My good buddy Glenn Sacks has an opinion piece in this morning’s Los Angeles Times: Alito and the Rights of Men. Glenn defends Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito’s 1991 vote to uphold a law that required Pennsylvania women to notify their husbands before having an abortion, a law that was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court.
Planned Parenthood also wasted no time before blasting the nomination, saying that Alito had shown "callous disregard of battered women."
How did Alito do these terrible things? Apparently his sin is his 1991 vote to uphold a section of a Pennsylvania law that required women to notify their husbands if they intended to have an abortion. That law, according to women’s rights groups, would have put women in harm’s way by subjecting them to the wrath of their angry husbands. (When NOW says "husband" or "father," it’s usually preceded by the word "abusive"; the word "wife" is generally modified by "battered.")
I hate to interrupt the ladies while they’re enjoying a good lynching, but Alito’s defense of the Pennsylvania law is quite defensible, despite their hysterical claims. Alito simply acknowledged the principle that husbands and fathers also have a reasonable interest in their unborn children.
I like Glenn, I really do. I like him even when he calls the claims of feminist organizations "hysterical", a classic misogynistic slander. (Folks, please look up the origin of the word. Glenn knows perfectly well where the word comes from, or he ought to.) And "lynching"? Is Glenn channeling Clarence Thomas? Even the most irenic of MRAs can’t seem to resist embracing overwrought victim language to describe the plight of men in contemporary America.
In an ideal world, husbands and wives would always make reproductive decisions together. Heck, in an ideal world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies, and no babies in utero suffering from debilitating fetal ailments. But until that happy day arrives,(soon, deo volente), I think it’s reasonable to defend the idea that whether married or not, women ought to enjoy sovereignty over their bodies.
As I’ve written before, pregnancy is a burden carried solely by women. While conception takes two, and parenting ought to involve an equal commitment from both parties who took part in the earlier conception process, it’s hard to argue that men are as involved as women in the period between conception and birth. And where there is an unequal burden, the law does well to honor the wishes of she who, by herself, bears that burden. One would hope that most married women would feel safe enough to share the news of an unexpected pregnancy with their husbands; one would like to think that many women would be eager for their husbands’ input. But ultimately, given the radically unequal nature of pregnancy, the law ought to do nothing to interfere with women’s sovereignty between conception and delivery.
As I’ve written before, men do have reproductive choice. We have the choice as to whether or not to have sex, and whether or not to use a reliable form of protection when having sex. Though some MRAs seem to believe that lustful women patrol the land at night like medieval succubae, eager to rob men of their semen, rational folks are aware that very, very few women, if any, are "stealing" the ejaculate of naive and innocent men. If we aren’t ready for fatherhood, or aren’t willing to countenance our partner’s decision to terminate a pregnancy, the time to act is before we have sex. I’ll say it again and again and again: when a man ejaculates inside of a woman, he is taking responsibility for all of the consequences that may arise: abortion, fatherhood, eighteen years of child support. If he doesn’t like the consequences, he is free to refuse vaginal intercourse with his wife or partner.
The high court rightly decided the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. I say this as one who longs for the day when there are no more abortions! But until that happy day when abortions are unnecessary and unthinkable, I’ll defend the right of women — and underage girls — to make this difficult decision as they see fit, with or without the knowledge of parents or partners.
Hugo, I’d encourage you to check out Dahlia Lithwick’s article on this point. http://www.slate.com/id/2069132/ She argues that while excluding fathers from these kinds of reproductive decisions is unjust, there is also no good alternative. “The woman’s monopoly on abortion persists because the law just can’t overcome our gender-bound bodies.” Further, “The womb wins. The courts won’t stomach forcing a woman to bear a child against her will.”
(The article is about a 2002 case where a father tried to prevent his ex-girlfriend from having an abortion.)
I also think that Sacks is mistaken when he says that “Alito simply acknowledged the principle that husbands and fathers also have a reasonable interest in their unborn children.” To me it suggests that Alito thinks fathers ought to have power (perhaps veto power?) in making the decision. That’s something I can’t get on board with. Like Lithwick, I know it isn’t fair, but I am really not seeing an alternative.
Thanks for the link, fizz. Indeed, it’s unequal — but any conceivable (pun intended) remedy would be infinitely more unequal. Lithwick puts it nicely.
In what law or part of the Constitution is this “principle” based, I wonder?
I also wonder why Glenn supports a law that is merely a notification. After all, the husband has no right to do anything about the abortion. And certainly we’re not advocating that a father, told that his wife is having an abortion and that’s too damn bad, try to do anything other than talk her out of it…right?
I read your blog a lot Hugo, so I know you recently got married (congrats) but how would you feel (from your pro - life stance) if your new wife decided to abort your child?
What is wrong with the husband getting notice of this event happening, yes they may want to talk to the woman involved about it, there may be other issue in her decision to go ahead with it (not always abuse as some keep making out)
The father of that child has a right to know, so they can make their own decisions about the relationship they are in. To some men the act of doing as you describe is so bad too them that they may wish to end the relationship with that woman, why should men be refused the right to know the facts about something that can potentially effect their whole lifes?
will comment on this in more detail tommorrow
Wookie
I’m inclined to think that women who decide not to tell their husbands do so for good reasons. Also, if a husband and wife cannot talk about the pregnancy, it seems that there is something so defective in the underlying relationship that a law madating she tell him won’t fix it.
Wookie, based on your comments, it seems as though you favor partner notification in all cases, not just marriage. Am I reading you correctly?
Wookie,
As the above commentators said, in an ideal world, both parents would discuss and agree, but in the real world, I can’t see any alternative which at the same time both safeguards women from the dangers of abusive husbands, of whom there are far too many (it occours to me that in some cultures to say you are having an abortion is very dangerous), but also recognises the different roles men and women play in pregnancy.
Was the legislation just for ‘husbands’, or did it include all fathers?
Steve
You mean anytime I use the word “hysterical” to describe a woman I’m being misogynistic? Oh please…
Anyway, of course husbands and wives should discuss their reproductive plans. Whether or not they want a child. How to prevent a pregnancy.
But what about the case where they both agree to have a child, the wife then becomes pregnant, and then she changes her mind? Her husband deserves to know, don’t you think? For a wife to go and have an abortion without informing her husband in this case is perhaps indicative of communication (and other) problems in their relationship, but what to do? Tough luck, Chuck?
