[Cboldt]

Not to split hairs but the pencil neck geek, Hennican, was 'kind of' correct:

Only if he equates a requirement to inform the husband with a requirement to obtain the husband's consent.

"the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982: 3205, which requires that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent prior to the procedure..."

"Informed consent" is a personal attribute, and is no way equivalent to obtaining consent from somebody else. It is the expectation that a person making a decision for themself, do so only after being informed of the possible consequences of that personal decision.

[Condor51]

I was just pointing the jerk (Hennican) left out "informed" and word consent is there. But there's much more to Casey and the Pennsylvania law than just the husband part. Naturally Hennican ignores that.

[AliVeritas]

Even though it's always been said, "Mama's baby, Daddy's maybe", scientifically it's just not true.

This is what always got me, a man must be involved... the child (I hate to say property vs possession) is rightly half his... we know that.

This is where the fall of personal responsibility comes in... the male should have say in whether his, as well as her child should be aborted.

Ok... commence flaming me.

But hey, it's not like husbands or boyfriends will start suing for their other's getting abortion without their knowledge or against their wishes. It's rare.

When will they start figuring in intent to get pregnant being contingent on abortion? Stupid I know.