State Senator Phil Jensen is in the news today discussing that he intends to submit a bill to provide the ability for fathers-to-be to be able to veto any possible abortion that the mother of an unborn child may have:
A Pennington County legislator wants to give fathers the right to “veto” the mother’s decision to abort an unborn child.
and…
That would also include financial responsibility. However, no matter how much responsibility a father may want to take, he still cannot physically carry a child to term – not to mention actually delivering the baby.
and…
“Just because you get pregnant doesn’t mean you should be allowed to kill that baby,” Jensen said.
Why do I sense a possibility of a real mess?
In some states, under law, the spouse is the presumptive father regardless of genetics. In South Dakota, the genetic father appears to have considerable rights when it comes to establishing paternity and in how child support is considered. But, a legal father has some rights as well:
A presumed or legal father may initiate a court action at any time prior to the child’s eighteenth birthday to have himself disestablished as the child’s father. Genetic test results that either exclude the presumed or legal father will have to filed with the court. The court may then set aside a presumption or prior determination of paternity if it is in the child’s best interest. If the presumed or legal father has a child support order and then disestablishes paternity, the presumed or legal father continues to be responsible for child support accrued prior to the date of entry of the disestablished order.
and…
If the mother is married and her husband is not the biological father of the child, a three-way paternity affidavit can be signed by the mother, the alleged father and the husband. The three-way paternity affidavit can then be filed with the Department of Health’s Vital Records Program for inclusion in the child’s birth record.
I think we have the potential to get into some definite Maury Povich territory here.
South Dakota law establishes the rights of a legal or presumed father, as well as the rights of a person determined to be the father genetically. In most cases it would be cut and dried. But what about those cases that aren’t?
So, how does one establish the proper party to assert a paternal veto for an unborn child? Can a person claiming to be the legally recognized father assert it? Can you even determine who the genetic father is in this scenario? What about the amount of time to obtain the genetic results, or muddling through the courts?
Not to mention how that financial responsibility would work. Would the father asserting rights over an unwilling mother require payment for her time as well as the medical expense of delivering the child?
It’s not unknown for paternity to be fought over before birth, but it seems South Dakota would be opening up a whole new front in pre-birth custody battles.
All things to consider should we decide to go down that path.
It might be a mess. But the fact remains that abortion kills a human life.
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992 and Planned Parenthood v Danforth 1976.
The SCOTUS has already ruled on the constitutionality of spousal consent laws. They are unconstitutional. It is unlikely there will be any difference if the issue is parental rights. The proposed legislation will just cost the state a lot of money to defend and lose.
This should not make it out of Committtee
Pat,
Looks like you and Cory Heidelberger are on the same page on this issue, except I doubt that you would go to his argument that fathers need to be downgraded to “inseminators”. Sad that he has to go to man-haters mindset.
I’m not on any side on this issue, but I see some potential headaches, especially when there’s a question of “who’s the daddy?”
When the father is unknown it’s going to be because the mother isn’t married. Where the mother is married, the husband is the putative father.
When it comes to medical decisions, a legal spouse has an assumption of power of attorney and may consent to treatment when the spouse is unable to give consent. If a woman has been sedated, or hit on the head, or otherwise incapacitated, her husband can consent for her. This does not apply to boyfriends. This actually is a problem with unmarried pregnant women who are out of their minds during “transition” labor and do crazy things like refuse emergency c-sections. If she’s married, her husband can be called on to consent and then it’s between the two of them to yell at each other later.. When she’s an unmarried adult and nobody can consent on her behalf it’s a problem. If I were an obstetrician I would make all my patients sign DPOA designations before they go into labor.
There is no way the SCOTUS will uphold a law which gives boyfriends the right to make medical decisions for women. It’s not going to happen.
This is as dumb and small minded of a post as I’ve seen in a long time- but not surprised by the author.
First- can you tell me that a married woman has never cheated with a married or unmarried man and never gotten pregnant?
You can’t because this escaped your fragile perceptions of what reality actually is. And who is to say that the sperm “donor” is a boyfriend or that they have a relationship at all?
Please for the love of God- stop posting. It’s hurting actual debate.
You are the dumb one here. When a married woman is pregnant, under common law, and usually in statute, her husband is the putative father. Doesn’t matter who got her pregnant; when the child is born her husband’s name goes on the birth certificate. There is a process by which that can be amended if the husband wants to disestablish paternity, but many jurisdictions are loathe to let them off the hook for child support, even with DNA proof. There are plenty of men paying child support for kids that aren’t theirs. It’s an understatement to say they aren’t happy.
As far as the law is concerned, if she’s married, her husband is the father, even when he isn’t.