Even so, no matter how much I agree with Glenn that there must be some way to better accomodate men’s wishes in the reproductive arena, I cannot ever support any law which would force a woman to have a child because her husband/boyfriend wants one.
But I think the law in question wasn’t about that: it was about the husband’s right to know. And, in the case I’ve outlined above, I totally believe the husband has the right to know. Should he have “veto power”? The question isn’t about that. “Veto power” can only be granted by the wife to the husband within the confines of their own relationship. Will a husband possibly argue with, and possibly try to persuade, a wife who is about to abort a child he thought they had agreed to have and now finds she has changed her mind? Of course he will, and he should have the opportunity to do so. They are partners in marriage. Partners in marriage do not get to impose their will on each other, but they are each entitled to a hearing on every issue, this one included. For the wife to try to avoid that hearing, that discussion, just ain’t right.
However — I loath having to resort to a law to make it happen. There are WAY too many laws these days, and all we do is create more and more and more. If it were my vote, I would have struck it down. It is way too much governmental intrusion into personal lives. Alito should have struck it down. It is right that the PA Supreme Court did so.
Husbands only. The statute (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3209) that was declared unconstitutional read:
(a) Spousal notice required.–In order to further the Commonwealth’s interest in promoting the integrity of the marital relationship and to protect a spouse’s interests in having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal life of that spouse’s child no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), unless he or she has received a signed statement, which need not be notarized, from the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed, that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion. The statement shall bear a notice that any false statement made therein is punishable by law.
b) Exceptions.–The statement certifying that the notice required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished where the woman provides the physician a signed statement certifying at least one of the following:
(1) Her spouse is not the father of the child.
(2) Her spouse, after diligent effort, could not be located.
(3) The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault), which has been reported to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction.
(4) The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse or by another individual.
(Section C deals with medical emergencies.)
The emphasis is mine. I just wanted to highlight what the legislature’s state rationale was.
Given the exemptions, especially #4, I don’t see how this law interferes with a woman’s “sovereignty between conception and delivery.”
If you believe a man needs to take responsibility for “for all of the consequences that may arise” including abortions, the father should, in any case that doesn’t endager the mother, be notified. How is he supposed to fairly take responsibility for an action that he doesn’t know about?
Hugo, if you truly believe 1 Corinthians 7:4, “The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife,” I don’t see how you can support the idea of a wife being completely independent on this issue. How much more should the life of their child “belong” to both the husband and the wife?
You brought up this verse yourself recently, saying you really appreciate the vision of mutual submission it gives. Obviously pregnancy is a fairly one-sided experience, but I’d still like to see how you justify not applying the verse to this issue.
Vacula, I do believe in 1 Corinthians 7:4. I would be devastated if my wife had an abortion and never told me. But there’s a colossal distinction between what we ought to do and what the law ought to compel. Paul is binding for Christians — but I see no reason why public policy ought to reflect our own sectarian beliefs, even my own passionately held ones.
Does it never occur to clowns like Glenn that maybe the husband isn’t the father? That’s aside from the whole issue that women should have sovereignty over their own bodies, a concept these misogynists obviously can’t grasp.
Hugo, I don’t understand how you can “really like” Glenn. My reaction to that is pretty much the same as if you said you “really, really like” David Duke. “He’s really a good guy, you know, if you just get past all that ‘blacks are sub-human’ stuff!”
If a woman agrees to get pregnant with her husband, then changes her mind, I think it’s reasonable to assume she has a good reason. I don’t need to know what that resoan is & I don’t think anyone else does either.
Sassafras, I suppose I’ve always considered it possible that someone could hold morally objectionable beliefs and still be a wonderful person.
I was raised that way, which is a subject of a forthcoming post.
Sass: “Hugo, I don’t understand how you can “really like” Glenn. My reaction to that is pretty much the same as if you said you “really, really like” David Duke. “He’s really a good guy, you know, if you just get past all that ‘blacks are sub-human’ stuff!”
– which would be a really good analogy, if Glenn Sacks and David Duke were in the same universe, philosophy-wise. Except that Glenn Sacks doesn’t believe in the least that women are “sub-human,” and that’s where your comparison goes right down the toilet.
bg
You say a man needs to take responsibility for “for all of the consequences that may arise” including abortions. How is he supposed to fairly take responsibility for an action that he doesn’t know about?
Obviously there are exceptions - both abusive partners and husbands not being the father are included on this law. I understand the difference between personal faith and public policy, but you didn’t address this inconsistency with that distinction.
“Except that Glenn Sacks doesn’t believe in the least that women are “sub-human”
Of course he does. He would never say that, not in a million years, but regarding women as lesser beings is the very essence of patriarchy. Maleness is the norm, in this view; femaleness is “other” and inevitably inferior. And now you’ll say that Glenn Sacks doesn’t believe in patriarchy, but the entire MRA movement is the backlash of an outraged patriachy. That’s abundantly clear to everyone except the MRAs themselves, who delude themselves into thinking that they just want a fair break for poor old discriminated-against men.
But you’re probably an MRA yourself, so there’s probably no point in even trying to explain this to you.
Anyway, my remark was directed at Hugo, whose writings I generally enjoy. I simply cannot, as a woman, imagine thinking that Glenn Sacks is a wonderful person. His hatred of women is so palpable it makes my skin crawl. Of course I’ve only read him; I suppose it’s possible that he writes vicious stuff about “hysterical women” but in person he’s all warm and cuddly. Sure.
As I’ve written before, men do have reproductive choice. We have the choice as to whether or not to have sex, and whether or not to use a reliable form of protection when having sex.…. If we aren’t ready for fatherhood, or aren’t willing to countenance our partner’s decision to terminate a pregnancy, the time to act is before we have sex. I’ll say it again and again and again: when a man ejaculates inside of a woman, he is taking responsibility for all of the consequences that may arise: abortion, fatherhood, eighteen years of child support. If he doesn’t like the consequences, he is free to refuse vaginal intercourse with his wife or partner.
I agree, however women are also free also to refuse “vaginal intercourse” are they not? The moment they freely allow a man to “ejaculate” in them, are they not also responsible?
What’s so hard about asking women to take responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy just as you would have men do? Once the baby is born, she can walk off and never see the child again if that is what she wishes.
