Coercive Abortion Prevention Act Assumes Male Guilt, Opens Door to Unfair Prosecutions
Bob and Jane live together and, like many young couples, they sometimes argue. There never seems to be enough money, and while they both want to go to college, neither has yet been able to do so. Jane recently discovered that she is pregnant.
Jane is ambivalent about the pregnancy, and her friends think she should terminate it–she’s too young, and Bob isn’t very stable. Bob would like to be a father someday, but not now–he can’t pay their bills and wants a better career.
One day Bob and Jane argue over some things Jane bought with their credit card, and Bob tells Jane he doesn’t want to pay their bills anymore. He says he’s tired of arguing with her, doesn’t want her to have the baby, and wants to move out for a while and think things over.
Under a bill recently passed by the Michigan House of Representatives, Bob could go to jail.
HB 5882, which passed the Michigan House 67-38, amends the Michigan Penal Code to create the Coercive Abortion Prevention Act. Its purpose is to prohibit the putative father of a pregnant woman’s child from coercing or intimidating the woman into terminating her pregnancy. While preventing violence or threats of violence against pregnant women is an admirable goal, HB 5882 goes way beyond this by interfering with constitutionally protected personal prerogatives.
HB 5882 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 who 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.
This violates men’s rights. The U.S. constitution’s protected liberty interests safeguard privacy in areas such as contraception, abortion, marriage, procreation, child rearing and sexual conduct between consenting adults. Do Michigan legislators believe these protections don’t also cover the basic personal choices HB 5882 proscribes?
The Michigan National Organization for Women and other women’s advocates have declared their opposition to CAPA because they see it as a step towards limiting women’s reproductive freedoms. Yet to date HB 5882 has only drawn comment for its potential impact on women’s reproductive rights and not its serious consequences for men.
The bill is also laden with unfair presumptions of male guilt. There are many legitimate reasons why a man might be angry over his wife or girlfriend’s pregnancy. He may leave because he doubts that the child she is carrying is his. He may want her to terminate a pregnancy because he felt he was deceived into getting her pregnant, and doesn’t want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support. He may leave because she blames him for not being a good enough provider, or lashes out at him during pregnancy-related mood swings. None of these behaviors are particularly chivalrous, but they are certainly understandable.
A talented district attorney, who may be looking for publicity as a defender of pregnant women, could frame a man’s decision as an attempt to coerce an abortion. The accused needn’t be convicted to suffer egregious harm–the cost of criminal defense is often ruinous, and the emotional toll can be worse.
While the media has greatly exaggerated the threat men pose to their pregnant wives or girlfriends, the physical danger from which HB 5882’s supporters seek to protect women is real. For example, Rae Carruth, formerly a prominent NFL wide receiver, was convicted in 2001 of conspiring to murder a woman who was carrying his fetus. The woman had refused to terminate her pregnancy, and, according to the prosecution, Carruth didn’t want to be obligated to pay child support.
It’s debatable whether the anti-violence provisions of HB 5882 are good law, because the violence it prohibits is already illegal. But protecting women from the Rae Carruths of the world is one thing–punishing men for their private conduct in their personal relationships is quite another.
This column first appeared in the Detroit News (11/30/06) as part of a point-counterpoint called “Does abortion coercion bill trample rights?†To read the column as published, see Bill assumes male guilt and opens door to unfair prosecutions. The counterpoint by Suanne Thompson, legislative liaison for Right to Life of Michigan, is Women need protection from undue pressure to have abortions.
Jeffery M. Leving is one of America’s most prominent family law attorneys. He is the author of the new HarperCollins book Divorce Wars: A Field Guide to the Winning Tactics, Preemptive Strikes, and Top Maneuvers When Divorce Gets Ugly. His website is www.dadsrights.com.
