Can I predict issues or what? 2006 July 28
Posted by Lily in News and politics.trackback
I have to scamper out the door, but dig up my last post on the subject, and you’ll smell what I’m stepping in.
EDIT: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billengrossed/House/htm/2006-HEBH-5882.htm
“Coercion” includes saying and doing things that men have a right to say and to do, most notably the right to move out and file for divorce if she continues the pregnancy.
If it’s really about “domestic abuse,” why include those provisions?
schooled 
“About half of the states have laws that require a minor seeking an abortion to get her parents consent or to notify them. The new Senate bill would make it a crime to take a girl under the age of 18 to a state without such laws in order to get an abortion.”
I dislike the fact that the bill presupposes a healthy domestic life – that it is best for the parents to know of their daughter’s business because they will (not maybe will) take care of her and do what’s ‘best’. Right.
I know they have tried implementing preventive measure into the bill. But how can one tell if a father is abusive? Would there have to be “proof” or just the word of the daughter? Would the father then be arrested for being abusive – emotionally, physically? Would the fater have to already been charged with assault against her? And how about abusive mothers? Would the daughter then be taken out of the household and be placed in childcare? How about social services?
Basically, the parents have ownership over their daughter’s body and choices. With this bill, they have a right to not only impose their beliefs on another person, but act upon them! I know there’s fine-tuning for the bill but still…
“The Michigan House on Wednesday voted 67-38 to approve a package of bills (HB 5879, HB 5880, HB 5881, HB 5882, HB 5883) that would require abortion clinics to determine if women seeking abortions are undergoing the procedure because they have been intimidated or coerced, the AP/Mlive.com reports. The bills also would make coercing and intimidating women into seeking an abortion illegal and would give coerced women the ability to file a civil lawsuit.”
I think that bill is a great idea, a good start to counter the Senate’s bill. This bill at least promotes the idea of a woman’s right, and dispells the notion of parental/spousal ownership of the woman’s body. However, it’s rather tame because the bill don’t seek to ask women if they’ve been forced to have a baby against their will. Then again, it’s probably not allowed to go against the senate 😛
I’m from Canada. I love our laws. Go Canada!
1. It sounds like the “evidence” will simply be a woman filing a suit and her word in court. If that is indeed the case, who do you think they’re going to sue? (Hint: it’s not going to be the person who coerced her.)
2. What counts as coercion? Saying that you’re never going to help support the kid? That you’ll fight any attempt to get child support in court, to the point where she pulls her hair out? Parents and men are well within their rights to say that and do that.
3. The bill is NOT a good idea, and it’s NOT a good start to counter the Senate’s bill. Think about it for a second: if these people really care about domestic violence, then why haven’t they addressed the topic until now?
It’s a ruse. It’s just one more anti-woman, anti-choice law disguised in pseudo-feminist terms.
EDIT: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billengrossed/House/htm/2006-HEBH-5882.htm
“Coercion” includes saying and doing things that men have a right to say and to do — most notably the right to move out and file for divorce.
If it’s really about “domestic abuse,” why include those provisions?
“It’s a ruse. It’s just one more anti-woman, anti-choice law disguised in pseudo-feminist terms.”
With your edit, I agree with you there.
I wrote about domestic violence regarding the first bill, not the second. I thought that the second bill at least acknowledged that some women are “coerced” into abortion. Although yes, like I said…with your edit, I agree with you there. Bottom line is that the bill cuts down women’s reasons on why she would choose abortion (i.e. man threatening divorce, like you cited).
Bottom line is that the bill cuts down women’s reasons on why she would choose abortion (i.e. man threatening divorce, like you cited).
If you want to cut down on reasons why women would choose abortion, start with affordable child care, the mommy-ceiling, and health care. Don’t start by legislating non-marital romantic entanglements — especially if it means eliminating any control men have over their lives.
Hm… I’d weigh in with something heavy and intellectual, but truth be told, I’m waiting to boot up Serious Mode in 2 weeks. I guess I’ll take a feeble stab at it though:
Seems to me the consensus is that the laws are unneccessarily restrictive and unproductive, but a good step in PRINCIPLE. The application of the principle, as is so often the case, is shaky, though, because as Lily mentioned, how do you define “coercion”? We all admit that it does exist, however. Whether this is the best means of protecting against it is debatable. At what point does one party’s right to free speech/emotional expression end and the other’s begin? That’s some the SCOTUS debates, so I doubt we’ll settle it here.
Lily–I’m a bit confused: d’you think the laws are violating the women’s rights, the men’s rights, or both? I’m guessing both? Irregardless, you gave a list of alternative methods… but that still doesn’t address the domestic violence issue, which is very real and often more applicable to the women who are “coerced.”
I may add more later as I think of it… as for now… lemonade, anyone?
but that still doesn’t address the domestic violence issue, which is very real and often more applicable to the women who are “coerced.”
Last time I checked, domestic violence has been illegal in Michigan for a few decades.
Secondly, I’m not sure it’s a good step in principle because it’s intrinsically infantalizing. No amount of tinkering can get around that.
Thirdly, I think it violates both men and women’s rights — but men’s far, far more.
Finally, the history of law and domestic violence suggests that government involvement doesn’t help — in fact, law enforcement and courts frequently make abused women’s lives worse. If you really want to solve domestic abuse problems, start hiring anthropologists to study what really makes women get out of abusive relationships.