In fact, I’ll go further. The life of the child is absolutely more important than the wishes of men and women to avoid the inconvenience of that child. I realize the cognitive dissonance between your pro-life stance and women’s choice is tough on you. It is for me too. I just fall on the side of pro-life. Once a woman conceives (purposely or not), the life of the child is more important than the perceived sovereignty of a her body or the lifestyle choices of the man.
Hard as it is, you cannot be pro-life and pro-choice. Pick one.
If a woman agrees to get pregnant with her husband, then changes her mind, I think it’s reasonable to assume she has a good reason. I don’t need to know what that reason is & I don’t think anyone else does either.
So, if you want a vasectomy, I suppose you think your wife doesn’t need to know about that, and it’s perfectly OK to get up from the breakfast table, say “Excuse me, hon, got an errand to run, be back in about 3 hours”?
One thing that dooms marriages is lack of communication. I would think both of the above would qualify for that.
Does it never occur to clowns like Glenn that maybe the husband isn’t the father?
Sassafras - did you read Evil Fizz’s comment three above and 25 minutes before yours?
Mythago - the part of the Constitution on which the principle that men have a “reasonable interest” in their unborn children is the same as the part which creates a right to abortion - the emanations and penumbras. There is nothing in the Constitution which indicates that a law requiring such notification violates any explicit Constitutional prohibition or general principle. Just because a law may be a bad law does not make the law unconstitutional.
Given that list of exeptions to the notification requirement, I think that’s rather a good law, myself. I’d not want to stay married to a woman who felt free to make such choices without discussing them with me.
Anthony, I can’t agree. Forcing communication in these kinds of circumstances is not something the law should be doing. (I feel similarly about parental notification laws, but spousal notification laws are about competent adults, not minor children.)
Also, I think that if one supports notifying the father but only in the context of marriage, you’ve created an equal protection problem, because then only married women are subjected to its terms (14th Amendment.)
Bad laws are unconstitutional if they’re irrational. I think that the Pennsylvania legislature’s reasons for enacting this statute are pretextual and that it should fail rational basis review, even if heightened scrutiny didn’t apply, but that’s just me.
Slightly off topic…
In reply to…
“Except that Glenn Sacks doesn’t believe in the least that women are “sub-human”
Sassafras wrote…
Of course he does
This seems to be pure speculation and mind reading.
Sassafras continues…
He would never say that, not in a million years
This re-enforces the mind reading aspect.
Sassafras notes…
he writes vicious stuff about “hysterical women”
A slight misinterpretation perhaps? He actually said ‘hysterical claims‘.
If some evidence is presented of Glenn’s views then at least there is some basis for the remarks, otherwise a withdrawal of the comments would seem to be in order.
If people mind read others and project views they may or may not hold, communication becomes slightly difficult.
On topic.
Hugo wrote…
I’ll say it again and again and again: when a man ejaculates inside of a woman, he is taking responsibility for all of the consequences that may arise: abortion, fatherhood, eighteen years of child support. If he doesn’t like the consequences, he is free to refuse vaginal intercourse with his wife or partner.
I agree with Uzzah. A little more explicitly, have you ever suggested this…
‘when a woman allows a man to ejaculate inside her, she is taking responsibility for all of the consequences that may arise: abortion, motherhood, eighteen years of child support. If she doesn’t like the consequences, she is free to refuse vaginal intercourse with her hsuband or partner’
Gee, Hugo, I notice that your “foes” seem to accept you and Glenn being buddies, while your “friends” are all kinds of opposed to it.
Hm.
Sassafras, you say that “of course” Glenn Sacks believes that women are subhuman, but admit that he would never say such a thing. You have no evidence, in other words, from anything that he has said. Do you have any other evidence that he believes such a thing? Is your disagreement with him on this (or any other) issue sufficient evidence for you? I find it troubling how often outraged feminist declare, with great confidence, what is in the minds and hearts of persons who challenge their thinking. It is quite common among them. Even Hugo succumbs at times, and I believe him to be a man of integrity. There must be something in the mindset of a group which believes so strongly that they are correct and know what’s best for others that induces such things.
I suggest to you, Sassafras, that you reconsider the evidence for your conclusion. Assertions and generalities are not reliable guides to understanding the complexities of individual human beings. Hugo has met Glenn Sacks, and Hugo has concluded that Glenn is a man worthy of being called a friend. Is that not REAL evidence as to the character of the man?
“Gee, Hugo, I notice that your ‘foes’ seem to accept you and Glenn being buddies, while your ‘friends’ are all kinds of opposed to it.”
I really don’t want to think of myself as Hugo’s “foe.” If our views on certain subjects are disparate, fine, but my view of him is similar to his view of Mr. Sacks: we agree in some places and disagree in others.
bg
Thanks Fizz,
I like that they’ve put the clauses in, but still shy away from making a woman declare, for example that she was sexually assulted, or that her husband may beat her for it. I can see the positive of that coming out, but also the scared women, who may not be able to bring themselves to do that.
Given that abortion is legal, and this isn’t that discussion (though it does seem a bit like simply an attempt to make it harder), I would rather avoid putting someone in that position, on fear of legal punishment, and would rather not leggally mandate the ocnversation I think everyone should have.
Having said that,l I’m not american, and I only know what I’ve read here. Master of uninformed comment.
Steve :-)
Westcoat, in response to this:
‘when a woman allows a man to ejaculate inside her, she is taking responsibility for all of the consequences that may arise: abortion, motherhood, eighteen years of child support. If she doesn’t like the consequences, she is free to refuse vaginal intercourse with her hsuband or partner’
It should be fairly obvious that a woman does accept those responsibilities - in fact, can’t really avoid them. She’s the one who has the abortion, after all.
I agree with Anthony, this is a decent law that deserved to stand. Sure, marriages should be about uncoerced open communication, but unfortunately in some marriages this is not the case and those cases men need to have explicit rights that are written into law.
IMO the issue of “abused women” is a Red Herring; the law makes exceptions for that, as well as among other things (IMO outrageously) in the case of adulterous women. Women’s concerns are most certainly addressed, and IMO with the issue of adultery, overly-so.
