Just being one of those days (lots of posting)

[pecunium]

Not that this is a surprise to most of those I know who've read him, but John Tierney is an ass.

Since this passes for a family blog I'll leave my thoughts on his actual personage at that.

His most recent (to me) utterance, confirming his miserable status as a human being is this,

If men are expected to be parents with equal responsibilities, shouldn't they at least be allowed to discuss whether to have a child?

This is an easy question for those on the pro-life side of the abortion debate. They'd like men to be not only notified of pregnancies, but also given veto power over abortions.

Being pro-choice, I don't agree with that position, but I admire the logic. It's a gender-neutral policy: if either parent thinks it's wrong to end the pregnancy, then the pregnancy must proceed.

If the pro-choice side adopted a gender-neutral policy, then either the man or the woman would have the right to say no to parenthood. I don't know of anyone advocating that a woman be required to have an abortion, but there's another right that could be given to a man who impregnates a woman who isn't his wife. If the woman decided to go ahead and have the child, she would have to notify him and give him the option early in the pregnancy of absolving himself of any financial responsibility for the child.

But there's no reason that it couldn't be a little fairer. As Alito ruled, it's not an undue burden for a wife to notify her husband before an abortion. And it's not unfair, as Goldscheider proposes, for a single woman expecting child support to be required to tell the father as soon as she decides to keep the baby. If men are going to pay to play, they should at least know the score.

First up is his idea of, "gender neutrality." That's not neutral, as it gives one part of the pair the right to impose hardship and risk on the other, at no, personal risk (I'll grant that the pain of the possible side effects of pregnancy can cause grief, and sorrow, to someone who loves his partner, and sees her suffer, or die, as a result of complications of pregnancy, but it ain't the same)

So here are some of the risks he might feel sorrow or grief over.

One in 300 pregnancies, in the U.S. ends in the mother's death.

Twenty percent of the women who are admitted to a hospital for pregnancy are there, not to deliver, but because of a pregnacy related complication. That's one in five. Seven percent of pregnancies are lost in such cases., the rest were just, "complications".

The leading diagnoses for antenatal hospitalizations were preterm labor (31%), genitourinary infection (10%), early pregnancy hemorrhage (9%), excessive vomiting (9%), pregnancy-induced hypertension (7%), and diabetes mellitus (6%). Mean length of stay was longest for women hospitalized with diabetes mellitus (4.4 days for whites and 5.5 days for blacks) and shortest for those diagnosed with preterm labor (1.8 days for whites and 2.4 days for blacks).

We can also ponder thisABRUPTIO PLACENTAE AND PLACENTA PREVIA
Abruptio placentae and placenta previa are two leading causes of third-trimester bleeding. Both conditions can result in serious pregnancy morbidity and an increased risk of pregnancy-related and perinatal mortality. Data from the NHDS indicate that the rate of abruptio placentae increased significantly between 1979 and 1987 for women of all racial groups: the rate increased from 8.2 per 1,000 deliveries in 1979–1980 to 11.5 cases per 1,000 deliveries in 1987

Data taken from Pregnancy Morbidity: Audrey F. Saftlas, Ph.D., M.P.H., Herschel W. Lawson, M.D., and Hani K. Atrash, M.D., M.P.H.: CDC’S PUBLIC HEALTH SURVEILLANCE FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN .pdf

A few little things for Mr. Tierney to ponder when he's pontificating on the "neutral" aspects of his policy,

Men can't get pregnant.

Anti-Choicers don't think anyone should be allowed to get/cause an abortion (which is, for some values of neutral, neutral).

Pregnancy is a real risk to the woman's health.

Pregnancy is no risk to the man's health.

The money paid in child support (when it's paid) isn't giving the woman a life of caviar and champagne; it's to cover part of the costs of the child's needs If you don't want to pay child support see to it that no one gets pregnant.

Condoms and spermicidal suppositories are pretty damned effective; esp. when used in concert. One can carry them, male or not. If a guy's so worried about accidents he doesn't trust that sort of prevention, he can get snipped. Otherwise; he chose to play, he can pay (this is the flip side of the common pro-choice argument that sex has the risk of pregnancy, and a woman who has sex has to accept the consequences, that knife cuts both ways).

People are autonomous beings. Nothing, and I mean nothing gives one of them an absolute power over the life of another (leaving aside issues of criminal conduct and the social contract). If this were about anything other than pregnancy, and someone suggested one person had the right to veto the choice of another (lets say Tierney got a job offer, and his wife didn't like it, should she be allowed to veto his acceptance? I didn't think so. He might be wise to consult her, but nothing could be seen as reason for him to do so, much less make her opinions binding on him).

If this is his idea of admirable logic... could he please turn his coat, in fact, and publicly argue for the other side, instead of playing the stalking horse?

Comments

[ricevermicelli.livejournal.com]

Pro-Choicers don't think anyone should be allowed to get/cause an abortion (which is, for some values of neutral, neutral).

I think you've got something switched here.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

So I do.

Fixed.

[zoje-george.livejournal.com]

(this is the flip side of the common pro-choice argument that sex has the risk of pregnancy, and a woman who has sex has to accept the consequences, that knife cuts both ways).

This one too?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that the leading cause of death in pregnant women is a violent husband/boyfriend who does not agree with her regarding the pregnancy. (Washington Post had an extended series of articles on this.)

I'll

[skip-hunter.livejournal.com]

ride with you till, and except the child support issue. Its used for whatever the custodial parent (CP) wants to use it for. the only law in effect for recipient of the support is when the CP is the state, (ie foster facility etc.). Actually the main onus of support is not actually real support, ( save for court orders, which are less common than you may think), but repayment of the grant or loan that the redefinition of welfare has created.(In a kind of common sense thing, a LOT of single mothers are on welfare, and the dads dont make enough for them not to be on support alone). The state gives the CP money, the NCP pays the state back with interest, what is owed from the grant.

