywhere is debasement of human life everywhere.

Gahrie said...

Logic would dictate yes.

There is your first mistake. We are dealing with women here. Throw logic out the window, the only thing that matters is how the woman feels.

victoria said...

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Wisconsin, you should be ashamed of yourself.


Vicki from Pasadena

clint said...

If the father claims he's a woman, doesn't that make him the mother, and don't we support a woman's right to choose?

chuck said...

Sue? They wish to release the Kraken.

Titus said...

He won elections 3 times and has an overwhelming republican house. He does have a mandate

If the tards don't like it they can vote them out and change the law.

thanks.

jimbino said...

It's time that women seeking an abortion travel to get one in Cuba, where abortion has been fully legal since the revolution.

Pro-choice organizations just need to change their business model to focus on arranging charter excursions to Cuba for abortions and, while they're at it, for dental care, eye care, lasix, cataract surgery, colonoscopies, and other common types of screening and treatment. The costs would be so much less, probably less than the 1/2 price quoted in Costa Rica and Brazil or even less than the 1/3 price quoted in Argentina and Mexico.

Rusty said...

jimbino said...
It's time that women seeking an abortion travel to get one in Cuba, where abortion has been fully legal since the revolution.

Trust me on this. medical procedure and Cuba should never be mentioned in the same sentence. Never get your medical care in a shithole.

MadisonMan said...

Emotional damages for something never seen. For an idea, essentially.

I oughtn't be on that jury.

great Unknown said...

Make it 24 weeks, with court-approved exceptions for the mother's health, and this might actually hold up in court, once it gets out of the lower levels of the Wisconsin liberal-scum court system.

damikesc said...

Terrific. Men need a voice in this.

jimbino said...

@Rusty: Trust me on this. medical procedure and Cuba should never be mentioned in the same sentence. Never get your medical care in a shithole.

cf.

Cuba's Health Care System: a Model for the World

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salim-lamrani/cubas-health-care-system-_b_5649968.html

machine said...

...but...but...but...tort reform!

farce

iowan2 said...

The libs are trying to make Walker out as the evil one. Seems to me the correct response is to reply. Obama is going to issue an executive order allowing the abortion of a baby 6 months after birth. Now thats evil. How can democrats sleep at night?

R. Chatt said...

If we can send a man to the moon why can't men figure out a way to create an artificial womb? That way there will no need for abortions. With so many people so strongly opposed to abortions and so concerned about human rights and father's rights why hasn't there been more research? Would everyone, anyone, here who is adamently opposed to abortion be willing to adopt those "babies?" As a bonus, we wouldn't have all this hatred expressed towards women who want to end unwanted pregnancies.

Gahrie said...

If we can send a man to the moon why can't men figure out a way to create an artificial womb? That way there will no need for abortions

I guarantee you that many women, and the feminist movement, would still demand the right to kill their children rather than give them up to an artificial womb and adoption.

jr565 said...

Im ok with it. Men, not women, have been getting the shaft for too long when it comes to reproductive rights.

jr565 said...

Sebastian wrote:
"If he says he’s a woman, then he’s a woman. My responsibility as a human being is to love and accept everybody. Not to criticize people for who they are"

Interesting. Did Jenner father any of his kids? Then, if he's a woman, did he in fact father them? How can a woman produce sperm?

jr565 said...

Sebastian wrote:
"If he says he’s a woman, then he’s a woman. My responsibility as a human being is to love and accept everybody. Not to criticize people for who they are"

Interesting. Did Jenner father any of his kids? Then, if he's a woman, did he in fact father them? How can a woman produce sperm?

jr565 said...

Madison Man wrote:

Emotional damages for something never seen. For an idea, essentially.

Somethings being aborted. If it can be aborted it can be seen. It's probably in a plastic garbage bag somewhere

garage mahal said...

Well, Walker said most women only worry about a rape pregnancy for a few weeks. So, we should just go with that. I'm sure he's thoroughly researched the topic and is putting theirs needs ahead of his own.

jimbino said...

