Arkansas wants men to ok abortions

[Panich52]

Center for Reproductive Rights

From email requesting donation (I included link f/ donation)


Arkansas recently passed a new law that would require a woman to notify the man who impregnated her before obtaining an abortion—even in cases of abuse or sexual assault.

It’s one of multiple new and cruel measures Arkansas politicians have devised to rob women of their right to safe and legal abortion this year—and we filed a lawsuit to fight back.

We were in court this week challenging Arkansas’ notification requirement and other restrictions that limit a woman’s right to an abortion. Chip in $25 today to help fund our lawsuit and fight this unconstitutional law.

From essentially banning abortion in the second trimester to violating women's privacy, these measures represent a new low.

The Supreme Court made clear one year ago in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision that politicians can’t stand between women and their constitutional rights. We will continue to use the full force of the law to ensure these rights are protected and respected for all women.

Are you with us? Chip in now to help fund our legal work and ensure that all women are able to access safe abortion care.
Thank you,

Nancy Northup
President & CEO

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Keep up the fight, I will help, but WHEN Gorsuch and team , after Kennedy is gone

take away the rights of women in this country, be prepared for hell on earth.

[Proud liberal 80]

2. As someone who considers themselves pro choice

I don't understand why the man has no rights. If the baby is born then everyone will say that it's his responsibility to take care of the child , too. So why doesn't he get s choice.

[pirateshipdude]

3. The man purposely got woman pregnant for control. Physically abusive. Rapes and impregnates.

A father, uncle, brother. There are lots of scenarios in your position that I am not seeing you consider.

[Proud liberal 80]

7. Not talking about those scenarios

[pirateshipdude]

9. Right, I get that. What does that have to do with the law?

Because that is the reality a lot of the times. Married, committed relationships of two rational, and reasonable persons generally is not going to have the wife sneaking off for an abortion and would already be having the conversation with the husband.

So, just what is your point? I made mine. What about all the situation I named off where the woman's life is at risk or their is a control issue or she was raped, raped by a father, brother, uncle. What about all those women?

[Proud liberal 80]

11. In in those situations

Then of course abortion should be an option for those women.

I am not a "pro-lifer". They are crazy. I Don't even like calling them pro-life because in reality they aren't really pro-life, they are anti-choice and pro-birth. Liberals are more pro-life than any of them because we actually care about what happens to the child after birth.

But I guess I am not all the way pro-choice in the way the definition is now. I am pro-choice with both individuals getting a say (if the scenario does not fit one of the scenarios you mentioned)

That doesn't mean I want all abortion clinics closed or want to take funds away from planned parenthood, etc...

[pirateshipdude]

12. Men are not carrying for 40 wks, and a lifetime as the primary care giver as the norm.

Men are not having their bodies change for a lifetime. I would suggest in a situation where reason is to be had, and not the circumstance I spelled out, there will be a discussion and an agreeable resolution one way or another. But, other than hoping for the best of who we are, because the burden is exclusively on women, it leaves the decision to the woman.

Personally, I believe that there should be a conversation.

As law though, it has to be exclusively the woman's decision.

[Fresh_Start]

4. Because the costs both immediate and lifetime to the woman far exceed that to the man

if the man wants to make a financial arrangement where he pays both the woman and the childs costs for life...then they can contractually agree to a surrogacy type agreement

the arrangement where the man pays the woman's expenses should continue even if the child does not survive...because the woman will still have physical, emotional, and financial implications of the pregnancy and the loss.

[Freddie]

5. Because she takes the physical risk

The minute he endures pregnancy and childbirth he gets an equal say.

[Proud liberal 80]

8. So the baby is hers in the womb

But immediately after birth the baby is both of their responsibilities.

[pirateshipdude]

10. Correct answer. Eom

[Freddie]

14. That is correct

She cannot give the baby up for adoption without his consent. If he refuses and chooses to take custody and raise the child, she is liable for child support.

[J_William_Ryan]

6. The Supreme Court

explained why in 1992. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[Proud liberal 80]

13. Thanks

I just read it.

Funny how I disagree with what was upheld. But also disagree on what was struck down. Seems like the Justices were all over the place too besides Souter, Kennedy, and O'Conner.

I don't think there should be a 24hr waiting period, informed consent, or parental notification and think they create an undue burden which means I am to the left on that decision.

But I think there should be spousal awareness which means I am to the right on that decision.

[Freddie]

15. Spousal awareness?

What if she's in an abusive relationship and he beats or kills her upon being notified? What if the reason she had the abortion was to not be tied down to an abuser? Sorry, it's her body and her life, case closed.