You thought men had no parenting choices before.. check this out

[trumptman]

Make a move... go to jail. (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061130/OPINION01/611300306/1008)

House Bill 5882 creates 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, the proposal goes way beyond this by interfering with constitutionally protected personal prerogatives.

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.

This is beyond insane. I'm sure just about anything short of doing everything a woman wants with a big, broad, fake smile on your face can be grounds for filing a charge here of coercion.

Wasn't slavery outlawed?

Nick

[groverat]

You start to make a case for something then you just have to finish it off with a big, steaming pile of shit.

You went and ruined the cake, trumpt!

[trumptman]

If your wrist hurts so much, just stop playing with your Wii.

You don't have to roll in here and take it out on me.:no: :D

Nick

[Powerdoc]

Many times, I think that people in charge of making laws, do not realise all the implications of their work, while they foster such laws, in order to protect a particular group of people.
And this is not US only. It's general, and may also apply to many political stuff
just my 2 cents (of euro :D)

[trumptman]

I'll take your two cents (of Euro) Powerdoc because with the exchange rate going the way it is lately, that more like a dime in the U.S!

The analysis being a bit "light" for me, I'll add my depreciated two more cents into this.

It seems that many family courts and the legislatures that are creating the laws for them view change or exercising of one's own rights as a violent act.

I have related in the past the example with my own brother where any reduction in his work hours or change in his employment status initiated by HIM was something for which he could have been put in jail.

If you were working 50 hours and desire to now work 40, well that is an offense that can land you in jail.

This law is even more ridiculous. Any change in your living circumstances is labeled as coercion. Shouldn't force, pressure or intimidation have to be proven instead of just presumed?

Nick

[BRussell]

It's Yet Another Silly Anti-Abortion Law. LIke the unborn victims of violence act, which makes it murder to cause a pregnant woman to lose a baby, even if neither the man nor the woman knew she was pregnant.

But I have to take issue with your suggestion, Nick, that there is a "presumption of coercion." According to the article, you can't change living circumstances etc. "if it is determined that the man is doing these things to try to pressure the woman to terminate her pregnancy." It sounds to me, just from your quote, that nothing is presumed. It has to be proven that it's an attempt to coerce an abortion.

[trumptman]

The presumption is there because it criminalizes legal activities that are within your rights.

Whether I agree with them or not, most laws that deal with intent at least have the advantage of having a crime committed and then use intent to determine the degree of law breaking. Premeditated, well that is first degree murder, fit or rage, second degree murder, did I do it because you were black, well it is a hate crime as well.

Here we get into intent, but not in the commission of a crime. The intent itself must be the crime because the activity related to it is legal.

Moving out isn't a crime. You can say that they will determine when you are moving out whether your intent is to coerce or not, but since the action isn't a crime how do they determine if it is wrong? It has to be presumed wrong from the beginning. The bias and prejudice of the court in this matter will determine that the default actions of a non-coercive party are to take no action. The actions themselves when undertaken will become proof of coercive intent which will be the prosecutable crime.

Nick

[BRussell]

No Nick, you're simply wrong according to your own article that you quoted in your first post. The action of moving out (or other action) is not prima facie prosecutable. It has to be proven that it was an attempt to coerce someone into having an abortion.

It is not illegal for someone to give me money. That is not an illegal act. However if I am blackmailing that person into giving me money, it is illegal. It looks like it's the same thing here. It isn't illegal to move out or divorce someone, unless it can be proven that those actions were undertaken in order to coerce someone to have an abortion.

[Chris Cuilla]

The real trick in the law is this part:

if it is determined that the man is doing these things to try to pressure the woman to terminate her pregnancy.

How do you do this exactly? Short of an explicit statement of "I a moving out unless you get an abortion"...how is this determined? Short of physical force or violence how do you prove an action is "coercive"?

Can he be prosecuted if he just:

- "change(s) or attempt(s) to change an existing housing or cohabitation arrangement" with a pregnant significant other,

or

- "file(s) or attempt to file for a divorce" from his pregnant wife

or

- "withdraw or attempt to withdraw financial support" from a woman whom he has been supporting

This gets tricky with somewhat subjective evaluations like determining "that the man is doing these things to try to pressure the woman to terminate her pregnancy".

Now. I am opposed to abortion and I firmly believe that both persons that cause the creation/birth of another person have a moral responsibility to support and provide for this new person. But I am also nervous about laws that can be widely and vaguely interpreted (as this one could be). Such laws tend to have unintended consequences.

[Powerdoc]

I'll take your two cents (of Euro) Powerdoc because with the exchange rate going the way it is lately, that more like a dime in the U.S!

The analysis being a bit "light" for me, I'll add my depreciated two more cents into this.

It seems that many family courts and the legislatures that are creating the laws for them view change or exercising of one's own rights as a violent act.

I have related in the past the example with my own brother where any reduction in his work hours or change in his employment status initiated by HIM was something for which he could have been put in jail.

If you were working 50 hours and desire to now work 40, well that is an offense that can land you in jail.

This law is even more ridiculous. Any change in your living circumstances is labeled as coercion. Shouldn't force, pressure or intimidation have to be proven instead of just presumed?

Nick

It seems also, that some judge have an agenda. They have chosing a cause : and that's a bad thing. The balance will come, but it may recquiere time. And it's indeed unfortunate, that the balance is not immediate.
Your brother example is a really good one.