R Chatt asks:

Would everyone, anyone, here who is adamently opposed to abortion be willing to adopt those "babies?"

Adoption could make both mother and childless couple happy. Best would be to have a market in babies, or at least some reward for the tribulations of pregnancy and childbirth.

Gahrie said...

I'm sure he's thoroughly researched the topic and is putting theirs needs ahead of his own.

Do you really think it is a good idea for your side of the abortion argument to start talking about: "putting theirs needs ahead of his own", considering abortion is all about putting the 'needs" of the mother against the life of the child?

Michael K said...

"Never get your medical care in a shithole."

That depends on whether you vote D.If so, be my guest,

n.n said...

MadisonMan:

You're a father and an educated man. The physical reality of pregnancy should not escape your grasp. A human life begins from conception. That is where the conversation needs to begin. There is no need to deny scientific evidence and self-evident knowledge in order to normalize a fantasy in order to promote a wicked solution. Elective abortion is as much a "wicked problem" as other criminal (e.g. premeditated murder) and dysfunctional behaviors that willfully cause the termination of a human life for light and casual causes, but there is a relatively unique effort to entertain and sustain a casual difference between abortion and killing.

R. Chatt:

Abortion is an effect, but is not the cause, for debasement of human life. You can terminate (e.g. abortion) and debase (e.g. pornography) individual lives, but it is the underlying ideology that is pervasive and warps society and humanity. Also, liberty is only possible for women and men capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior. There are both human and civil rights that are threatened by pro-choice (i.e. selective) policies, and providing an incentive for libertine orientations and behaviors only facilitates its progress.

cubanbob said...

Bay Area Guy said...

If the law can impose child support obligations on the man, when the baby is born, then clearly the law and courts are saying that the father has some legal duty.

If so, does he have any corresponding rights? Logic would dictate yes.

6/4/15, 4:56 PM "

I think the bill has it backwards. The bill ought to read that if the woman hasn't gotten a written acceptance of fatherhood by the 24th week after providing proper notice the father has no legal support obligations even if they are married.

Coupe said...

I guess I don't understand why they are burdening the taxpayers with all these costs, and treating doctors as if they got their medical license at Wal-Mart.

The only people who are going to use these laws, are your bottom feeders of society.

Goju said...

Why is this being called a ban? It is a restriction, but certainly not a ban. Playing to the lowest common denominator?

MadisonMan said...

@n.n: My puzzle is: How many men would have unprotected sex with a woman who *might* abort -- and also be a man who would be upset to the point of suing in case that woman *did* abort?

That's a very small, if not actually null, set. (IMO)

I will not disagree that it's a great point to throw to his base to show he's "DOING SOMETHING" about the great scourge of abortion. (Keep those checks coming! I'm sure he needs money to continue the good work). But in practice?

I would expect any lawsuits filed to be more sour grapes at the termination of a relationship than true emotional distress over the termination of a pregnancy.

R. Chatt said...

If I understand the comment by n.n -- The problem with abortion is not so much about the murder of innocent life and the violation of the rights of the unborn as with people who have sex for simple pleasure and not to procreate? Having unwanted pregnancies is a punishment we don't want to lose for the sake of society? That's a new one for me.

n.n said...

MadisonMan:

Unfortunately, I do not disagree. While the male, and father's, perspective has been distorted to an end, there is a stark difference between men who would be fathers, and others who are just gratifying themselves. Still, there are men who have been exploited in a relationship where a child was conceived, and their position, at the very least, should be known. Perhaps the mother will reconsider her choice when counseled. The current, singular deference to the mother, denies the rights of the father and the child.

