Accidentally on Purpose

This is not suprising. Women talk about it all the time on the web. It is common, and they are protected and provided incentives to do exactly this.

And when they stand up in court and openly declare their duplicity nothing, absolutely nothing happens. Because it is their protected RIGHT to do this.

This must be changed.
Today, a woman may legally walk away from a new baby, no questions asked (in almost all states). It is her protected right to willful legal abandonment.

However, a man cannot.

This is not suprising. Women talk about it all the time on the web. It is common, and they are protected and provided incentives to do exactly this.

And when they stand up in court and openly declare their duplicity nothing, absolutely nothing happens. Because it is their protected RIGHT to do this.

This must be changed.
Today, a woman may legally walk away from a new baby, no questions asked (in almost all states). It is her protected right to willful legal abandonment.

However, a man cannot.

This is not suprising. Women talk about it all the time on the web. It is common, and they are protected and provided incentives to do exactly this.

And when they stand up in court and openly declare their duplicity nothing, absolutely nothing happens. Because it is their protected RIGHT to do this.

This must be changed.
Today, a woman may legally walk away from a new baby, no questions asked (in almost all states). It is her protected right to willful legal abandonment.

However, a man cannot.

Good point Roger. Can a man not try instead of the entrapment arguement, the abandonment arguement? That if she has the legal right to give up all responsiblities to the baby by dumping it off at a hospital, that he should have the same right. Would you not then be able to claim it is unconstituional since it does discriminate via sex?

Good point Roger. Can a man not try instead of the entrapment arguement, the abandonment arguement? That if she has the legal right to give up all responsiblities to the baby by dumping it off at a hospital, that he should have the same right. Would you not then be able to claim it is unconstituional since it does discriminate via sex?

Good point Roger. Can a man not try instead of the entrapment arguement, the abandonment arguement? That if she has the legal right to give up all responsiblities to the baby by dumping it off at a hospital, that he should have the same right. Would you not then be able to claim it is unconstituional since it does discriminate via sex?

Mirwalk, you are correct in theory.

In practice, men are not allowed to abandon unwanted babies due to their inferior reproductive rights.

And to that end, men would not only have to fight the feminist lobby, but also the religious hardliners, all of whom want to continue keeping the male on the hook for financial servitude.

It’s hypocrital, it’s a sickening double standard, and it exists.

Equal rights, equal privileges, equal responsibilities…….

Mirwalk, you are correct in theory.

In practice, men are not allowed to abandon unwanted babies due to their inferior reproductive rights.

And to that end, men would not only have to fight the feminist lobby, but also the religious hardliners, all of whom want to continue keeping the male on the hook for financial servitude.

It’s hypocrital, it’s a sickening double standard, and it exists.

Equal rights, equal privileges, equal responsibilities…….

Mirwalk, you are correct in theory.

In practice, men are not allowed to abandon unwanted babies due to their inferior reproductive rights.

And to that end, men would not only have to fight the feminist lobby, but also the religious hardliners, all of whom want to continue keeping the male on the hook for financial servitude.

It’s hypocrital, it’s a sickening double standard, and it exists.

Equal rights, equal privileges, equal responsibilities…….

Mirwalk, that argument has been tried in Hawaii. Unfortunately the Supreme Court of Hawaii is made up of the kind of lawyers who are the problem:
Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe, (2005) 109 Hawaii 240, 125 P. 3d. 461.
However, the United States Grand Jury for the District of Hawaii has the power to DO SOMETHING about it through indictments for peonage under 18 U.S.C. §1581. They have the power to larn them Hawaii judges some manners! My briefs have the perfect answer to their non-logic:
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/57547-3brief.htm and http://www/antipeonage.0catch.com/57547-3replybrief.htm
The reason I keep asking all of you to scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law is because our judges are not hearing you scream for such enforcement when they make their rulings against us and against the plain language of the law.
And of course, not a peep out of the MSM, we know whose side they are on.
I will guarantee you that we can get better results out of the state appellate courts and the federal courts if a million angry men and women are screaming for the enforcement of the Peonage Law.
Especially if we scream loud enough for the public from whom the grand juries are drawn hear us.
The best thing about screaming for the enforcement of the Peonage Law is the look on their faces!