[Chris Cuilla]

The court would eventually develop some sort of standard for dealing with that particular question of law. It's impossible to really predict what they'd look at. There are so many things you *could* consider if you really wanted to enforce this proposed law. You might look at intent of the parties, certain actions undertaken, harm done to the mother (financial hardship, performance of an abortion, etc). Who knows. Point is that the law makes these kinds of determinations all the time, so it's not like they couldn't do it if they really wanted to.



Can't really know that because there's no case examples yet.

Hopefully there never will be any.

All seems pretty dicey to me. Seems that proving something to be coercive short of physical force is rather tenuous. I'd like some examples that are like this in the current law.

[Chris Cuilla]

Why do you think that?

Well...because coercion is about force and force is about physical power or strength.

Now there are claims of "emotional coercion" or "mental coercion"...but without the mind-reading tricks unavailable to me...I don't see how those are provable.

Further, arguing that a person moving out, filing for divorce or stopping financial support is forcing a person to get an abortion (or do anything) is rather tenuous argumentation. This just seems quite dubious to me.

Show me examples in the current law where this happens?

[Chris Cuilla]

Coercion is indeed about force, but it's more precisely about forcing a person to do something he or she doesn't want to do.

And that the man's act in this example forces a woman to get an abortion is a very dubious assertion.

The law might agree with you...that doesn't mean it is right.

The legislature and the courts fill in the definition of what is and isnt "coercion," not Webster's.

How convenient...and yet ignorance of the law ain't a defense...but we can have the legislature just re-define words to fit their goals...meaning I may never really know what the law means because the words don't mean what they mean...by law.

Easy there, Mr. Show-Me. ;)

I'm not sure what you're looking for anyway.

Seems like a resonable request. Is there any other example that looks like this in our current laws?

[BRussell]

The real trick in the law is this part:



How do you do this exactly? Short of an explicit statement of "I a moving out unless you get an abortion"...how is this determined? Short of physical force or violence how do you prove an action is "coercive"?

Can he be prosecuted if he just:

- "change(s) or attempt(s) to change an existing housing or cohabitation arrangement" with a pregnant significant other,

or

- "file(s) or attempt to file for a divorce" from his pregnant wife

or

- "withdraw or attempt to withdraw financial support" from a woman whom he has been supporting

This gets tricky with somewhat subjective evaluations like determining "that the man is doing these things to try to pressure the woman to terminate her pregnancy". Yes it is tricky and subjective. How do we know Dick Cheney accidentally shot a guy in the face? Are we reading his mind? It's just the nature of the law: Behaviors that may under some conditions be legal, motivated by a different mental state may be illegal. This is a completely uncontroversial aspect of our (or any) legal system.

[Chris Cuilla]

Yes it is tricky and subjective. How do we know Dick Cheney accidentally shot a guy in the face? Are we reading his mind? It's just the nature of the law: Behaviors that may under some conditions be legal, motivated by a different mental state may be illegal. This is a completely uncontroversial aspect of our (or any) legal system.

Shooting a gun in the direction of another human-being.
( a specific act of violence that creates imminent danger for another person )

Moving out of a house. Filing for divorce.
( actions which are neither violent or create imminent danger for another person )

Hmmm.

EDIT: Your example is further weakened by the fact that (in most places) it is illegal to point a gun at another person except in self-defense. I suspect this is due to the nature of the act (pointing the gun) puts the person being pointed at in imminent physical danger. The examples for this law don't seem to rise to that standard.

[Chris Cuilla]

Not really.

I explained before how a court would develop a standard that the plaintiff would have to meet to prove coercion. I wouldn't anticipate that standard being any less rigorous or involved as any other legal standard. Just a different subject really.

I guess this is what happens when words don't really mean anything.

[BRussell]

Shooting a gun in the direction of another human-being.
( a specific act of violence that creates imminent danger for another person )

Moving out of a house. Filing for divorce.
( actions which are neither violent or create imminent danger for another person )

Hmmm.

EDIT: Your example is further weakened by the fact that (in most places) it is illegal to point a gun at another person except in self-defense. I suspect this is due to the nature of the act (pointing the gun) puts the person being pointed at in imminent physical danger. The examples for this law don't seem to rise to that standard. So where does your view of this leave Cheney? Do you think he should be in prison? That's what it sounds like.

But I bet for every illegal action you could find a comparable legal behavior. What's the difference between a paycheck and bribery? Taking your child who is living with your divorced husband for a vacation and kidnapping? Having sex and rape?

[Chris Cuilla]

Well no shit.

Assault with a deadly weapon (what you're describing) is different than the behavior the proposed law proscribes.

And so it isn't a comparable example then. Duh.

[spindler]

Can anyone here think of a legitamite situation where this law should be enforced and no other law would already be applicable? Everyone is arguing in the abstract, but no one has any specifics, which makes it all suspicious.

Unless the guy writes a handwritten note saying "I'm kicking you out unless you get an abortion." I can't see any instance in which you could prove this. There's no law that says people have to be nice to each other while breaking up a relationship. But if you do the same exact not nice things while disputing whether to have an abortion you can now be punished for it.

Again, can anyone come up with a SPECIFIC situation in which this law should apply?

[trumptman]

Come on Shawn!

I mean you have people on the board who are distinguishing between legislative and case law and asking you for the case law that would be applied to help and associated parties use the word "determined."

Nick

[trumptman]

I understand it would be an issue of first impression before the court with regard to the coercion of those acts being applied to abortion. However certainly the courts have addressed coercion before with regard to the act of abortion.

Come on Judge Shawn... what do you think...aside from the actual actions themselves, would be grounds for determining if they were coercive. No one is going to appeal your ruling here. We just want your opinion.

Nick