This will be very interesting to follow.

Alabama judge allows teen to sue on behalf of his aborted fetus. The father of the child was denied having the baby come to a full term birth.

Read about this here MSN.com

On Twitter, Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called it a "very scary case" that is "asserting woman's rights third in line."
Others called it "unlawful and idiotic."
Personhood Alabama spokeswoman Hannah Ford told LifeSiteNews with the recent abortion debates after New York and other states have pushed for lifting restrictions on abortions, this case is a "timely reminder that every single abortion committed is a chilling assault on a precious and innocent human life – an intolerable violation of the most basic, God-given human right, the right to life.”

This case is long overdue. He could win this with the right people representing him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Good, about time.

(03-06-2019 09:22 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  This case is long overdue. He could win this with the right people representing him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

At very minimum it could change the current law as it pertains to the fathers rights. As interpreted today from the beginning of the pregnancy the father has unlimited financial obligation to the child, but no rights as to the delivery.

If the judge finds for the father, then a woman would need the fathers permission to abort the child. If the court finds that the father has no rights, then the logical progression would be ending the financial responsibility.

Hopefully it makes it to SCOTUS and we can take a fresh look at Roe. Allowing the left to go further and further left, and then "compromising" by splitting the difference has gotten us to the point where the dems are now debating post-birth abortion.

(03-07-2019 12:52 PM)Oman Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 09:22 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  This case is long overdue. He could win this with the right people representing him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

At very minimum it could change the current law as it pertains to the fathers rights. As interpreted today from the beginning of the pregnancy the father has unlimited financial obligation to the child, but no rights as to the delivery.

If the judge finds for the father, then a woman would need the fathers permission to abort the child. If the court finds that the father has no rights, then the logical progression would be ending the financial responsibility.

And thus pushing more single women to the government dole.

(03-07-2019 12:53 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-07-2019 12:52 PM)Oman Wrote:  

(03-06-2019 09:22 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  This case is long overdue. He could win this with the right people representing him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

At very minimum it could change the current law as it pertains to the fathers rights. As interpreted today from the beginning of the pregnancy the father has unlimited financial obligation to the child, but no rights as to the delivery.

If the judge finds for the father, then a woman would need the fathers permission to abort the child. If the court finds that the father has no rights, then the logical progression would be ending the financial responsibility.

And thus pushing more single women to the government dole.

That's a whole 'nuther subject....

A father should have the same choice to opt out of parenthood that a woman does, but this case will go nowhere.

She was six weeks pregnant and well within the laws at the time.