{"id":1919,"date":"2005-11-02T00:22:03","date_gmt":"2005-11-02T07:22:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/archives\/2005\/11\/02\/alito-husband-notification-and-choice-for-men\/"},"modified":"2005-11-02T00:22:03","modified_gmt":"2005-11-02T07:22:03","slug":"alito-husband-notification-and-choice-for-men","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=1919","title":{"rendered":"Alito, Husband-Notification, and Choice For Men"},"content":{"rendered":"

Cathy Young at The Y Files<\/a> defends Alito’s argument that the government can require married women to inform their husbands before they can have an abortion:\n\n

For the record, while I am staunchly pro-choice, I think that spousal notification is a painfully complex issue.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Until lesbian couples have equal marriage rights, the term is “husband notification.” Calling it “spousal” notification is Orwellian; there will never be an instance in which a male “spouse” needs to sign a form swearing he’s notified a female “spouse” of his medical decisions.<\/p>\n

Yes, it’s the woman’s body. It’s also the man’s future child…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It’s not the man’s future child if she’s getting an abortion, because the “future child” Cathy refers to will never exist.<\/p>\n

I don’t believe we can expect men to be equal partners in child-rearing while denying them any say in reproductive decisions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The claim that men have no say is not only mistaken, it belittles men’s agency.<\/p>\n

Do you really think I have no choice whether I have sex or not? No choice over if the form of sex I have will be coital or not? No choice whether I use birth control or not? Men are not helpless children, incapable of making sexual choices – but that’s the level Cathy’s analysis reduces us to.<\/p>\n

Nearly half a century ago, Kurt Vonnegut skewered the belief that it’s wrong if some people have abilities everybody doesn’t share, in his short story “Harrison Bergeron.”<\/a> That story is very relevant to the “choice for men” debate.<\/p>\n

If my partner is female, she has an ability I lack – the ability to abort. (She also faces risks I don’t). But the fact that other people have inherent abilities I lack, doesn’t make me a victim, and doesn’t mean I lack liberty.<\/p>\n

Is it fair that women have an ability men lack? It’s not fair in the sense that the government in Harrison Bergeron-land understood “fairness,” which seems to be the sense Cathy uses.<\/p>\n

But in another sense, our system is fair, because it treats women and men the same: Everyone has the right to choose what to do with the reproductive abilities they have, and everyone is responsible for dealing with the choices they make.<\/p>\n

Paternal consent, in my view, goes too far in infringing on the woman’s bodily autonomy; paternal notification, on the other hand — with exemptions when there is domestic violence or other complicating factors — may not be such an onerous measure.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Cathy makes an interesting slip here – she uses the word “parental<\/em>” where she should use the word “husband.” I’m sure it was an honest error, but it’s ironic, because the “husband notification” laws Cathy favors really do treat husbands like fathers – and wives like children.<\/strike><\/p>\n

(It turns out I was the one making an honest error – Cathy said “paternal,” not “parental.” So I’ve definitely got some egg on my face. :-) However, I still feel Cathy’s term was inaccurate; the law in question would only apply to married fathers, not to fathers in general. “Husband notification” is therefore the more accurate term.)<\/p>\n

The majority opinion, disagreeing with Alito, explained very well what’s wrong with husband notification:<\/p>\n

The husband’s interest in the life of the child his wife is carrying does not permit the State to empower him with this troubling degree of authority over his wife. The contrary view leads to consequences reminiscent of the common law. A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices. If a husband’s interest in the potential life of the child outweighs a wife’s liberty, the State could require a married woman to notify her husband before she uses a post-fertilization contraceptive.<\/p>\n

Perhaps next in line would be a statute requiring pregnant married women to notify their husbands before engaging in conduct causing risks to the fetus. After all, if the husband’s interest in the fetus’ safety is a sufficient predicate for state regulation, the State could reasonably conclude that pregnant wives should notify their husbands before drinking alcohol or smoking. Perhaps married women should notify their husbands before using contraceptives or before undergoing any type of surgery that may have complications affecting the husband’s interest in his wife’s reproductive organs. And if a husband’s interest justifies notice in any of these cases, one might reasonably argue that it justifies exactly what the Danforth Court held it did not justify — a requirement of the husband’s consent as well. A State may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.<\/p>\n

Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Hat Tip: Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money<\/a>, whose entire post is well worth reading.<\/pracut>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Cathy Young at The Y Files defends Alito’s argument that the government can require married women to inform their husbands before they can have an abortion: For the record, while I am staunchly pro-choice, I think that spousal notification is … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,111],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-choice-for-men","category-supreme-court-issues"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1919","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1919"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1919\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}