Only a very, very small number of women and men are victims of inter-partner abuse, and the good, valid research has shown time and again that the number are equally split between men and women. However, in the case of a wife aborting a couple’s child unilaterally, without any concern re. the input of the man in the decision is IMO a type of domestic abuse against the father. If men are to have no say in such decisions, then IMO he should have the right to divorce the woman upon discovering the deceit and the woman should have no right to any support from him, spousal child or otherwise. In such a case she has violated the marriage covenant, committed domestic abuse, and made a completely unlitateral decision to have a child. To hold the man accountable for such a decision is tantamount to slavery.
No wonder men are running as fast as they can away from marriage, and IMO should be getting vasectomies as a matter of course upon reaching puberty. Perhaps we should start a national campaign to educate parents re. the importance of vasectomies for their teenage sons?
bmmg, note the scare quotes on foes.
How white their steel, how bright their eyes! I love each laughing knave,
Cry high and bid him welcome to the banquet of the brave.
Yea, I will bless them as they bend and love them where they lie,
When on their skulls the sword I swing falls shattering from the sky.
The hour when death is like a light and blood is like a rose, –
You never loved your friends, my friends, as I shall love my foes.
-G. K. Chesterton, “The Last Hero”
Anyway, it’s curious to note that Judge Alito was following strict precedent in those cases, that the exceptions to the spousal notification requirement (which basically makes it a joke) removed the obstacle to it as an “undue burden” - which up to then was an undefined legal term, only clarified by further rulings on Casey.
Sass: “Of course he does. He would never say that, not in a million years, but regarding women as lesser beings is the very essence of patriarchy. Maleness is the norm, in this view; femaleness is ‘other’ and inevitably inferior. And now you’ll say that Glenn Sacks doesn’t believe in patriarchy, but the entire MRA movement is the backlash of an outraged patriachy. That’s abundantly clear to everyone except the MRAs themselves, who delude themselves into thinking that they just want a fair break for poor old discriminated-against men.”
I see, so Glenn Sacks’ male chauvinism is like the purple elephant playing solitaire in the kitchen. We can’t see it, we won’t try to prove it, but, darn it, we just know it’s there and anyone who questions its existence is delusional.
“But you’re probably an MRA yourself, so there’s probably no point in even trying to explain this to you.”
Are you usually this patronizing, or are you just having a bad day? I find it interesting that you claim to know our intentions and hopes better than we do ourselves.
bg
Gonz, you keep quoting Chesterton (a fine Christian Socialist) and I’m really going to start to like you. Watch out.
Gonzman: “bmmg, note the scare quotes on ‘foes.’”
Oh, I know. I was just further clarifying.
bg
However, in the case of a wife aborting a couple’s child unilaterally, without any concern re. the input of the man in the decision is IMO a type of domestic abuse against the father. If men are to have no say in such decisions, then IMO he should have the right to divorce the woman upon discovering the deceit and the woman should have no right to any support from him, spousal child or otherwise. In such a case she has violated the marriage covenant, committed domestic abuse, and made a completely unlitateral decision to have a child.
Mt. Bad, this makes no sense. If she’s had an abortion, there is no unilateral decision to have a child. She’s unilaterally decided to terminate a pregnancy, and therefore the issue of child support is completely moot.
And if you’re suggesting that any pre-exisiting (for lack of a better term, i.e. born prior to the pregnancy/abortion) children are not entitled to support, you’ve crossed the line into utter lunacy.
Mr. Bad, do you have any idea what it’s like to be in an abusive relationship? I do. And, while I’ve thankfully never been pregnant, I know for a fact that any “defiance” of one’s partner, be it going out with your friends or trying to get an abortion, becomes an insurmountable barrier. And to then say, “well, there’s exceptions for them, so it doesn’t matter!” is so very ignorant. To qualify for the exception you have to prove that you should be exempt. That means setting a court date and standing before a judge. When you live with your abusive partner, do you honestly think that they’d just let you leave the house to go to court? And lying about where you’re going is an ordeal, because your partner will want “proof” or will accuse you of lying to them.
And it absolutely sickens me that you would dare say that not informing a partner of an abortion is a form of domestic abuse. That is an ignorant, hurtful, and dismissive statement. There is a big difference between one act that may be hurtful and the systematic destruction of another human’s self-esteem and livelihood.
So here’s your tough question for the day, Hugo:
Will you equally defend the choice of men to have a vasectomy - to make this difficult decision as they see fit, with or without the knowledge of partners?
Where’s the tough part of the question? Of course men should vasectomies whenever they please. Their body, their decision. Anywhere there’s a rule mandating notification or, worse, consent from a spouse for sterilization, there’s a feminist protest. It happens to women who want their tubes tied, too, you know.
Seriously, what were you expecting to hear?
In such a case she has violated the marriage covenant, committed domestic abuse, and made a completely unlitateral decision to have a child. To hold the man accountable for such a decision is tantamount to slavery.
Uh, the law was with regard to the woman’s decision to NOT have the baby. So, if she decided to HAVE the baby, there’s no problem. At least, with regard to this law.
Gonz, you keep quoting Chesterton (a fine Christian Socialist) and I’m really going to start to like you. Watch out.
Even this quote?
“Feminists are those who cannot stand female characteristics.”
Of course men should [have] vasectomies whenever they please. Their body, their decision.
Really? You make it sound so simple!
So, let me ask: let’s say you’re in a marriage, and you’re expecting to be able to have kids with your husband, you and he have talked about it, and you both want to. But later on down the road you find that, gosh darn, for some reason, no matter how hard you try, you can’t get pregnant. And you say, “Honey, perhaps we should go see a fertility specialist.”
And he replies, cheerfully, “Oh, no need for that, sweetie. I had myself snipped years ago!”
How would you feel?
Or hey, this one:
We are right to talk about “Woman;” only blackguards talk about women. Yet all men talk about men, and that is the whole difference. Men represent the deliberative and democratic element in life. Woman represents the despotic.
Or this:
Every man who is married knows quite well, not only that he does not regard
his wife as a chattel, but that no man can conceivably ever have done
so.
I like Chesterton too, on occasion. And I’m glad he’s long dead.
Scarbo, I imagine I’d feel like getting a divorce. I certainly wouldn’t feel like having him arrested. That would be insane.
Soph, what I hear 90% or better of the time. That it’s different. That it is an ongoing deception. That it is a permanant thing, where an abortion is a one shot thing. Etc. Etc. Ad Nauseum. Ad infinitum.
