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?