With all due repsect… I’ve watched that dude talk about how much tax money he saves the state of SD in cracker barrels… But how many of these moronic bills get introduced that we then have to pay to fight in court that are 100% going to lose. Even w/out passage – other legislators who just want to be in Pierre to govern now have to take a side on this – and if they oppose it, no matter the reason, they get stuck with a neon mailer saying they are in favor of killing babies. It’s insane.
You’re right, it’s insane. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Spousal consent laws have been struck down as unconstitutional every time they have been tried. Since husbands are considered the putative father whenever a married woman is pregnant, if husbands don’t have any ability to stop a wife’s abortion there is no hope for unmarried fathers.
We can only hope that the committee which gets this has the courage to table it. Then only the committee members will get the stupid postcard treatment.
Justice Blackmun, in 1976:
“The obvious fact is that when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Since it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor.”
And the viewpoint of the unborn child is irrelevant?
As long as abortion is legal, the argument is between the parents and the mother gets to decide. This approach was abandoned by the pro-life movement decades ago, and it doesn’t work. It is a waste of resources to pursue it.
Abortion is not legal when God is your lawmaker. Who is your master, Anne Beal?
Anonymous at 4:42: it has nothing to do with what we believe. This was attempted decades ago and failed. As long as abortion is legal, the SCOTUS will not uphold a law which allows a husband or boyfriend to prevent a competent, conscious woman from having a legal medical procedure if she wants one. It is not going to happen. The only time a husband is allowed to make decisions for his wife is when she is impaired and unable to give informed consent, and a boyfriend never gets to make decisions for his girlfriend unless she has already assigned DPOA to him.
I think Phil’s heart is in the right place, but the issue has already been brought before the SCOTUS. Those of you who are late to the Pro-Life party can be forgiven for not knowing what was decided in 1976. Many of you weren’t even born yet. But it’s done. It is a waste of resources to try it again.
And that’s a good point. I don’t think anyone thinks Phil’s goal of reducing abortions is bad.
It’s the unintended consequences.
Did people just decide to get stupid on this post?
For those of us in the trenches on the fight for the life of these vulnerable South Dakotans, we have to temper our passion with the reality that we shouldn’t pass laws that fund Planned Parenthood – because they are free kicks in the courtroom. This idea is one of those. If a Governor signed it, the State would be guaranteeing a check to Planned Parenthood – which is not an entity most South Dakota taxpayers want to be funding.
Oh Lord Jesus, Lee get down off your inflatable cross already.
“In the trenches” — seriously?
If a father can assert a right to prevent an abortion, can the opposite argument be made by a father who does not want the child, demanding an abortion?
Men who do not want to be parents are already being allowed to have frozen embryos destroyed over their ex-wives’ objections. (Arizona enacted a law giving custody of frozen embryos to whichever parent wants to gestate them. And critics are howling.)
If the argument that “nobody should be forced into parenthood” stands, and men are allowed decision-making over a conscious, competent woman’s pregnancy, yes, this could be really asking for trouble.
Jensen gets the award for most embarrassing legislator. Yet again.
Nah, Anonynous at 7:23 PM on 11/15. Even if you support the goal of reducing abortions (which I don’t), Jensen’s idea is bad for reasons Pat, Anne, and Lee have pointed out. But I don’t think it’s DiSanto or Frye-Mueller levels of bad.
This is going to get a bit long…
First, the mother and the father are equally responsible for the care, protection, education, and upbringing, from the moment of conception until their final breath. It is supposed to be equal partnership.
This life they created has the same right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as any other person. Recognizing that, means abortion is generally not an option
The only reason for an abortion is out of medical necessity, and even then the decision should be a joint decision between the mother and the father, in consultation with their medial professional, spiritual leader and close family and friends. Not lawyers, judges, the legislature, not even the President of the United States, only the mother and the father, that’s it. Even then, I don’t know of a mother or a father who wouldn’t give up their own life so their child might live.
No one person should have an advantage over the other. Any decision should be a joint decision.
We have a serious problem, and abortions is only a symptom of a much larger problem. We need to fix this problem at the root, in our homes, and with our families. While I can appreciate the Senator’s passion, and can understand wanting to to secure the father’s rights early in the process, this type of bill would snarl up the already backlogged courts. I haven’t seen the bill text, and can’t say weather or not I can support it or not. I would like idea of men and women being equal. We should be supporting families. We should be encouraging discussions, rather than court actions.
Yes it should be a joint decision, but as Justice Blackmun stated in 1976, when they don’t agree, the mother’s decision prevails.
Say the sperm donor, anyone can be a father but it takes a real man to be a dad, doesn’t want the child.
Would the mother’s choice to raise the child solo if there wasn’t child support?
Would there be exceptions for rape or incest? Because I don’t think a rape victim should be further victimized by their rapist.