Mirwalk, that argument has been tried in Hawaii. Unfortunately the Supreme Court of Hawaii is made up of the kind of lawyers who are the problem:
Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe, (2005) 109 Hawaii 240, 125 P. 3d. 461.
However, the United States Grand Jury for the District of Hawaii has the power to DO SOMETHING about it through indictments for peonage under 18 U.S.C. §1581. They have the power to larn them Hawaii judges some manners! My briefs have the perfect answer to their non-logic:
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/57547-3brief.htm and http://www/antipeonage.0catch.com/57547-3replybrief.htm
The reason I keep asking all of you to scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law is because our judges are not hearing you scream for such enforcement when they make their rulings against us and against the plain language of the law.
And of course, not a peep out of the MSM, we know whose side they are on.
I will guarantee you that we can get better results out of the state appellate courts and the federal courts if a million angry men and women are screaming for the enforcement of the Peonage Law.
Especially if we scream loud enough for the public from whom the grand juries are drawn hear us.
The best thing about screaming for the enforcement of the Peonage Law is the look on their faces!

Mirwalk, that argument has been tried in Hawaii. Unfortunately the Supreme Court of Hawaii is made up of the kind of lawyers who are the problem:
Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe, (2005) 109 Hawaii 240, 125 P. 3d. 461.
However, the United States Grand Jury for the District of Hawaii has the power to DO SOMETHING about it through indictments for peonage under 18 U.S.C. §1581. They have the power to larn them Hawaii judges some manners! My briefs have the perfect answer to their non-logic:
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/57547-3brief.htm and http://www/antipeonage.0catch.com/57547-3replybrief.htm
The reason I keep asking all of you to scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law is because our judges are not hearing you scream for such enforcement when they make their rulings against us and against the plain language of the law.
And of course, not a peep out of the MSM, we know whose side they are on.
I will guarantee you that we can get better results out of the state appellate courts and the federal courts if a million angry men and women are screaming for the enforcement of the Peonage Law.
Especially if we scream loud enough for the public from whom the grand juries are drawn hear us.
The best thing about screaming for the enforcement of the Peonage Law is the look on their faces!

Sorry, I mispelled the URL to my reply brief:
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/57547-3replybrief.htm

Sorry, I mispelled the URL to my reply brief:
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/57547-3replybrief.htm

Sorry, I mispelled the URL to my reply brief:
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/57547-3replybrief.htm

In Ohio, legal abanbdonment is denied to men by giving single mothers sole custody at birth in one section of Code, then in another section a gender neutral law allows anyone with legal custody of a child to abandon it soon after birth.

“…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 14th Amendment. So called legal scholars tell us this only applies to citizens who are “similarly situated.” Strange, I can’t find that phrase ANYWHERE in the Constitution. For grins and giggles, assume that is correct. Does the hardships associated with parenting affect men and women similarly? Yes. Men have the same concerns about education, career, finances, and emotional readiness that women do.

Opponents of Choice for Men can blow as much smoke as they want, the facts don’t change.

Consider another angle. Why do women get standards lowered for them, especially in public sector work like fire, police, and military where public life and limb are in danger, yet men can’t get standards lowered for them in reproductive choice and family court? The law seeks to make women equal in the public sector, yet refuses to make men equal in reproductive choice and family law.

In Ohio, legal abanbdonment is denied to men by giving single mothers sole custody at birth in one section of Code, then in another section a gender neutral law allows anyone with legal custody of a child to abandon it soon after birth.

“…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 14th Amendment. So called legal scholars tell us this only applies to citizens who are “similarly situated.” Strange, I can’t find that phrase ANYWHERE in the Constitution. For grins and giggles, assume that is correct. Does the hardships associated with parenting affect men and women similarly? Yes. Men have the same concerns about education, career, finances, and emotional readiness that women do.

Opponents of Choice for Men can blow as much smoke as they want, the facts don’t change.

Consider another angle. Why do women get standards lowered for them, especially in public sector work like fire, police, and military where public life and limb are in danger, yet men can’t get standards lowered for them in reproductive choice and family court? The law seeks to make women equal in the public sector, yet refuses to make men equal in reproductive choice and family law.

In Ohio, legal abanbdonment is denied to men by giving single mothers sole custody at birth in one section of Code, then in another section a gender neutral law allows anyone with legal custody of a child to abandon it soon after birth.

“…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 14th Amendment. So called legal scholars tell us this only applies to citizens who are “similarly situated.” Strange, I can’t find that phrase ANYWHERE in the Constitution. For grins and giggles, assume that is correct. Does the hardships associated with parenting affect men and women similarly? Yes. Men have the same concerns about education, career, finances, and emotional readiness that women do.

Opponents of Choice for Men can blow as much smoke as they want, the facts don’t change.

Consider another angle. Why do women get standards lowered for them, especially in public sector work like fire, police, and military where public life and limb are in danger, yet men can’t get standards lowered for them in reproductive choice and family court? The law seeks to make women equal in the public sector, yet refuses to make men equal in reproductive choice and family law.