R. Chatt:

No, you misunderstood my statement. Based on your previous comment, perhaps intentionally so. The relevant issues are recognition and reconciliation of two moral axioms: individual dignity (e.g. mother) and intrinsic or unearned value (i.e. child). The consideration for the prerequisites of liberty is directed to people like yourself who believe that rejecting intrinsic value for light and casual causes will have contained consequences. It also has repercussions for the integrity and motives of people and groups who claim a human interest, but reject intrinsic value on principle.

n.n said...

cubanbob:

It is not, or should not be, in the interest of society and humanity to normalize a disunity of male and female parenthood. First, it promotes instability in the mother, father, and children's lives; as well as in the community. Second, it inevitably transfers responsibility for personal behaviors to society. The left is concerned with how the first point will affect their lives and the lives of their children. The right, specifically libertarians, but also others to lesser degrees, are typically concerned with the second point. The first engenders less liberty as an authority is established to restore stability. The second engenders narcissistic personalities and sponsors corruption of individuals and institutions.

n.n said...

MadisonMan:

The sexual revolution and gender equivalence movement normalized or promoted causal sex that has left broken bodies, minds, and relationships. The responsibility for the dysfunctional outcomes is not less for women than men. This includes the subsequent need and demand to normalize abortion as a wicked solution to a largely manufactured "wicked problem". As well as to promote the narrative from aggression (e.g. sexual harassment, disparate status) to rape, which is also exploited to justify elective abortion as that "solution" loses reputability. Both men and women have been victims of this unnatural progression.

Rusty said...

jimbino said...
@Rusty: Trust me on this. medical procedure and Cuba should never be mentioned in the same sentence. Never get your medical care in a shithole.

cf.

Cuba's Health Care System: a Model for the World

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salim-lamrani/cubas-health-care-system-_b_5649968.html


Jim, my friend, when the head of the country has to go to Spain for medical care ...........you connect the dots.

jimbino said...

Rusty:
Jim, my friend, when the head of the country has to go to Spain for medical care ...........you connect the dots.

The dots are these:

People who have more money than sense can choose medical care in Spain, Switzerland or the US, which offer cadillac care for cadillac prices.

Normal Amerikans, who have more sense than money, would prefer to seek care in places like Cuba, Costa Rica and Argentina, except that neither Medicare nor Obamacare pays for it.

Ironic, however, that a Cuban has more freedom in choosing health care than an Amerikan does.

Todd said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Todd said...

jimbino said...

Ironic, however, that a Cuban has more freedom in choosing health care than an Amerikan does.

6/5/15, 9:36 AM


What does that even mean? The average Cuban can have any healthcare they want, that they can get to? How is that any different than here in America other than we have much more wealth (at all levels of society) and more freedom of movement?

Do you have any idea how hard it is for your average Cuban to get permission to leave the country? Do you have any idea how hard it is for your average Cuban to scrap up enough money to leave the country? Jimbino, what a completely dumbass statement!

jimbino said...

Todd,

I personally know dozens of Cubans living in Texas who've left the country, some of whom I've helped with the immigration documentation. What dumbass statements you make!

Amerikans, on the other hand, are prohibited from going to Cuba for medical or dental care. Amerikans are less free!

jimbino said...

New Cuban Migration Rules (for Todd and others so ill-informed):

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/world/americas/new-rules-allow-cubans-to-keep-residency-amid-travel.html?_r=0

Todd said...

jimbino said...
Todd,

I personally know dozens of Cubans living in Texas who've left the country, some of whom I've helped with the immigration documentation. What dumbass statements you make!

Amerikans, on the other hand, are prohibited from going to Cuba for medical or dental care. Amerikans are less free!

6/5/15, 3:39 PM


Left which country? America to return to Cuba for medical care or left Cuba for America for medical care?

What does that link have to do with medical care?

Sorry but do you actually think that the medical care in Cuba is superior to the medical care in the US or most other countries in the Americas? Is there really a line of folks eagerly awaiting the ability to take medical junkets to Cuba? Sorry but that was/is still a dumbass comment.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Would everyone, anyone, here who is adamently opposed to abortion be willing to adopt those "babies?"

I'm really tired of this fallacy. What you are trying to say is that if we "really" cared about the aborted babies, we would adopt them.

Shorter: "Since no one will take them in, its okay to kill them"

Anyone want to take care of Uncle Ben? He lost everything in the Housing Bubble and now he can't even afford rent, much less his diabetes medication. Anyone? No? Okay then you can't complain when we put a bullet in his head.