Posted by
Craig Freeborn on Wednesday, August 08, 2007 3:45:43 AM
It’s not often I agree with the New York Times, so when they ran an editorial back in 2005 defending then Judge Samuel Alito I took notice.
During his nomination hearings, Democrats were having a public hissy fit over his 1991 opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
The case involved Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act. Five provisions of the act were being challenged as unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade.
1. “Informed consent” required doctors to provide women with information about health risks and possible complications associates with abortions.
2. “Spousal notification” required women to give prior notice to their husbands.
3. “Parent consent” required minors to receive consent from a parent or guardian.
4. “24 hour waiting period” before obtaining an abortion.
5. Statistical “reporting requirements” imposed on abortion clinics.
All provisions were found constitutional except the spousal notification rule, which was deemed an undue burden upon the woman. Alito had joined in a descenting opinion in support of the rule – incurring the wrath of the Democrats 14 years later.
To be sure, NYT didn’t support Alito’s nomination, but as they said at time…
There may be many reasons to oppose Judge Alito’s nomination, but his Casey opinion is not one of them. … Nor is his position contrary to national sentiment: a majority of Americans feel that the husband should be notified about an abortion.
The Times noted that “…when men and women engage in sexual relations both parties recognize the potential for creating life. If both parties willingly participate then shouldn’t both have a say in whether to keep a baby that results?”
Of course, the husband may not be the actual biological father. The Pennsylvania law may have created the embarrassing possibility of a woman having to inform her previously sterilized husband that she was pregnant. For hundreds of years, common law has held that, lacking compelling evidence to the contrary, the husband is presumed to be the father of his wife’s baby. But “[t]oday” noted the editorial, “we can know who the real father is, thanks to DNA testing.”
That was back in 2005. I bring it up now because the Ohio legislature is considering a bill that would give fathers a say in whether their unborn child can be aborted.
The bill would ban women from obtaining an abortion without written consent from the father. In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would have to submit a list of possible fathers. (How many “possibles” could there be? In today’s society, I probably don’t want to know!) The physician would then be required to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort.
Claiming not to know the father’s identity is not a viable excuse, according to the proposed legislation. Simply put: no father means no abortion.
Women who claim rape or incest would be required to present a police report as proof.
State Representative John Adams, arguing if favor of the bill, said, “This is important because there are always two parents and fathers should have a say in the birth or the destruction of that child. In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say.”
Also in favor of the bill is Denise Mackura, director of the Ohio Right to Life Society. “Pregnancy is a unique human condition and obviously a woman is affected differently than a man. As a woman, I can sympathize. However, to completely take rights away from the father is unfair. Currently [in Ohio], even in a marriage situation, a man has no right to even be informed of an abortion. But if a woman doesn’t have an abortion, men sure have a lot of responsibility then. It’s really not fair.”
But fairness isn’t really the issue. This is about freeborn Americans putting some sanity back in the Constitution. It’s about reducing the carnage wrought by the unconstitutional Roe decision. It’s about allowing a father to save the life of his unborn baby.
It’s may be a drop in the bucket, but it’s about time!