Glenn Sacks’ columns on men’s and fathers’ issues have appeared in dozens of America’s largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.
| More from Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
December 1st, 2006 at 7:24 pm
It is FORBIDDEN to hold a different opinion to a woman’s. To argue is punishable. Takes ‘Lets you and him fight’ to a whole new level.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:58 pm
The further enslavement of men. A man cannot safely divorce or even change living arrangements? The woman is throwing pots and pans at him. She is threatening him with the police. Yet, if he moves out or files for divorce, he can be charged with a crime (with the difference between legal choice and a crime being his “intent” which can be incorrectly inferred — his real intent being to avoid violence or a false DV charge yet the woman and state inferring that he seeks to induce abortion). Good god. Of course, if there is disharmony in the relationship, the woman may infer whatever intent is likely to get him imprisoned. The state will pursue her vengence. Good god. Run for the hills.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:13 am
As many on Mens News Daily may know, I’m strongly pro-life and believe abortion to be a moral crime. I strongly support legislation to restrict abortion in whatever way possible if it can prevent an unborn baby from being killed.
But I have to say this law doesn’t seem to save any unborn baby’s life. The mother either gets on that medical table, spreads herself open for the abortionist to do his work, or she doesn’t. Now she may feel pressure, but that’s not the same thing as being forced.
This is all backwards. Men are usually condemned by ideological feminists as abusers, or abusers in waiting. The domestic violence courts routinely grant restraining orders on the flimsiest of evidence, all to force the breakup of a family or a couple. If the man is being abusive, the answer is always to effect a separation so that the “victim” can leave her “abuser.” Why now is there the emphasis for the abuser to stay with the victim?
The answer is that it’s all about the money. The woman can claim victim status in a breakup, and extort money through alimony payments. But this is often only temporary, commensurate with the length of the marriage or cohabiting relationship. But when kids are involved, the woman has got herself a gravy train of continuous revenue if a breakup occurs and she gets custody. Child support for 18 years — and perhaps longer — all without the requirement that the money be shown to have been spent on the child. It’s a money transfer, pure and simple.
But if there are no children in the picture yet, the woman’s prospects for such a financial gravy train are comparatively dim. Which is why we’re now moving beyond child support to pregnancy support. And like Glenn and Jeff wrote, it’s possible that the pregnancy could be the result of an adulterous affair. Once the baby is born, if it is born within the bounds of marriage, some states consider the baby to be a product of the marriage even if the husband did not father the baby. It will then be his responsibility to raise that child, and to support it (i.e. support the mother) with child support in the event of a breakup.
Don’t get me wrong, I really do hate abortion. It is a brutal and violent act against a true victim who has no choices at all. It is the violence that the feminist movement has embraced, while the same movement purports to stand against violence.
I wish the proponents of this bill would see the true agenda. Even I, an opponent of abortion, can see right through the ruse. I hope calmer heads win the day.
John Dias
December 2nd, 2006 at 9:02 am
This is a violation of Freedom of speech / expression. The day of the man-tax is growing closer. For some, it’s already here, but the day will come when an extra tax is applied to any citizen having a penis and will be transfered to any female having a need.
Don’t we already pay for these bimbos with our blood, guts, limbs, and minds? Don’t WE men pay for their freedom and right to vote? Don’t we pay enough by doing the most dangerous jobs and by being killed in large numbers on those jobs? These C*NTS want Equality? They can’t handle equality! They have no concept of what equality is! They have no concept of defending the Constitution; to them it’s just a piece of shit paper written by men (ewww, yuck-men) ages ago. If we don’t get our act together and stop these spineless attacks on our gender we’ll all be speaking U.N.-ese. It will be written in stone that the only thing a man is good for is as sperm donors, wallets, and cannon fodder!
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Well John, don’t be too offended, but the fact is that this is a further demonstration of the existing alliance between the religious right and the radical feminists! Both groups see men as evil, as responsible for the independent choices of women, you name it. You CANNOT marry a woman, NOR can you live with one and as potential laws such as this get passed, that will become ever more clear to all of us. No wonder the number of children born outside marriage is increasing dramatically. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, change the law to make it mandatory that the positive agreement of the father must be obtained before a child may be produced – once the cash incentive of producing a child is eliminated, the number of unplanned pregnancies will drop like a rock!
