Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / March 2007

P O S I T I O N     P A P E R    O N    
             
         L E G A L I Z I N G   " C H O I C E "   F O R   M E N

       We want to improve the law to protect men's family planning.  Men
       should be given relief, a recourse or a remedy when tricked or
       trapped into parenthood.

       It's beyond question that unplanned parenthood can completely
       disrupt a man's life. It disrupts his education(0), it disrupts
       his mental health, and it often disrupts his entire family
       life(1).  We feel that, because of the impact to the man in this
       matter of such basic concern, inasmuch as there are any rights
       which are fundamental, that he should be given some relief, a
       recourse or remedy from being tricked or trapped into parenthood.
       There is also the distress associated with the unwanted child.
       The continuing stigma of unwed fatherhood may be involved. Men are
       the victims. The government cannot deny the detrimental effect
       that the current paternity laws have on men.

       Certainly there are problems regarding even the use of
       contraception. Regardless of the circumstances of conception,
       whether he is a victim of statutory rape(2) or whether it is
       because of contraceptive fraud(3) he currently has no relief.

       In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that
       the meaning of "liberty" must be broad indeed. The Constitution
       nowhere mentions a specific right of personal choice in matters of
       marriage and family life, but the "liberty" protected by the
       Fourteenth Amendment covers more than those freedoms explicitly
       named in the Bill of Rights. Certainly we cannot say that there is
       in the Constitution, so stated, the right to relief, recourse or
       remedy from being tricked or trapped into parenthood.  But neither
       is there stated the right to travel or some of the other very
       basic rights.

       There is a long body of precedent where the Supreme Court has held
       that it is the right of the individual to determine the course of
       their own life in family matters; for whom they will marry - the
       Loving case; that the state may not interfere with the
       individual's choice regarding birth control - the Griswold case.
       Roe v. Wade is the main case, holding that a woman's right to
       privacy includes the right to abortion. Women's right to control
       their reproductive lives was upheld in Planned Parenthood v.
       Casey. So there is a long body of Supreme Court cases in the areas
       of marriage, sex, contraception and procreation, which says that
       there are certain things that are so much a part of the
       individual's concern that they should be left to the determination
       of the individual. One of the purposes of the U.S. Constitution
       was to guarantee to the individual, the right to determine the
       course of their own lives. The ability of men to participate
       equally in the economic and social life of the Nation would be
       facilitated by our ability to control our reproductive lives. It
       is our position that men should have some relief, a recourse or
       remedy when this right is infringed.

       While over a million U.S. women abort each year(4), many thousands
       of men have their "paternities established" in U.S. courts(5) and
       preliminary data indicates that 33% of U.S. births may be
       unintended by fathers(6). Men have been treated as an under class
       without reproductive rights since Roe v. Wade in 1973, despite the
       Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection", and we
       seek to emancipate men from this hypocrisy.  Forcing only men into
       parenthood is demeaning and offensive to the basic principles of
       human dignity.

       Where fundamental rights such as procreation are involved,
       limiting these rights may be justified only by a compelling state
       interest, and merely saving the state money doesn't rise to that
       standard(7). Certainly, burdening a child with a bitter parent
       doesn't rise to that standard either. The potential child's right
       to child support and to share in the man's standard of living is
       not absolute, as is demonstrated by single parent adoptions, which
       are legal and looked upon favorably by the various social service
       agencies. Biology isn't destiny.

       If done properly, legalizing choice for men may reduce our taxes.
       It would eliminate a subsidy for unwanted children who are more
       vulnerable to drug abuse, dropping out of high school, crime and
       prison. Discouraging these social ills would also be in children's
       best interests.

       We aren't taking a position on abortion.  We don't argue that the
       man's right to relief, recourse or remedy is absolute.  What we do
       advocate, is that men should have some relief, a recourse or
       remedy when tricked or trapped into parenthood.  

                            References

       0.) The high school drop-out rate among young fathers is over
           twice as high as the average. "Adolescent Fathers in the
           United States: Their Initial Living Arrangements, Marital
           Experience and Educational Outcomes", Family Planning
           Perspectives, Volume 19, Number 6, November/December 1987 by
           William Marsiglio.

       1.) Nock, S.L., The consequences of premarital fatherhood, American
           Sociological Review, 1998, 63(2):250-263

       2.) State ex re. Hermesmann v. Seyer & parents, Kans. Supr. Ct.
           No. 67,978 (1993)

       3.) L. Pamela P. v Frank S., Court of Appeals of New York:
           462 N.Y.S.2d 819 (Ct.App. 1983)

       4.) Alan Guttmacher Institute, (212) 248-1111

       5.) Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, Congressional
           Report

       6.) Unintended Births: Women's Attitudes vis-a-vis their
           Male Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990, Joyce C. Abma and
           Linda J. Piccinino, NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road,
           Hyattsville, MD 20782, (301) 436-8731

       7.) See generally Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 265-6, 90 S.Ct.
           1011, 1019, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 1970.

                       Protect Planned Fatherhood
                          www.choiceformen.com