For the record, even though my fertility status is nobody’s business, were I to become inclined towards marriage with a fertile woman, it would then become her business, and very much so. And if I lied or hid it from her, I would deserve the divorce and the taking to the cleaners for wasting irreplaceable time.
Absent a situation of genuine abuse (And that’s a matter of conscience, or lack thereof to determine personally) a woman pregnant has a moral obligation to inform a husband of pregnancy, because he is involved too. Even if it is an adulterine bastard. (And that’s a legal term, FYI.) Anything less is a LIE.
As to how they deal with it once it is owned up to, whatever else transpires, it is done from the moral high ground. Even if a divorce results from an abortion when he agrees, she’s not a deceptive liar.
If she does lie - well, she’s a liar to start with. And more. And none of it good.
Seriously? There are notification laws for women getting hysterectomies to their husbands? I know there are states (NH for one I believe) that its a law where the wife has to sign off before hubby can get snipped as it were.
I certainly wouldn’t feel like having him arrested. That would be insane.
Then you and I, at least, are in agreement.
Where is sophonsiba being inconsistent? I read her as claiming:
1) Women should not be legally required to tell their husbands about matters of reproductive health (including pregnancy and abortions).
2) Men should not be legally required to tell their wives about matters of reproductive health (including vasectomies).
3) A man has a moral obligation to tell his wife about matters of reproductive health which might affect their relationship (overridable in the case where he fears abuse).
I imagine she also believes:
4) A woman has a moral obligation to tell her husband about matters of reproductive health which might affect their relationship (overridable in the case where she fears abuse).
Where’s the problem? It seems like a perfectly reasonable set of views to me.
FP - I don’t know about legalities for either vasectomies or tubal ligations. What I do know is that for both procedures, countless women and men have had doctors refuse to do the procedure without spousal notification and/or consent, and that in practice, this prevents them from having it done as well as a law would. Furthermore, many women are refused sterilization if they’re single or under an age the doctor chooses (an age like 35, not like 20) or nulliparous. This may happen to men as well; I’ve just heard about it from women. Whether these doctors are afraid of future lawsuits or just paternalistic, it makes no difference; the result the same: that a woman who doesn’t want any (more) children often isn’t considered competent to make that choice.
Gonzman - it’s only a lie if she, you know, lies. Just not telling you would be unkind and secretive, but not a lie. It’s still grounds for a divorce, if you feel that strongly, just like adultery would be, but like adultery, the lie is separate from the act. (And like adultery, it isn’t and shouldn’t be a crime.)
Will you equally defend the choice of men to have a vasectomy - to make this difficult decision as they see fit, with or without the knowledge of partners?
You know, it’s not only not a “tough” question (as sophonisba pointed out), in the US it’s a moot point for men. They don’t need spousal consent. Women, on the other hand, do in some states. Thankfully WA isn’t one of them, so I (an unmarried, unpartnered childfree woman) was able to get my tubes tied without any hassle.
Scarbo asked: How would you feel?
If I were the spouse in question, I would feel lied to, betrayed, and quite ready to get a divorce. However, just because a hypothetical spouse decides to be a lying jerk doesn’t mean that the law should try to control the life of the man in question. Or that I should try to control the life of my partner: if he can’t adequately explain to me why he just got snipped without talking to me about it first, then I walk away. Same as him making any other choice that I don’t like. I don’t have the right to make decisions about his body beyond those he gives me; he has no right to make decisions about my body beyond those I give him. Simple.
FP said: I know there are states (NH for one I believe) that its a law where the wife has to sign off before hubby can get snipped as it were.
If that’s true (and I really wish there was an online compendium of sterilization laws in the US), then I stand corrected on my assertion that it’s a female-only law.
Of course, just because it’s both husbands and wives having to sign off (depening on the states), doesn’t make it right. I still believe that, while the moral thing to do is dicuss it with your spouse, it’s ultimately up to the person getting the procedure done.
Jenny: I imagine she also believes:
4) A woman has a moral obligation to tell her husband about matters of reproductive health which might affect their relationship (overridable in the case where she fears abuse).
Where’s the problem? It seems like a perfectly reasonable set of views to me.
I myself see no evidence of that, evidenced by her further attempt to minimize it.
And sophonisba, it is not only a lie, it is a detestable lie. Any man who would betray his wife by getting a vasectomy over her objections, even if he did told her, is scum, and I see no reason to hold women to a lower standard. Honestly. Reason number 746 on why I am not a feminist is that I just cannot bring myself to demand the right to act as badly as feminists claim men do.
Of course, I’m one of those pro-life nutcases who wouldn’t get an abortion even if I was raped because I see no reason to punish a child for the sins of their father, so I guess you can just dismiss me. See, I even gave you the excuse.
I see this as an attempt to legislate morality; to make people “do the right thing”. It’s utterly wrongheaded, just as the Volstead Act was. But - it is not unconstitutional, as far as I can see, any more than the Volstead Act was. Wrongheaded laws are not forbidden by the constitution. Maybe we should have a constitutional amendment the would nullify laws that attempt to legislate morality. THEN it would truly be unconstitutional. (A whole new can of worms, of course.)
Scarbo, just for another data point, I agree with Sophia. If my boyfriend went and got a vascetomy, with the full and certain knowledge that I know he has, about the fact that I want kids, and never bothered to tell me, I’d be really freaking ticked off, and divorce might very well be looming.
But I highly doubt he’ll do that? Why? Because we love each other and (after multiple years of honing our talking skills) are getting pretty decent at this communication thing. I know that if I need an abortion, he’ll be there to hold my hand and support me. I know that if he has to go in for a vascetomy, I’ll be there to hold his hand and support him.
But guess what? Not everyone is in a loving, caring relationship. Not every woman sleeps next to a man who’ll walk into the Planned Parenthood clinic and support her, no matter what she decides. That’s the problem with notification laws, IMO. They assume that the notifiers are in good, loving, caring situations. If they were, they wouldn’t need the law to force them to notify their spouse, now would they?
Note that I’m not saying anything about any sort of moral right. Personally, I think that if you can’t tell your spouse about a fairly major choice in your life (and in the case of a vascetomy, that’s a permanent choice,) you ought to not be with said spouse.
I don’t know if this would mean anything to you, but I was horrified when Gilmore Girls had Sookie make an appointment to have her husband get a vascetomy without telling him (and said appointment was carried out, and all the audience ever heard from Jackson was protests.) Bad, bad, bad stuff to be happening in a marriage. I might even go so far as to call it akin to marital rape.
