There's no way this is going to pass. Even if it does, it'll be declared unconstitutional in no time.

Never happen.

That's it. I'm definitely never going abortion shopping in Ohio ever again.

It's a tough balance. Posit the following: man impregnates woman. If the woman elects to have the baby, she binds the man to 18 years of child support payments, but if she elects an abortion, the man can't stop her, though he may want to (independently) raise the baby with no further involvement from her.

Fundamentally unfair. That said, the Ohio law is laughably clumsy.

Just to play the devil's advocate for a second here, but doesn't half the fetus' DNA come from a man in the first place?

@Pelagius: Indiana Welcomes You!

i was wondering why this was on the consumerist website and then i read the last line

"thank goodness this unconsumer-friendly hunk of crap is unlikely to pass."

and it makes it all relevent somehow :rolleyes:

interesting legislation and i'm sure deeply divided discussion from all sides, but is this really a consumerist issue?

I can see where a man could have a say in the matter. If he is the known and proven father and wants to raise the child and take on the burden, then he should have a say, and the two of them TOGETHER must work out the situations. But in situations where he's abesent or unknown, rape, incest, etc., and won't take part in any way, screw it, he has no say, nor should any other man.

@Pelagius: Just buy a Mac and bank at a credit union.

This is stupid. When will governments get it?

Also, yeah, watch everyone just go to Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, etc. instead.

@iMike:
Agreed. The implementation is flawed. Right now men have no rights surrounding babies beyond contraception. Even that isnt 100%. Women can make huge changes in a man's life on a whim right now. Its only fair that men have some say in what happens to a baby before its born. I'm not sure the best way to accomplish that though.

Also, yeah, watch everyone wanting an abortion just go over state lines to Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, West Verginia, Pennsylvania...not like they don't have options here.

One question: Does he have to agree to take sole custody of the child if he denys the woman the abortion, or can he say no you have to have the child then disappear into the sunset just to be mean?

Whoops, sorry for the double!

@Geekybiker: I would think men would be more interested in forcing the woman to have an abortion to get out of child support than the other way around.

If you men want rights concerning fetuses and child rearing, go figure out a way to conceive and then get back to me.

Change this law to require the husband have a say and I'll support it.

If you men want rights concerning abortions and fetuses, go find a way to conceive and then get back to me.

@iMike: I am in total agreement. Although this law is just silly in its implementation, it appears to be the first that I have seen that broaches the subject of father's rights.

If a Father can't have a say in the abortion of his child, then he shouldn't be legally obligated to support him by default(although if he were to opt-out, he shouldn't have ANY rights to the child).

But Ohio *is* the Maury Povich show...

And what if the father is dead? Or comatose? Or fled the country? And if so, how would a woman prove that he's not there?
And also, if they're insisting on identifying the father, does that also mean that if a woman wants to abort the fetus, but he won't give permission, does he get sole custody and/or must pay full child support?

So....wait...this article is to warn those who are shopping for abortions?

O_o

@K-Bo:

And then the woman has to pay child support.

This is equality.

...why is this on Consumerist?

@mobbo: Privacy issue. Suggested by a reader.

I hate how my fellow guys think they should have any say in a woman's pregnancy. If you don't want to risk having a child with a woman, don't have sex with her. Simple, huh? Of course, that flies in the face of the "But I wanna!" ethic that seems to be predominate in this culture right now. We are turning into a nation of spoiled brats that doesn't want to deal with results of our actions (our words can still be flung around without thinking cause, well, they're words). No one should be forced to raise a child if they don't want to. Taking a pregnancy to term is in itself risky, and forcing someone to raise a child that they don't want leads to damage to both the adult and the child. And the adoption system in this country is such a mess that it no longer represents a viable alternative. This is legislation serves no purpose than to offer an end run to pro-lifers and to service the egos of men who wish they could still control their women like the good ol' days.

@TechnoDestructo: I agree. Both sides should be able to opt out of physical and monitary responsibility up to the same point. Problem is the woman still has to give birth, making it hard for her to bow out physically for the first 9 months.

@andrewsmash:
No one should be forced to raise a child if they don't want to.
Agreed, the father should have the right to take all parental custody of the child if the mother doesn't want it

We are turning into a nation of spoiled brats that doesn't want to deal with results of our actions
You mean like having an abortion after having sex against the wishes of the father?

This law is deeply flawed, but do you not see how the father has *some* say in what happens to his child (or obviously in your viewpoint potential child)?

Ahh I just love it when the state I live in makes the news. This is so flippin' wrong.

While some think it may never pass, that's what many people thought about the gay marriage rights ban here.

Ahhh... "Ohio, the heart of it all."

While I agree that the man should have a say in the pregnancy, this is the wrong way to go about it. If he wants to contest the abortion, he should have to prove he is the father.

I'm sure this legislation is only meant to put another obstacle in the way of abortions, not a "men's rights" issue.

As a lifelong Ohio resident, I promise to all you consumerist readers that not all Ohioans are hyper-conservative nut jobs. Somehow the voting populace of the state keeps managing to get these ideas into the state legislature, as well as voting for a ban on gay marriage and conceal-and-carry laws... but it isn't my ballot that's doing it.

*sigh*

I think the law isn't very well planned or though out, but in my opinion, a step toward equallity that is long over due.

Why shouldn't the father have equal say? Somewhere being pregnant was equated to having all the rights. That's rediculous.

