As Rudey said, those things are all beside the point. You are raising issues completely unrelated to the topic at hand -- whether or not a husband has the right of notification (note: he still doesn't get any decision making power, just notification) when his wife has an abortion.

I made a public policy argument stating that if his wife is a hoebag and gets preggers outside of the relationship, he is most likely being exposed (or runs a risk of being exposed) to STD's and the like.

Someone (maybe you?) made the argument that he might be abusive, and this might make him mad, to which I replied, she needs to get a TRO and a divorce if he's abusing her, not to mention seeking criminal charges. I think women that allow their husbands to beat them and their children are contributing to their children's abuse and should be held at least partially responsible (but that's another issue).

Let's stick to the issues that have already been raised without raising these ad absurdium hypotheticals.

And what does that prove? Do you see where I'm going with the suggestion that your potential argument here is weak at best? You're trying to read into his intent, his heart and soul, and what he would do given a hypothetical situation. In this situation, he respected settled law, he announced his respect for it even though he may personally have reservations. Personal reservations do not equal judicial opinions.

Exactly.

Also, let's say hubby is screwing around on wifey. He gets an STD, he's exposing wifey - should he HAVE to tell his wife? Should the government force him to?

Is the fact that a baby is involved in ktsnake's earlier scenario of cheating wife the only reason to tell the husband? If the baby isn't his, why does he have the right to know?

If the wife gets pregant by someone outside the relationship, how is it the husband's right to be notified? He wasn't the one who conceived the fetus in question.

You're right.

In NY, when that man was spreading AIDS up and down the state and health officials and law enforcement got involved to stop it, they had no right nor reason to.

Except they did and stopped it. Seems like they had both right and reason.

-Rudey

Congratulations for being the third person to ask that.

Double congratulations for being the lucky one that I respond to.

-- because the mere fact that the woman is pregnant can be rightfully assumed to be because of the husband -- and if it's not, he, as a matter of public policy has the right to know for his health amongst other moral reasons which might elude you.

And of course, we're talking about pregnancy in a marriage, not STD's. STD's were a side issue that reinforced the primary argument. Let's not shift the scope too much or this could go on forever.

But the Supreme Court DOES NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW ROE. THEY CAN OVERTURN IT.

That's what that proves. My argument is not weak, it's true.

As an appellate judge, he was bound by the precedents of the Supreme Court. As a Supreme Court justice, he is not.

I'm not claiming to be any sort of expert on this, but from what I know getting a restraining order and/or a divorce isn't like going down to K Mart and getting a bottle of shampoo.

This is in PA, re a temporary restraining order.

http://www.womenslaw.org/PA/PA_how_t...use%20Order%20

If you need to file for an order immediately and the county courthouse is closed, call your local police department to see which District Justice is on-call. S/he may be able to grant you an emergency order that will last until the next business day when you must go to the prothonotary to file for a Protection from Abuse Order.

(bold print mine) That doesn't sound too reassuring or easy to me - especially around here where our counties are HUGE and a drive to the county seat can take an hour, IF you have access to a car.

Your argument proves nothing. He didn't argue that he would overturn it, he followed it. You have no way of knowing what he would do given the opportunity to do so while sitting on the S.C.

Nor does anyone, hence the weak argument.

It's not too tough, and not much harder than going to Wal-Mart really, at least in Oklahoma. You just trot yourself down to the County Clerk and fill out the paper work. If you're able to fill out your name, address, etc. you're in.

No need to be snarky.

It's a double-standard. Under your proposed policy, since men are physically unable to become pregnant, women are the only ones who would ever have to 'fess up to infidelity. You can't extend rights to one group of citizens and not another. You can't give men the right to find out their wives have been unfaithful and not extend that same right to women.

Would you support a policy policy that requires men who cheat on their pregnant wives to disclose that information to their wives? Not only are these men endangering the health of their wife, but they're also endangering the health of the unborn child.

If he said yes, would it be enough to return to talking about abortion notification and Alito?

-Rudey

That's the point, I wasn't talking about Oklahoma. Every state is different. Just because it's a breeze there doesn't mean it's like that everywhere.

Abusive husbands may have good reasons for beating their wives. Have you ever considered what it feels like to taste bad cooking day after day, year after year?

-Rudey

Too bad we don't all live in Oklahoma...:rolleyes:

You know, restraining orders are great, but they don't always keep the offender away. Especially when the offender is a habitual abuser.
And I've watched a relatively amicable NY divorce that involved kids - it took more than a couple days, trust me.

Rudey, I didn't state any opinions in the post you responded to so how could you agree with me (even mockingly?) I asked questions.

Should the government force a man to admit his infidelity to his wife?

OH, wait! I have a new one!!!!!

The husband is cheating and the other woman gets pregnant. If SHE decides to have an abortion, should the HUSBAND have to inform his WIFE? I know the baby isn't hers, so it's really none of her business, but still!!!!! :p

In Illinois at least, if you fail to disclose an STD to a partner and said partner contracts the disease, you are liable for his/her medical costs and testing.

There have been too many cases where orders of protection were violated and the woman ends up being killed by the very man she was trying to get protection from in the first place.

According to the Washington Post, Judge Alito ruled in favor of VanGuard. It was later discovered he was an investor in the very company. Even though he later excused himself from future cases with them, how come he didn't refuse the case when it first crossed his desk? It seems like a conflict of interest.