I myself see no evidence of that, evidenced by her further attempt to minimize it.
Please do explain how saying a secret abortion is grounds for divorce is an “attempt to minimize it”. Perhaps divorce is a friendly, happy, inconsequential act in your world.
Any man who would betray his wife by getting a vasectomy over her objections, even if he did told her, is scum, and I see no reason to hold women to a lower standard.
What’s this got to do with laws, again? Mandating spousal notification - legally? Remember that?
If you want to write it into your marriage vows that your husband’s sperm is your personal property, go ahead. Even without such a stipulation, you’re free to divorce him for ignoring your wishes. Like I said, I would. Legally, however, his body’s his own. Sorry.
I hope Gonzman will note that as always, it’s a feminist defending a man’s legal right to bodily autonomy, and a non-feminist who’s horrified by the concept.
Of course, I’m one of those pro-life nutcases who wouldn’t get an abortion even if I was raped because I see no reason to punish a child for the sins of their father, so I guess you can just dismiss me. See, I even gave you the excuse.
No, see, I support your right to do whatever you want with your pregnancy, and I’d argue with anybody who tried to convince you to abort for your own good or to avoid scandal. That’s because I’m pro-choice. That means your reproductive choices are your own, whether you choose to have a baby conceived in rape or not. Pro-choice. Get it?
I’m a bit worried by many of the comments supporting the “notification” idea in this thread.
I mean…if a couple has a good/normal relationship, are you really under the impression that an abortion is not something both partners would discuss together?
Of course they would.
The only women who won’t be discussing this with their husbands first are the women who would be exempt by reason of fearing bodily harm or death from their spouses.
Thus, the clause itself is an unnecessary and instrusive bit of excess government interference in private life.
soph said: “FP - I don’t know about legalities for either vasectomies or tubal ligations. What I do know is that for both procedures, countless women and men have had doctors refuse to do the procedure without spousal notification and/or consent, and that in practice, this prevents them from having it done as well as a law would. Furthermore, many women are refused sterilization if they’re single or under an age the doctor chooses (an age like 35, not like 20) or nulliparous. This may happen to men as well; I’ve just heard about it from women.”
Well, here’s a man who had it happen to him. The doc who was to perform my vas told me she wouldn’t do it because I was too young, single, didn’t have kids and might in the future pair-up with a woman who wanted kids. Yes, this most defintely happens to men.
Now, to evil fizz and others, apologies for confusing you all (I was in a hurry), and I don’t know if I’ll do any better, but let me try again: The scenario I presented, i.e., where the women aborts a bastard fetus, yes, there’s no issue re. child support. However, her decision isn’t made in a vacuum - she had the choice to either carry the child to term - and thus, voila, stick him with CS for a bastard child - or abort, and deny him any say in the matter. Either way, if he disagrees with her choice, he loses. Thus, in an environment where he has no say either way (i.e., in contemporary Pennsylvania where she can abort without telling him), IMO he should be able to unilaterally divorce his wife the instant he discovers that she carries another man’s child, with no penalty whatsoever for him, and indeed, with the option for him to sue her for damages, etc.
I think that Alito was correct in at least attempting to give men some limited say in what happens to the “product of conception” that he would most certainly be responsible for if the woman choses to impose that responsibility onto him. Hugo and others want to hold him responsible for a mutually-conceived fetus but at the same time give him no say in that fetus’ future. That my friends is tantamount to slavery.
And BTW, yes, I’ve been in an abusive relationship. Broken glass to the face, heavy objects upside my head, etc. I would have called the police, but the feminists in my ‘progressive’ city had already trained them to “arrest the man,” so I passed on that option and endured the domestic violence ‘like a man.’
Anne said: “The only women who won’t be discussing this with their husbands first are the women who would be exempt by reason of fearing bodily harm or death from their spouses.”
You mean like the women who have affairs and get pregnant by men other than their husbands? Oh yeah, gotta protect the women at all costs and make sure the husbands don’t find out about their adulterous wives. The husbands’ right to know whether the child born into the marriage is actually their own don’t count one bit.
Yeah, sure. Gotcha.
…so I passed on that option and endured the domestic violence ‘like a man.’
So you… what? Feel the need to punish the women in abusive relationships by making abused pregnant women ‘take it like a woman’ and jump through horrible hoops to prove that they shouldn’t have to notify an absuive husband of their decision to abort? You think it’s a better option to further diminish the definition of domestic violence because it has been diminished for you? Domestic violence should be taken more serious, not less. Screwing the rest of us over because the legal system screwed you over is not the way to fix things for future generations.
Anne said: “The only women who won’t be discussing this with their husbands first are the women who would be exempt by reason of fearing bodily harm or death from their spouses.”
Actually, a woman may decide to keep the father out of the decision to abort or not for any number of reasons. Whether this is good or not is another matter.
My ex-wife aborted a pregnancy back before we were even engaged. She told me after-the-fact, during an argument. Yes, I was devastated - I hadn’t even known she was pregnant. Her rationale was based partly on my being a callow youth (she was significantly older - had been a professor of mine), and partly that the pregnancy “felt wrong.”
Like I said, I was devastated. When she told me, I felt numb, my ears rang, my extremities tingled, and I was dizzy and not a little sick. After a few minutes (and about three fingers of scotch) I was able to stammer out something about its being her decision, and that of course I respected her rights. (I was a good little pro-feminist boy, after all. Still try to be.) That didn’t help matters. Eventually we wound up crying into each other’s shoulders on the floor.
It didn’t end our relationship, somehow. Mostly, I think, because we both seemed to have resolved never to think of it again after that one terrible night. Several months later, I proposed, and we we went on to marry (obviously, since I said ex-wife - duh. sorry). Marriage lasted eight years. No kids. She’s a lesbian now. We’re still friends.
It still haunts me, though. Just recalling it now, some of the sensations of that night have come back. I still try not to think about it, though when I do, somehow I imagine it was a girl. She’d be 18 now.
The scenario I presented, i.e., where the women aborts a bastard fetus, yes, there’s no issue re. child support. However, her decision isn’t made in a vacuum - she had the choice to either carry the child to term - and thus, voila, stick him with CS for a bastard child - or abort, and deny him any say in the matter. Either way, if he disagrees with her choice, he loses.