As a man, I'm really tired of the double standard. We're expected to work it all out, pay child support, etc, but the woman wants all the benefits, and the final say on what and when everything and anything happens. Most, and I use the word most in a calculated way, divorced women, make it as hard as possible for the father, but can't figure out for the life of them why he won't "engage". It's because he's tired of the kids being used to make him pay.

Women need to stop thinking that they should be allowed to make men take some responsibilities and not others, according to what's convenient for her in a given situation.

It's all or nothing ladies. All or nothing.

And, no I'm not divorced or married. I'm single Thank you very much.

There's obviously some gaping holes here but they have the right idea. Some folks will argue you shouldn't abort at all. Me not being a woman, do not feel I have the right to decide for you. However, I do feel it unfair for me to want an abortion, her to disagree and I have to pay support. People argue to "keep it in the pants then" but unfortunately, it takes 2. I think the fair way is for the woman to allow the man out of support payments in a situation like this, as obviously a man will never be able to force a woman to abort. Then the onus falls back on the woman. If I want an abortion, I should be absolved of payments and ALL parental rights if she keeps it.

If a Father can't have a say in the abortion of his child...

@sleze69: He's still 50% responsible for the fact that it exists.

This is SO not the government's business. How did the person who proposed this get into office?

@ThomFabian: Women have been having abortions against the wishes of the father for decades. Now that we have the technology to determine the moment of conception and the actual identity of the father, suddenly his rights come into play? Sorry, no. Forcing a person to carry a child to term is an unjust punishment. And how do we know Daddy won't change his mind when the time comes. When we have artificial wombs that an embryo can be transplanted into, only then do both genetic contributors get to have a say.

And it isn't spoiled to say: There is something going on in my body that I do not want to happen, I need to undergo a painful and difficult procedure to deal with it.

It is spoiled to say: Hey, thanks for that moment of pleasure. Now you have to suffer for nine months so I can get something that only I want.

Opps sorry, thought this was the consumerist page..didn't know I stumbled upon a political blog, must be something wrong with my browser...wait, huh, this is Consumerist?

How bizarre. I love Ohio, my native state, but sometimes I want to cry for its fragmented sociopolitical beliefs. I think that the father should be allowed to prevent the abortion as soon as surgery is perfected to transfer the embryo to his body for gestation and birth. Don't want to end up in a messed up relationship where the woman you impregnated doesn't want to have your baby? Try not impregnating her! Better yet, if you really want a bunch of li'l yous running around, try discussing it with your partner before the big surprise and make sure she's down with the idea!

In theory, yes the father has rights too. But in practice those rights really are superceded by the biological facts of motherhood and the woman's rights. If there's some equitable way to balance that, I haven't seen anything close to it, including this. This just screams potential for abuse, as in "Ha-ha, you won't return my phone calls! Fine, you have to have the baby!" Yes, people really are that bad. Especially over relationships.

@Rectilinear Propagation: By running on a pro-life, anti gay marriage platform, same as every other Ohio politician.

@Cowboys_fan: I would agree with you in a case where there was some kind of protection failure - if an effort was made by one or both parties to avoid pregnancy, then a child kept against the wishes of the father should not be his responsibility and he has no rights or responsibilities thereto. However, it is impossible to prove and will likely never, ever happen.

@Cowboys_fan: Sounds like a sound enough idea, and I understand where you're coming from, but it would open up all sorts of legal problems down the road. What if the man claims that he signed the agreement under duress, or under the influence? Or if the woman fails to raise the child properly, would the man have any recourse to take the child from the mother?

@pinkbunnyslippers:

As long as we are making stupid, over the top statements, why don't you get back in the kitchen and bake me a pie.

@ PINKBUNNYSLIPPERS

Fine. Then eliminate the ability to sue the father for support. Don't like it? Go find a way to conceive without sperm and get back to me.

This topic came up in a college class of mine. I am in no way stating that a woman shouldn't have the right to choose. But there is an incredible inequity in the laws, as IMIKE stated. If I don't want it, and she does, I am on the hook for 18 years of support. If I want it and she doesn't, I am effed.

I am glad someone is looking into this, though Ohio's bill strikes me as the wrong way to do it.

@meghannmarco: Yeah, but it's an abortion law so no one's going to address the privacy part just whether men can opt out of the whole pregnancy thing.

@ Andrewmash

"It is spoiled to say: Hey, thanks for that moment of pleasure. Now you have to suffer for nine months so I can get something that only I want."

Well, is it not also spoiled to say,

"Hey, for that moment of pleasure, you now have to pay me $800 per month for 18 years so I can keep something only I want."

Would it be possible for the thread to contain a discussion of the privacy issue at hand?

@Rectilinear Propagation: And yet he has NO say in whether his child lives or dies. That is not right.

@meghannmarco: Nope. Abortion is too inflammatory an issue. The article could be about how NASA found flying robots living on one of Jupiter's moons, accidentally add the word abortion at the end, and the thread would still end up like this.

Why doesn't Michigan float up to heaven?

Because Ohio sucks SO MUCH

@meghannmarco: Not possible. I'm amazed that this topic appears in a consumer blog

@Skyoodpov: nice comeback
@Murph1908: I agree. But one could argue that there existed "inequity in the laws" prior to the 1970s, hence the need for legalization of abortion. Right?

Women had little to no rights in this country for the first 100 years of the United States existence, and you want to bring up "inequities in the law"? Good luck!