 |
|
Men have been treated as an under class without reproductive rights since
Roe v. Wade in 1973, despite the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of
"equal protection". The National Center for Men takes the position that
forcing only men into parenthood discriminates, is demeaning and offensive
to the basic principles of human dignity. Ironically, the Georgia Supreme
Court's ruling is also counter to the trend of protecting men's family
planning in that state's own legislature, which recently introduced HB369
to stop non-paternity fraud.
Unfortunately, although we believe in the principles of his case, his
attorney, NCM's executive director and I all expect that he has little
chance of getting any relief. It seems to me that we need to foster more
of a public discourse about men's reproductive rights before we can
realistically expect the U.S. Supreme Court to even consider a case like
this. Toward that end, the National Center for Men is fostering public
debate by expanding its internet presence:
1.) Our improved web site (www.choiceformen.com) is now officially
up and running. It has
a.) news,
b.) case law,
c.) over 10,000 emails,
d.) a search engine,
e.) a click-able flowchart to help paternity suit
defendants,
f.) a survey and
g.) much more.
2.) The digest version of the messages submitted to the Legalize
Choice for Men email list (a.k.a. lc4m-d) is being forwarded to
usenet.
Publicity from the Georgia case would also foster public debate and the
man involved told me that he'll reconsider going public once he knows if
they'll accept his case under a pseudonym. Evidently we should know in a
month to two years.
If you'd like to support his efforts, you can:
1.) Help pay his legal fees. The appeal is expected to cost $US
5000 and he's considering filing for bankruptcy. Send
contributions to his attorney:
Philip T. Raymond, III
SHAFFER, RAYMOND & DALTON
Post Office Box 1935
Macon, Georgia 31202-1935
(912) 471-1112
bfturnip@mindspring.com
State Bar No. 596850
2.) Consider writing an amicus brief. We'll know more later about
the details of submitting them, but I can tell you now that my
understanding is that Federal Courts are very picky about how
amicus briefs must be submitted and it may be necessary to get an
experienced attorney involved.
3.) Look for other cases that are ready for U.S. Federal Court and
which could be combined with his in a class action.
Thanks,
Kingsley G. Morse Jr.
Reproductive Rights Chairman
National Center for Men
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday March 04, @12:51PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
It would be a tremendous coup if the Supreme Court supported "Choice for Men", however, I truly doubt that it would do that. It only bearly supports legal abortion in the first place. Those judges who would tend to oppose legal abortion will most certainly oppose the idea of Choice for Men and those who do support legal abortion won't necessarily support C4M either.
The idea is far too radical right now to test it in either a Circuit or the Supreme Court. A loss would establish bad precent for the cause. In the future, perhaps 50 years from now when the public has even thought of and perhaps has some agreement with the idea of C4M, and when abortion itself is more acceptable, maybe then the Supreme
Court would be willing to create a legal basis for C4M out of whole cloth.
Right now many people who might be willing to support C4M have never even heard of the idea! The idea is certainly too controversial for any Congressman to risk proposing legislation to legalize C4M--anyone who votes for it knows that he/she'd be committing political suicide for the next election (say goodbye to at least 70% or so of the women's vote and thus Congress).
A couple things will need to happen first:
1. Men's issues in general need to gain more public sympathy. This means that Farrell's books need to become as popular, well-read, and as widely recognized as Friedan's book.
2. The public needs to come to accept abortion as being more or less uncontroversial and not merely accepted as legal, but regarded as the rational,
moral thing for a woman to do when she's pregnant and does not want a child. The thinking needs to be:
"Pregnant women who cannot afford to raise children on their own and/or who did not intend to have children at this time have a selfish moral duty--to themselves--to do the rational, responsible thing and have an abortion and go on with pursuing those values that are truly important to them."
Under that sort of ideology, having an abortion is not merely an option, it is the rational, moral, selfish (in one's rational self interest) thing to do.
That is the kind of ideological atmosphere that will be needed in order to either get C4M legalized through actual or judicial legislation. 1. Public must have sympathy for men's issues and notions of equality; and 2. the public must (by and large) support legal abortion uncompromisingly and hold it as having the same kind of moral imperative that conventional birth control has.
When that state has been reached--perhaps 50 years from now (don't hold your breath), then it will be possible to get C4M legalized.
Until then us men are going to have to rely on vasectomies and hope for a male pill in order to be able to enjoy sex without having to worry about unwanted fatherhood. (Of course, you could also only sleep with women who have a C4M-like mentality and who vow to have abortions in the case of accidental pregnancy, but that's not 100% reliable.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. The Supreme Court would never give equal rights to men on this topic. They have never done so on any issue to do with parenting rights or reproductive rights. They are generally sexist against men. This is an issue that women simply will run in fear from too. Almost no women are willing to lose their power over men like this. That's true whether they are pro-life or pro-"choice".
It would be better to bring up a case based on a boy who was raped for example. Women are more sympathetic because they don't see it as endangering their power over men and feminists would have a hard time arguing against the rights of a rape victim.
Another alternative is to give up on parental rights and seek to instead sue women who use their own parental rights to put men in a situation where they suffer economic or emotional harm. Paternity fraud is a good example again, because the woman in these cases is a "bad woman" who has cheated and lied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday March 04, @07:20PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Dave has got a damn good point,but what about the men's pill? surely the impact that will have (in about 3-5 years,rough estimate) would give men more reproductive freedom and could do two things:
One: increase the debate about C4M (or not)
Two: kickstart a new debate about men's parenting/reproductive rights (here's hoping)
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree on all points.
It's too early for this. Any victory in the courts would be a hollow one, as it would result in public rebellion. As much as we like to think otherwise, public opinion drives lawmaking, not the other way around.
I also agree that male contraceptives will change the landscape more than any C4M legislation. If I could take a pill and be (almost) guaranteed that I would not conceive a child as a result, that would give me tremendous power.
(Unfortunately, a male pill would probably cause a massive increase in VDs, as many men would abandon condoms for better sex. Even so, I'd rather have the choice.)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