I think this is conflating two issues that need to be teased out. I don’t think that the husband gets a say in whether or not his wife have an abortion if it’s not his baby. I don’t know much about family law in Pennsylvania, but isn’t proof of paternity what constitutes grounds for child support?
IMO he should be able to unilaterally divorce his wife the instant he discovers that she carries another man’s child, with no penalty whatsoever for him, and indeed, with the option for him to sue her for damages, etc.
Adultery has always been grounds for divorce.
I think that this whole discussion, though, suffers from a serious semantic problem. Everyone has been talking about pregnancy like it’s a choice. It isn’t. You can try to become pregnant, but there are no guarantees. The choices are about what happens afterwards, and unfortunately, I think those choices lie with the woman. No, it’s not fair, but I don’t see an alternative. If a man finds out that his wife has unilaterally decided (and undergone) an abortion, he’s certainly free to divorce her. Likewise if she’s committed adultery. But I don’t think the state should be getting in the middle of these decisions and discussions, full stop. Spousal notification laws as I read them aren’t really about fathers’ rights anyway. They’re about making abortions harder to get.
But guess what? Not everyone is in a loving, caring relationship. Not every woman sleeps next to a man who’ll walk into the Planned Parenthood clinic and support her, no matter what she decides
Really? I learned to take similar things into full account before I even let things go beyond a goodnight kiss at the end of a date.
I hope Gonzman will note that as always, it’s a feminist defending a man’s legal right to bodily autonomy, and a non-feminist who’s horrified by the concept.
I hope Gonzman will also note you are speaking in legalisms and I am speaking morally. I don’t see anywhere where I advocate the legal obligation, but the moral one.
People in such loving and committed relationships should not do such things. Such things are wrong. If you can argue your what ifs about the redneck who beats her for getting pregnant, I can ask first is that the common rule of how relationships are, and second is that is a loving and committed relationship?
No, I guess you have no legal obligation to be up front, open, and honest with the person you are sleeping with. Or your lover. Or your boyfriend. Or your Significant Other(live in). Or your Husband. But if in turn you hold him to a higher standard and ask him to be all those things, it is nothing but rank hypocrisy.
And the question I have for you, evil fizz, is if you think those are grounds for a divorce, is that a fault divorce? As in collect your clothes, leave everything else(House, car, kids, alimony), and hit the road? Or the grounds for divorce where he takes it in the nether regions even though it is the woman who was at fault?
I personally think if you do something wrong which materially causes the divorce, there should be consequences. Even if we women do it.
I don’t know enough about family law to feel qualified to comment here, but adultery is grounds for a fault divorce. Traditionally, the adultery, abandonment, imprisonment, and physical or mental cruelty were grounds for fault divorce. (No-fault divorces are “irreconcilable differences.”) Although all states now have some form of no-fault divorce (and the overwhelming majority have since the mid-1970s), some jurisdictions still consider a spouse’s fault in precipitating the divorce, especially when dividing marital property or when awarding alimony.
The party in the wrong should be penalized, but I don’t feel qualified to sort out how that should happen. No scarlet A’s is as far as I go here tonight.
I hope Gonzman will also note you are speaking in legalisms and I am speaking morally.
Uh, you do realize that this entire thread is about spousal notification laws, don’t you?
The morality is up to the couple in question to decide, although I haven’t seen anyone arguing that deciding not to talk to a loving and supportive spouse about an important decision such as abortion is a good choice.
But if in turn you hold him to a higher standard and ask him to be all those things
Of course, no one has suggested doing any such thing. What are you talking about?
“Will you equally defend the choice of men to have a vasectomy - to make this difficult decision as they see fit, with or without the knowledge of partners?”
Yep, absolutely. I’m not seeing why anyone would consider that a tough question. Of course one would hope that either partner would communicate with the other about such an important issue, and one would have a right to be mighty pissed off if one’s partner did not communicate about important reproductive/medical decisions, but that doesn’t mean that this is a legal issue. If my husband decided to have a vascectomy without telling me I’d be hurt and confused, but I wouldn’t feel any desire to call the cops. It’s his body after all - he gets to decide what to do with it. Neither of us owns the other.
I don’t see any good reason why either partner should have the right to interfere in the other’s medical decisions. If partners are not discussing these issues then that’s a pretty good sign that the relationship’s in big trouble, but the government is not in the business of forcing couples to improve their communication skills. That’s a therapist’s job.
The morality is up to the couple in question to decide, although I haven’t seen anyone arguing that deciding not to talk to a loving and supportive spouse about an important decision such as abortion is a good choice.
I haven’t seen anyone condemning it either - except Kendra. But they are willing to argue with her.
Ah, what questions that begs.
I haven’t seen anyone condemning it either - except Kendra. But they are willing to argue with her.
Are you and I reading the same thread, Gonz? So far, all I’ve seen is people saying that no, it’s not what they’d consider a “moral” choice, but that doesn’t mean it should be a legal issue. And I’ve seen them argue with Kendra in the same fashion I just did - saying that she’s way off base in her accusations, since no one is saying what she says they’re saying.
Wow. I’m sorry I missed this thread earlier. I just wanted to add my two cents to question of whether NH has a statute requiring men and women to notify their spouses prior to sterilization. NH’s state actually prohibits medical facilities from requiring such a thing or from declining sterilization on the grounds of the person’s age or marital status. This must have been a problem in the past or there wouldn’t be a law about it.
And for the record, even if I’m a bit late, I am glad the Supreme Court found the husband notification bill unconstitutional. As Justice O’Connor pointed out in her opinion, such a law would open up a whole can of worms — pregnant women could be required to notify their husbands before drinking, smoking, or engaging in any kind of behavior that could risk the health of the fetus.
Toni wrote
It should be fairly obvious that a woman does accept those responsibilities - in fact, can’t really avoid them. She’s the one who has the abortion, after all.
If you agree with the two statements then consider
1 Joint responsibility in abortion
2 Joint responsibility for child support
3 Different roles: “Fatherhood”, “Motherhood” and the social construction of those roles.
The law was attempting to address 1. Note 1 also has an impact on the “sovereignty” issue between conception and birth. How might you address that while accepting the reversal?
Although it may at first sight appear to be a trite reversal, there are implications of accepting both statements.
