SJones writes "Kathleen Parker discusses the recent case of the father who went to court to demand his right to be a father. She says that if women can choose abortion without input from the father then they should not be able to demand child support. "

incredibletulkas writes "I believe that there is a viable loophole in paternity law to ensure fairness in men's reproductive rights; this is the "Last Clear Chance" doctrine of common law, which provides that, regardless of who was at fault, the person who had the last clear chance to prevent in incident from occurring is ultimately responsible if they fail to do so.
Since, under current law, a woman obviously has the last clear chance to prevent a pregnancy from coming to term (i.e. she can prevent it later than the man can), then she is wholly responsible for the outcome. Likewise, since the right to life of the unborn is considered a religious issue only, then under the First Amendment the law is precluded from permitting one person's religious preferences from being forced upon another person, which would be the case if a woman used her religious-based refusal to obtain an abortion to force the man to pay for her resulting child.
Therefore, if a man informs the woman outright that he does not wish to participate in any pregnancy at a time of the pregnancy when abortion is legal, then the woman, by act of omission, is wholly responsible for the ensuing child.
I am not a lawyer, but this seems like a reasonable interpretation of existing law, and I invite any legal persons to scrutinize it." I thought this was an insightful idea, and wonder if it could work. Comments from the legal community are especially welcome.

warble writes "It is with pleasure that I'm announcing that AB2240 has moved out of the CA Judiciary Committee and will hit the Finance Committee next week. The primary source of opposition came from two opponents. They were Senator Keuhl and CA NOW. I was stunned that Keuhl actually resorted to arguments similar to arguments used to institutionally discriminate against women 100 years ago. Basically, she stated that she agreed that it is unfair for men to be required to care for another man’s children. Then she claimed that it was justified to intentionally harm the man and his biological children because it protects the interest of a single child. Further, she specifically stated on the record that she didn't care about the father's biological children in a paternity fraud matters. She was only interested in the single child in question. I was also stunned (IMHO) that Keuhl was implying that any man could be the father of a fatherless child and that biology doesn't matter. Yea, sure Keuhl...let's have [Bill] Gates be the father of all children where the biological father is unknown because he is rich! In addition, CA NOW specifically stated that they oppose the Paternity Justice Act in ANY FORM! They literally implied (IMHO) that they don't support providing a man that is a victim of paternity fraud with any remedy at law no matter how damaging it is to the biological children of a father or a man. I'll be ordering the transcripts of the testimony because it illustrates the literal bigotry of the opposition. Then we'll get the exact quotes posted for the whole world to view the bigotry of CA NOW and Senator Keuhl. Kudos goes to NCFM, LA for their tireless lobbying efforts of the committee!"

It is with great pleasure and gratitude that I'd like to announce that the MANN on-line chats will resume, hosted by both Steve Imparl and Scott Haltzman. The next chat will be held this Wednesday night, starting at 9:30 PM Eastern Time, at the usual location. However, there will be discussion on possibly moving the regular day, so if you'd like the chats to be on a different night, feel free to post a comment on that. The topic for this chat will be electing male-friendly politicians in this fall's elections. Do you know of some candidates in your state or region that would be good or not-so-good choices? Join the chat and let others know about it!

Ouzinki submitted Wendy McElroy's latest FoxNews column where she voices her opposition to CEDAW, and writes "As a frightening follow-up, consider this line from the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW): .."It affirms women's rights to acquire, change or retain their nationality and the nationality of their children".. What a wonderful recipe - grab the kids, leave the country, and change their nationality. Not much chance of a father regaining custody of a child who's a foreign national, is there? I'm a grand father six times over, and still married, more than a third of a century to the same woman. In other words, I'm probably not going to be personally affected; but this scares the Hell out of me anyway! Time for a congressional letter/email writing deluge perhaps?"

I found out just recently that the New Hampshire Commission on the Status of Men's applicant list, which was due to be publicly released on Wednesday, is being pushed back and will not be released until Aug. 28. The public input period would then open and the governor's council would make the final vote on Sept. 12. The delays are frustrating, but there is nothing that can be done other than to wait and see.

The web site is www.malebasher.com. Need I say more? Update: I've fixed the link, sorry about that.

Cathy Young wrote one of the most forthright articles I've seen from her to date on the Choice for Men issue. In this Boston Globe article, Young clearly outlines the double standard men have to deal with in reproduction, and agrees that in normal circumstances, men should have the right to be notified of an abortion and have legal resource to avoid paternity fraud. Young is doubtful that the C4M movement will succeed in this age, but recent events show that paternity fraud is finally becoming an issue that politicians are aware of.

Thundercloud writes "It's baaaaaack! After laying low for about a month, Progressive Insurance has begun re-airing their extremely anti-male commercial, in which a vindictive ex-wife uses Progressive's on-line voodoo doll to castrate her ex-husband with a pair of pliers. Apparently, Progressive believed if they simply took the ad off temporarily and then put it back on at a later date, no one would notice! Well, I've noticed!
Despite MANY letters of protest, these misandrists have chosen to ignore present and potential customers simply because they feel the need to put forth an anti-male, political message. It seems presenting hate speech is more important to them than loyal customers. I say we attack them once again, this time more forcefully. Email them, spam them, contact the networks that run this abomination of an ad. Whatever it takes to make Progressive Insurance comply."

Glenn Sacks' latest article takes the example of baseball pitcher Scott Erickson's recent arrest as an opportunity to expose the "guilty until proven innocent" approach for men used by police during domestic calls. Sacks then gives an overview of how this came to be, including the way police are trained by DV advocates who use the "95%" myth and other propaganda to influence arrest statistics. The end result is that men are unwilling to report DV in fear that they will be arrested, and can't defend themselves for the same reason. This article appeared in the Los Angeles Daily Journal and the San Francisco Daily Journal.

Steve Imparl's web site devoted to depression in men has received some new material recently worth noting. Included in the updates are a radio interview about depression, several new articles and commentary, a mother's story about her son's suicide, and more. The site also has a moderated bulletin board and an e-mail list for receiving update announcements to the site.

In Tennessee, a state appeals court has ruled that the current child support guidelines are unconstitutional:

"The three-judge panel said the state failed to give a Memphis father credit for the expenses of raising two children in his marriage when it decided how much he should pay to support a third child born of a previous liaison. The state contended offspring who were not part of a child support order could not be counted. The appeals court panel said that violated the children's constitutional rights of equal protection."

Be sure to check out the article, since it explains the issue being debated in much better detail. The ruling is great news for fathers who were being forced to support some children at the expense of others.

Agraitear points out a recent FoxNews article.

"Single dads are sick and tired of being labeled "deadbeats" when it comes to paying child support. And data suggest they have good reason to be upset.


The percentage of "deadbeat" moms is actually higher than that of dads who won't pay, even though mothers are more consistently awarded custody of children by the courts."

We're a bit behind in posting the two most recent articles by the powerhouse duo Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson. In case you missed them, here's a summary. In this article, Sacks and Thompson explain how the Child Support Enforcement Act is truly an act of "political grandstanding," using "dead beat dads" as scapegoats for oppressive new legislation. Included with their criticism of the bill are constructive suggestions Sacks and Thompson have for improving the system, so that children do receive needed financial support from non-paying parents. The second article is on the subject of male reproductive rights, or as I like to say, the lack thereof. The double standards here of course are also devastating for men, who have no say in the abortion decision or legal recourse when tricked into paternity. A recent PA court case where a father requested the ability to stop an abortion is the starting point for this article.

The BBC News reports on a recent proposal in Norway that "would compel both state owned and listed private companies to appoint women to at least 40% of boardroom places could become law by 2005."