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Typical. Rights are for women, responsibility is for men, and if men act to protect themselves from their inferior rights, we’ll make the perfectly legal into a criminal act. I guess they are running out of superior rights to grant to females, and their only option at this point is to remove more liberty from men.
Does it never dawn on these idiots to make men equal to women in the first place, as The Constituion demands, or are they hell-bent on destroying the fabric of society and making only the dumbest of men willing to undergo even the slightest risk that they will procreate. Eventually, we’re heading to where it will only make sense NOT to abort a child if its a girl. Who wants a slave child when they could have a queen bee.
Think on this you dim-witted feminazis in the Michigan legislature: Stop trying to cover for the fact that you’ve broken the law to make female “choice” as an excuse for murder, and you won’t have to keep ruining more people’s lives with police state control in a failed attempt to make female superiority workable.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:18 pm
“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.)
Within our current feminist legal hall of mirrors injustice system, what 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 and said I needed to read it…”)
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!
And his is not guity of any actual act, but merely guilty of the SUSPICION of the intent to commit a crime in the future … in other words — every man is guilty, a priori.
Logically — 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 apartments 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 be proved to be about directly seeking to “pressure” her into terminating her pregnancy, right?
I think I understand the motive behind those passing this law.
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.
It is not about men’s right at all.
Men are pawns in the scheme this law has created.
As usual, more bank for Family Court lawyers.
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Well The guys are really up in arms on this one.
People think I,m crazy for wanting to get out of this kooky, ass backwards and just plain old biased system. That all the paperwork I have done to preserve my rights…. Yes I said RIGHTS1.. is just a waste of time. Well if some B I T.. ( no I won’t spell it out) tries this bull shit on me, they will not only fail, but will be facing criminal charges themselves.
You see, I am soveriegn citizen, that means I have a measure of Immunity in dealing with these tyrants. To get me they have to show where I agreed ( ie have a valid contract) to this “insane equity statue” ( no sir it aint law) or they have to produce a “injured party” (* that means that more than her feeling were hurt)
I have sucessfully stopped the “government terrorist” in the past using these tactics.
It is tough to learn, but it does work! You can not only beat these bastards, you can have them punished using their own system against them.
I do suspect that as legal system get more and more unstable and out of control, more men will do what I am doing. It is just like the child suport monster, once the money, power and control are removed, that will solve the problem. And eventually this whole God awful thing will end up on the ash heap of history. Just like the Nazi’s, the Communist and the racial bigots.
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:12 am
Am I the only one who thinks that this legislation is already outside the question? Bob and Jane live together (I guess that means have sexual intercourse) without marriage and the protections that marriage brings. No one forced Bob to have sexual intercourse with Jane. I doubt that almost any men are pressured into having sex with women outside of marriage. And now he wants to leave to “think about it”? What is there to think about? He’s the father to a baby and he has to take care of that baby now. If he didn’t want to he should have thought of that before he had sexual intercourse with her.
Someone said that they don’t think that this law will stop people from having abortions, but ANY law that makes abortions worse than a minor inconvenience to constant pre-marital sexual intercourse and makes people, both men and women, face the real consequences will prevent abortions. This isn’t Bob-and-Jane fun and games… this is a real child’s life! And if Bob gets thrown in jail for trying to end that child’s life, it’ll be a far safer place for him than that child is in.
Or maybe I’m just way to drunk to be thinking about this.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
[...] A frightening example of how out-of-control American misandry has become is Michigan’s new Coercive Abortion Prevention Act. Essentially, this law prohibits a man from leaving a pregnant woman with whom he currently resides. That’s right: If a Michigan man’s wife or girlfriend is pregnant, regardless of whether that fetus is actually his, he now is her slave — another swift kick in the balls of all men, delivered largely by men. Just how much hatred do men — who comprise the majority of all lawmakers — have for other men? [...]