Leving and Sacks: Michigan bill assumes male guilt

The government is desperately trying to avert men from marriage, but men stubbornly persist. Government is forced to add more and more horrors for men in the family life.

It's reversible and it'll save you from going to jail if your girlfriend gets knocked up by you - or anyone else and claims it is yours.

Or hope they perfect the male pill sooner then later. Though with that kind of attitude in Michigan legislators don't be surprised if it gets made illegal in your State.

What if those same mood swings induced by pregnancy that the article mentions causes said pregnant woman to mis-interpret completely innocent acts and call the cops? Is it going to be a case of go straight to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, and better get a lawyer cause even if she withdraws the complaint when she comes to her senses State prosecutors will use her initial police report as the most contemporaneous statement - therefore most truthful under the law - and continue to prosecute the guy without her?

Write as many letters as you can if you live in Michigan as this law is bad news for all men.

"The proposal actually makes it a crime for a man to "change or attempt to change an existing housing or cohabitation arrangement" with a pregnant significant other, to "file or attempt to file for a divorce" from his pregnant wife or to "withdraw or attempt to withdraw financial support" from a woman whom he has been supporting -- if it is determined that the man is doing these things to try to pressure the woman to terminate her pregnancy."

The key legal concept here is "attempt to pressure..." (i.e. coerce).

Note that this does not require that any actual "pressure" or coercion has taken place. (Just as in DV law, no actual violence needs to occur for a man to be arrested and convicted.)

What, within our current feminist legal circus of mirrors injustice shitstem, do you think the "standard of proof" will be?

It will be merely the woman's "subjective experience" of feeling that she's being coerced. ("He gave me a brochure from our local Planned Parenthood clinic..")

If a man even suggested to his female partner, let's say she's pregnant by her ex-boyfriend, that he wants them to consider an abortion -- because that might be the best way to preserve their relationship -- IMMEDIATELY under this law he is guilty of COERCION!

This is what is called in Jamaica a "SUS" law --- you are guilty of the SUSPICION of the intent to commit a crime in the future…

in other words --- every man is guilty,
a priori.

Conclusion --- it is no longer safe to cohabit with women, period.

The only solution for this feminist racketeering scheme is totally reliable male birth control.

Until then, producing sperm means you're at risk of extortion 24 x 7.

If I understand the law correctly, apparently a man in order to be prosecuted would have to do one or more of three illegal acts:

1) move or attempt to move out himself or move her out of their shared home
2) attempt to file or file for divorce
3) attempt to withhold financial support

Crime #1 could be just reading the classified ads for aparatments for rent.

Crime # 2 could be having lunch with a friend who is an attorney in a Family Law firm.

Crime # 3 could be losing your job.

AND - any/all of these acts or "attempts to act" would have to proved to be about seeking to coercre her into terminating her pregnancy, right?

Now I get it.

This law was passed by anti-choice activists who want to make abortion more difficult, and they are using the threatened prosecution of men to realize their anti-abortion objectives.

Got it?

Anybody have any specific info about who crafted and advocated for this bill?

I think a lot of men out there, even who haven't already been married and divorced, are realizing that it might not be worth the risks to get married. I don't know that the government is at the root of this, except for legislators influenced by anti-family feminists.

The problem is, how do you get the message across to a 20-something never-married guy, who is head over heels and has the hots big time, for some chick who might turn out to be a big-time liability? A long time ago, my advice was, "don't get a vasectomy unless you're absolutely certain you don't want to have kids.". A number of years later, sadder but wiser, I changed it to, "Do get a vasectomy when you turn 18, it can always be reversed later!!"

-Axolotl

Paragon, re your post here, I thought vasectomies were 100% fool-prooof..what do you mean by "if she gets knocked up by [the person who got the vasectomy]"?

-Axolotl

"This law was passed by anti-choice activists who want to make abortion more difficult, and they are using the threatened prosecution of men to realize their anti-abortion objectives.

Got it?"

On reading this it was my suspicion that this was passed by domestic violence leftist who go around lying about how dangerous a time it is for women who are pregnant.

This law was passed by anti-choice activists who want to make abortion more difficult

This law does not make abortion more difficult. This law makes it easier for women to do what they want and deprives men even more rights in the family life.

It should read It's reversible and it'll save you from going to jail... that might otherwise occur had you not gotten one.

Though check the laws in your States people as some States have older laws still on the books that automatically forces the husband in a marriage to be legally recognized responsible for all children that his wife has while they are married no matter what. In which case, she screws the guy at the bar and gets knocked up and you've still got to pay even though you're not biologically the child's father. Misandric laws have been around along time

For just the reason you mentioned, takes away the risks (I saw to many of my friends who were ending up with unwanted children) and can be reversed later if I ever actually find one girl who is just right and has the same long term goals and outlooks as me.

I just could not find a doctor who would perform a vasectomy on anyone under 25 in Ontario who had not already had children or required one for a medical reason (high risk of potential birth defects due to a genetic abnormality ect.) or had already had a severe criminal sexual misconduct on their record.

Doctors simply refused to perform one for the reason of not wanting children right now.

This was some years ago though, so the demand for such procedures may be higher now and thus more willing doctors may be available.