We are VERY good at what we do. and you are right, carry condoms..saves you a WORLD of trouble.

Re: I'll

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The logic in the law is that the total costs of living ar increased, and so money gets granted to the CP, the money isn't entailed, as the assumption is that money will be spent in way which, directly, or not, leads to the child's benefit.

TK

Re: I'll

[bifemmefatale.livejournal.com]

Not true. The NCP in my case pays $50/week for 2 children, which is actually less than what I get from the gov't. in the form of food stamps and healthcare for them. Further, the NCP does not pay the state back for what his kids are getting. I still receive the child support as well.

Re: I'll

[skip-hunter.livejournal.com]

That could be the case in court ordered child support, but depoending on your locality, if the NCP is paying through a state agency, that money is kept by the state to recoup the cost.

Re: I'll

[bifemmefatale.livejournal.com]

That's simply not true, at least in IL. The money goes through the state Child Support Enforcement Agency. Btw, all child support is court-ordered.

Re: I'll

[skip-hunter.livejournal.com]

Dunno about that. I am looking at them now, and like VA, the power of the Il division of child support is statutory. You do not have to go through the courts at all to receive support, you just have to prove paternity via birth records or genetic testing. They have the same basic laws that VA has. exceptions would include court orders or individuals not on TANF.

Re: I'll

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

It certainly varies from state to state. As I understand it, in Calif. the state will go and look for non-suportive fathers (which is why they press to have one declared one on the birth certificate; if the mother is unmarried [a child born in a marriage is legally the offspring of the father, regardless of the facts, and getting it corrected to relate the truth can be very sticky), if the mother gets public assistance.

When they find them they tend to threaten them into providing support, by saying the father has a choice, start kicking in now, or get billed for all the state-supplied aid.

I seem to recall at least one case where the actual father was living with the mother, but she'd been married when the child was born. Calif. went after him for non-support and it got very ugly.

TK

As an

[skip-hunter.livejournal.com]

aside, we tell the guys who bring that argument that a body is like a house. Your rights stop at the doorway. Owners house, owners rules.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

When I was pregant with each of my three, I had severe hyperemesis gravida. AKA, pregnancy sickness -- not morning sickness, as I was sick all the freaking day. We're talking multiple ER visits for rehydration with each child. I threw up so much after my law school graduation that two little old ladies stood around and tsk-tsked about graduates who drank too much. I threw up all through taking the bar exam.

During my first pregnancy, I became so severely dehydrated I had to be admitted to the hospital for 48 hours. During my third pregnancy, I developed pneumonia from having accidentally aspirated my own vomit, and became seriously ill, and spent a week in the hospital.

Pregnancy is gender-neutral? Like hell it is.

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

Whoa. I'm amazed you could stand to do that more than once.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

Well, with the first one we thought it might be a fluke, or because it was a boy, so we had a second one. It wasn't. (On the other hand, he was a boy as well.) We didn't plan the third boy.

I love all of them, and am glad I had them, but I don't think anyone should have to go through that unless they are willing to. You could not pay me enough money to go through it again. Especially the pneumonia --that was scary.

[waterlilly.livejournal.com]

I'm in awe of you finishing law school and the bar exam in such a condition.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

The bar exam wasn't too bad -- I had gotten used to running to the bathroom to throw up, and I had a good supply of orange gatorade with me, which was one thing that helped. After the first two times, the nice monitors said "Dear, you'll do better if you don't get so nervous." When I told them I wasn't nervous but pregnant, they became very solicitous -- they would bring me cold washcloths and things.

And actually, it may have helped -- I *wasn't* nervous; I didn't have the energy to be nervous.

[sethg]

This "choice for men" notion has been kicking around the Internet for at least the last ten years. I'm disappointed that it's migrated to an NYT op-ed, but I can't say I'm surprised.

The answer is simple:

1. The right to abortion is not based on a woman's right to decide "whether or not to have a child", but her right to decide what to do with her own body.
   
2. The right to child support is not an entitlement of the custodial parent, but an entitlement of the child to support from both parents.
   

[karl-lembke.livejournal.com]

One sentence caught my eye:

One in 300 pregnancies, in the U.S. ends in the mother's death.

That number struck me as awfully high.
A quick run through Google turned up the Child Health USA 2003 (http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa03/pages/status.htm) page, owned by the US Department of Health and Human Services.
According to this page:

In 2000, there were 396 maternal deaths which resulted from complications during pregnancy, childbirth, or the postpartum period up to 42 days. The maternal mortality rate of 9.8 per 100,000 live births was not significantly different from prior years and has remained fairly stable since 1982.

That works out to one in 10,204.
I haven't double-checked the rest of your figures, but I'm now inclined to doubt them.

[bifemmefatale.livejournal.com]

I suspect that number *is* high, but add to your figures women who die from complications of miscarriage and abortion, and women who are murdered by the men in their life because they do not want to be fathers.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I thought the figure high, but as the paper in question was using NDH data, and peer reviewed, I went with them.

Not being able to do that sort of primary research I can only quote, and point.

TK

[karl-lembke.livejournal.com]

OK, I followed your pointer, and I have a slightly different reading. The paper begins:

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPORTANCE
The tip of the iceberg is a term often used to describe the estimated 300 pregnancy-related deaths that occur in the United States each year
(1)....

I suspect significantly more than 90,000 pregnancies occur in the US every year.