And I asked questions. That man that had AIDS in NY that had spread it throughout the state, sparked a giant manhunt for his capture and the only people in the news that didn't have anything to report on him were Mr. G and Sam Champion.

Either way, the topic is Alito and his case was one that was about informing a spouse of an abortion. It's not about AIDS, cheating, etc. so I think you are all making yourselves dizzy running in all these circles.

-Rudey

ktsnake, I think you may be the worst Libertarian I know.




Hmmm, I wonder if this counts as a personal attack.


;)

OK, that made me laugh out loud! :D

So, I thought I'd take this thread in a different direction.

Anyone want to talk about our thoughts on Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court?

Men who cheat on their pregnant wives do not need abortions.

I don't see how that would be particularly relevant.

I don't like to categorize myself.

-- I'm cool like that.

What does this have to do with Alito?

If you have a problem with your state's system, you should definitely contact your representative. I can tell you that a simple and effective system such as the one in my state is a great thing -- and I work in a predominantly family law practice, so I've had plenty of contact with this system on both sides. Anyhow, as some have said, this has nothing to do with Alito, so feel free to start another thread if it concerns you so greatly :)

I'd like to see "hoebag" make it into a SC decision.

Being a switched over Republican, I too wonder about Alito!

there are certain Rights about Abortion as in Roe Vs Wade.

Now, Everyone still wants to change it.

There are times when it is needed and times when it is not.

Just who is the individual to decide the Point.:(

Conservitive, Moderate or Liberal. It doesnt make any difference who is Picked, there will be a fight!:rolleyes:

Democrates Dont Seem to Hit Their Ass With Both Hands!:rolleyes:

I'm glad to see that there is a very slight decline in abortions, altho the data cited is a few years old.

And I assume that the blue states - leaders in abortions - have a lower population and eventually fewer voters because of abortions.

Or are you arguing that population of likely voters is increasing despite abortions?

Was that a Greek philosopher?

The SOUTH, which is "red," has a higher abortion rate than the MIDWEST, which is "blue."

I am just proving you wrong.

<3,
MWODP

I don't see how telling a husband that his wife got an abortion tells him anything about who the father of the baby was or whether she cheated on him. All it would do is tell him that she was pregnant and chose to end the pregnancy.

In an earlier post, you did say you believe in spousal notification in all matters regarding reproduction. Does that mean spouses get notified when their partner starts birth control, has a vasectomy or buys condoms, spermicide or sponges?

So, a woman goes to clinic to get an abortion and doesn't want her husband to know for some reason. Are they going to run background checks on each of these women to check whether they are married? I see this as an unenforceable law. All she has to do is say she's single and voila, she has gotten around it.

Honesty and disclosure are good policy in a marriage, but you can't legislate communication in a relationship.

The reason that this becomes the issue that determines whether a number of people support a particular Supreme Court judge is because it's the most controversial and emotional issue that this country has faced in the last few decades. There have been other crises and issues but they all went away eventually. This one hasn't. It's a highly charged issue and frankly, some women are scared to death that their rights will be taken away and they will be forced to get dangerous, illegal abortions that can threaten their lives if they decide they don't want to be a parent. That makes it a big deal to many women of child bearing age.

Dee

AGDee, others, please feel free to start another thread on this. This is about Alito, and I think there is more to discuss on him than abortion.

I'll be happy to discuss his judicial philosophy regarding this, but not the issue itself in this thread.

-- call me John Kerry.

You just summed up everything I was thinking.

Just so you know, there's an Alito Abortion Thread so that we can use this one to talk about any other issues that may exist with this nominee.

If I were scared to death, I would:

1 - not do it

2 - use contraception

3 - provide condoms for partners

4 - all of the above

This post is beyond ridiculous.

Anyways, wrigley, do you have a link to that article you mentioned?

297,572,191 people living in US
148,786,095 – 50 % are women
74,393,047 are of childbearing age (50% - just a guesstimation but I think that's about fair)

Assuming all of these women use the most effective form of BC (which they can’t all do because of health issues) and they all use it perfectly (which is pretty much impossible) and the birth control is 99.9% (which is what it says on the package) then each year you can expect 74,393 unintended pregnancies a year.

Unless we are going to stop having sex for pleasure and only ever have sex to procreate we can expect that tens of thousands of women a year will have unintended preganancies. It's just not something that can be controlled, not even with the best birth control. And whether you are scarred teenager or an adult, you should have choices.

Thank you. Excellent post. I have one more addition.

Hoosier: Do you know many rapists who would stop to put on a condom?

So many married men complain that their wives aren't wanting to have sex often enough. Why do they think this is? Perhaps they really don't want to get pregnant.

Yes - zero, but we weren't discussing rape.

Surely every "unintended" doesn't get aborted.

And if we encouraged the "unintended" to get an abortion, the per-year total would fall from 1.3 million to 74,393 +/-

I have never understood how or why abortion became the most prominent plank in the libs and dems platform.

Because as opposed to having states moderate that crap themselves, it became a federal issue. Now instead of talking about how the heck to make filling out tax forms easier, we have to deal with abortions all the time.

-Rudey

Oh, probably for the same reason it's always an issue at the Republican Convention and that platform as well.

People are passionate about it from both sides.

The religious ramifications are a pretty big catalyst, too.