[CSM]

Good article. I have always maintained that any government that removes the father's ability to have any input in the "choice" to murder the child or be a parent and then expects the father to be 100% responsible for funding the child's life, is an insane government!

run-on sent. rant off-

[sheik yerbouty]

Feminists and PC apparatchiks view men as "dhimmi".

[ChevyZ28]

The same people who proclaim the man has no say in the decision to perform an abortion is the same crowd who would gripe and moan about dads who have no involvement in their children's lives. We can't have it both ways!!!

[New Perspective]

Twisted liberal wishy washy logic.

Under their thought, the man has no rights to a baby until it is born. If the man wants an abortion and the woman wants the child, the father still has to pay child support. Men are here just for sperm donation and a monthly check.

If your divorced wife wants a baby with your frozen sperm, even before her turkey baster conception, the father still have no rights. Hell, it's his body, his sperm, how come he has no choice? Isin't this what this whole argument is about? Choice and your body?

[Polybius]

"I can't tell you," the technician said. "You are not the patient."

With HIPAA laws and lawyers being what they are nowadays, patient privacy is now being guarded more closely than our nuclear secrets at Los Alamos.

If that tech had said anything, that mother could have her at the other end of a lawsuit claiming damages for invasion of privacy and emotional distress for spoiling the surprise she always dreamed of having at the end of childbirth and the husband would also be suing the tech for loss of companionship with his wife.

[Cicero]

I suspect that this is not an abortion-related matter (fathers famously have no rights when it comes to aborting their children) but a tort lawyer matter.

Hospitals have had strict privacy rules forced on them, and the lawyers are ready to sue at the drop of a hat.

I had a similar thing happen when I recently took a daughter with a burst appendix to the hospital. The doctors wouldn't talk to me about it until my daughter gave them permission to do so.

In some ways, the privacy laws are probably a good thing. But everything gets distorted because of the lawsuit angle.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

The Feminazis have been overtly working diligently at reducing men to redundant for over 40 years and elevating homosexuality to the admired norm. Did nobody notice? The activist judiciary, Teachers Union and most quasi Christian churches right in the middle of the fray. Back in 1948 my father wouldn't join the PTA because of their ideology. Remember the PTA?

[LadyDoc]

What struck me most, though, was at that moment I wasn't considered a father or a father-to-be or anything, really.

Actually, this is not about sexism or anti dad ism.

It's the new law that forbids one to tell anyone but the patient what's going on in another's health care...it's driving doctors (and families) nuts. If my patient doesn't have the proper paper with the proper name and signiture, the office refuses to send information to other doctors. So I have to type letters with this information to make sure it gets to the right place...wasting my time ...

[Plumrodimus]

I'm really amazed by this.

If the woman wants to have an abortion, the man has no input on the matter.

If the man doesn't want the baby, the woman can choose to keep it and sue him for child support...

[PigRigger]

"What about the rights of dads-to-be?"

Simply put, your only right (as a man) is the requirement to pay for the child's upbringing if the women should choose to give birth.

[happygrl]

More results form "the wonman's right to choose."

[valkyrieanne]

No - that's the wife's cue to throw the transponder on the floor, get up off the table, and say to the technician, "You touch me again, jerk, and I'll sue you. Anyone who won't talk to my husband isn't going to talk to me," and then find a new caregiver. Medical people pull this shinola because people take it.

[DMZFrank]

I remember hearing a feminazi screeching about how vital "reproductive rights " were for all human beings, insofar as their ability to determine the course of their lives is concerned. It got me to wondering how it is that no comparable "reproductive right" exists for men other than the right to keep your trousers zipped up. A man's income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life. He doesn't even have any "reproductive rights" in marriage, because his wife retains "reproductive rights" if she "chooses" to exercise them.

I don't think either sex should have these "reproductive rights", and should deal with the concequences of a pregnancy, wanted or not. But if as the feminazi says, these rights are vital to human beings, than I wish to suggest the following remedies. An unmarried man, upon being promptly notified of an unwanted pregnacy by his mate, should have the option of a paternal veto (abortion) absolving him of financial and legal responsibility for the child. A married man who discovers that his wife has had an abortion against his wishes should recieve presumptive grounds for a divorce or annullment of the marriage, with the same holding true for one who concieves against his wishes.

Than again maybe the feminazi thinks that men shouldn't qualify for "reproductive rights" since she probably thinks men aren't human anyway.