From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: more thoughts on notification and liability
Date: 24 Nov 1992 00:33:50 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
Keywords: abortion



Posted with permission, from e-mail discussion between myself and Ross:

From williams@caesar.safb.af.mil Fri Nov 20 11:45:08 1992
From: williams@caesar.safb.af.mil (Ross Williams)
To: peri@cco.caltech.edu
Subject: Repro freedom

I would strongly suggest that Court involvement in parental decisions be
kept at a minimum, and AS A LAST RESORT.

Besides, more and more people who deal with KIDS of divorce are coming to
the conclusion that the involvement of BOTH parents is necessary, even when 
one parents is 1) far away, 2) alcoholic, 3) abusive, or 4) just generally
rotten.  The reasons are pretty straight-forward and not difficult to grasp,
just too long for what I want to state here.  But the reason we rearely hear
anything about these studies/reports is because they do not fit in with the
current thinking that Moms are always superior to Dads; how can we say that
kids need those pesky, inferior Dads just as much as those wonderful,
superior Moms?

You made a very good point about not reporting suspected abuse in fear of
the criminal consequences of malice in so reporting.  VERY good point. 

But the wording of the proposal was "any allegation of abuse made by one
parent... which is proven false and baseless..."  The accusation must, in
this wording, be made by a parent.  I am reminded of the Morgan/Foretich
hornswoggling from a few years back.  Mama Morgan made the accusations; 
they were ruled baseless by at least two separate courts, and thrown out
for lack of evidence.

This is what the proposal is trying to eliminate.  Had mama Morgan taken
little (Hillary?) to a doctor, to corroborate what she suspected, AND THE
DOCTOR CONCURRED that abuse was SUSPECTED, she would be off the hook.  But
she didn't.  She only had a doctor, which she acquired much after her first
accusation who said that abuse was merely POSSIBLE; under oath he would not
state that it was suspected or even likely -- hence the case being forever
tossed out.

Then, of course, is the claim that ONE medical specialist may make a mistake.
We have second opinions when we want elective surgery; require corroborating
second opinions in suspected abuse cases.  You brought up a good point, but
it's easily gotten around with a rider added to the proposed proposal.

Also, another good point about a woman being "*explicitly* committed to
continuing her pregnancy based on the man's `choice'."  I would suggest
that a woman has unilaateral authority over choice to abortion up to the
12-16 weeks the proposal suggests, with the following:

	1) if she aborts prior to notifying the putative father, all
	expenses are hers and he is not liable for any civil tort;

	2) if she notifies the putative father that she will abort and
	fails to allow any of his input, she bears all expenses etc;

	3) if she notifies the putative father and he chooses for a
	continued pregnancy and she chooses an abortion, he is only
	responsible for one-half the cost of the abortion;

	4) if she notifies the putative father and he denies allegations
	of paternity, then:
	a) she bears all expenses of whatever she chooses and can collect
	damages from the biological father (which may well be him anyway)
	in civil court, with damages being limited to":
	i) one-half the cost of the abortion;
	ii) fees and costs (these are LEGAL fees and costs, btw);
	iii) one half the cost of any medical procedures undergone by
	the woman in the event that pregnancy continued;
	iv) punitive and "pain and suffering" damages are strictly 
	disallowed.

I stated 4)a)i) this way because the father is always responsible for 
one-half the cost of the abortion.  This would encourage rather than
discourage the erstwhile parents to communicate, and further be 
conducive to the putative father owning up to his paternity, cuz, in 
the words of Aamco wipers, "You can pay me now, or pay me later."  And
in case yer wondrin', the cost of medical proof of paternity is a "cost"
of bringing civil suit, and is covered by 4)a)ii) above.

You brought out some good points that were not completely thought out by
the originator, who nonetheless has a damned good idea in doing this.  I
think that we can come up with something that would be for the betterment
of all of us.  

Please pass this one to Young Mr Denninger, as I cannot e-mail him, or
simply post it whole.  The rest of the world should get to poke holes in
my thoughts as well.  Thank you.

ross williams                   williams@brutus.safb.af.mil
10 yorkshire 6                  williams@caesar.safb.af.mil
belleville il  62221            w 618.624.7222
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Lady Astor: If you were my husband Winston, I'd put poison in your tea.
Churchill: And if I were your husband Nancy, I'd drink it.

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,misc.legal