TheHappyFeminist said: “I am glad the Supreme Court found the husband notification bill unconstitutional. As Justice O’Connor pointed out in her opinion, such a law would open up a whole can of worms — pregnant women could be required to notify their husbands before drinking, smoking, or engaging in any kind of behavior that could risk the health of the fetus.”
Yes, it would open an ugly can of worms, potentially, and the law was a bad one in my opinion, that does not belong on the books. Still, cans of worms do not constitute grounds for the Supreme Court to overrule a law put in place by an elected legislature. Personal opinions have no place in determining such things. The constitution has to be the sole standard for the court to apply, or else personal opinions and ideologies get free reign. They reign enough as it is, when they pretend to be applying the constitution.
Those justices are not there to protect us from our elected officials, nor to do “the right thing”. They aren’t even there to do “justice”. They are there to apply the constitution, and it is up to us to make sure that our elected officials do the right thing. That includes amending the constitution, if such is called for. When we celebrate the deterioration of the checks and balances of our remarkably well-constructed government, we weaken the entire infrastructure of the country.
I agree with the goals, but when they are achieved at any cost, then the cost is assurely too great.
Westcoast, re #1 in your response:
To my mind, due to the soverignity issue between birth & conception, there is no joint responsibility in regards to abortion. I am not saying that men are not emotionally/morally invested in the life of the fetus. However, there is no law (to my knowledge - please correct if I’m wrong)that forces a joint fiscal responsibility for an abortion. It is a personal surgery, which is paid for by the patient undergoing it (sometimes covered by health insurance.)
As things currently stand, only a female can be pregnant. To not notify your husband that you are having an abortion is indeed morally reprehensible (like adultery) and grounds for divorce. But, as long as abortion is a legal & personal surgery, a notification law makes absolutely no sense.
Actually, ignore my poor excuse for a response. Ampersand over at Alas has a fantastic take:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/11/02/alito-husband-notification-and-choice-for-men/
“The husbands’ right to know whether the child born into the marriage is actually their own don’t count one bit.” - Mr. Bad
(Wouldn’t that have a good chance of showing up in blood tests?)
Of course they it counts - it would, after all be grounds for fraud as well as fault divorce - but that not only means it’s already legally covered, it also doesn’t mean that his right to know trumps her right to autonomy or medical privacy.
By that logic a preganant married woman should be required to notify her husband before her first pre-natal check-up, and her obstetrician has no responsibility to keep her medical information from her husband, even over her objections.
“Really? I learned to take similar things into full account before I even let things go beyond a goodnight kiss at the end of a date.”
Well, gosh, Kendra it’s nice to meet someone who is not only so damn perfect, but capable of reading minds, souls, and into the future as well. That must be a nifty trick. Could you teach it to my nice Christian cousin? She was a good girl who didn’t fool around until she got married to a stand up guy in the army. Too bad he turned abusive within the year. (do people never make mistakes in that strange world you live in?)
I haven’t seen anyone condemning it either - except Kendra. But they are willing to argue with her.
….Ah, what questions that begs.” - Gonzman
Which questions? If we think puppies are cute? That child abuse is bad? That Kendra’s holier than thou attitude is wearing a bit thin?
“Still, cans of worms do not constitute grounds for the Supreme Court to overrule a law put in place by an elected legislature.” - stanton
It depends on the can of worms. If the reasoning of the law, or Alito’s support of it, was something other than the idea that husbands have a right to be notified of decisions that affect his wife’s reproductive health/status, suggestions that notification will also be required once conception is confirmed, before BC is prescribed, or what a pregnant wife eats for breakfast would be taking the issue to extremes.
However, considering Alito’s actual arguments, that is the next logical step. In fact, it would be difficult to argue that a wife is not required to inform her husband of these things, especially conception, if the reason she is required to notify her husband of her abortion before being granted one is because he has an interest in the potential child. I mean, if the root cause of all this is the husbands interest in the potential child, why should he only be notified when the wife goes to get an abortion?
Medical privacy is something most Americans take for granted (and think is better protected than it really is). The can of worms here goes beyond the usual logic in justifying abortion restrictions or bans, it goes so far as to suggest that doctor patient privilege is something that can be withheld from pregnant wives, and pregnant wives alone.
I’m beginning to understand why so many feminists from the 19th century refused to legally marry the men they loved and trusted.
Well, gosh, Kendra it’s nice to meet someone who is not only so damn perfect, but capable of reading minds, souls, and into the future as well. That must be a nifty trick. Could you teach it to my nice Christian cousin? She was a good girl who didn’t fool around until she got married to a stand up guy in the army. Too bad he turned abusive within the year. (do people never make mistakes in that strange world you live in?)
Why, no, dear, just that by avoiding such men who have exhibited such behaviors in the past, who are nothing more than cads looking for another notch on the bedpost, or who have done such things to girlsfriends of mine they have dated, I’m making those chances much much less. I always figured that if a guy was dating one of my girlfriends and he hit on me, it was probably a good bet he’d eventually do the same to me. It’s funny how it works that way, but gosh darn it, somehow not having sex right off the bat, even if I am horny, weeds out those guys who are only interested in sex.
And if we’re going to compare ancedotes, I have a friend who turned violent back in high school. It turned out to be a brain tumor, and one they removed it, she was back to normal. The difference is, I don’t claim such oddball occurances as the norm, but rather acknowledge them as the exception. It is, after all, ancedotal evidence.
See, this strange and holier than thou world I live in is one where people do make mistakes, but own up to them, and learn, instead of blaming someone else. I had my mother tell me, I had my father tell me, and I had my pastor tell me about such boys, but I didn’t listen, and got used, and got my heart broken at 16. But it wasn’t mean old men who did it, it was a single man, who isn’t all men. And my fuddy-duddy parents, for all their preachiness, called it dead right every step of the way. And even though I’m a lot more casual of a Christian than I should be, I do see the plain common sense in taking responsibility for my half of it all. And lo and behold, here I am ten years later and haven’t repeated that same mistake.
I would like to direct everyone to William Saletan’s article “Right to Wife: Why Does Judge Alito Treat Women Like Girls.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2129321/
Provocative, to be sure, but I think he’s got some great points.
Personal opinions have no place in determining such things. The constitution has to be the sole standard for the court to apply, or else personal opinions and ideologies get free reign.
Absolutely. It would be nice if Judge Alioto had considered this in his opinion, instead of making up a husband’s right to know out of whole cloth.