Veto 4 Fathers argues that no ELECTIVE abortion at any trimester should take place without the expressed written and possibly notarized consent of the father or his live, presently-accounted-for agreement. In any event, all fathers have certain inalienable prenatal rights, which should be legally enforced and protected if need be.

Men are ostensibly required by law as fathers, be they unwed of married, to provide prenatal care expense sharing, pregnancy-related hospital bills, including labor and birthing costs. Therefore, even fathers of unborn children have legal responsibilities, so, they must also have RIGHTS.

The most important right of any parent, is the right to at least participate and APPROVE crucial medical type decisions regarding one's child. This includes abortion. Legalized abortion is not a *needed* proceedure except in rare cases, so it is not needed by the gestating mother unilaterally.  The father must certainly have legally enforcable say in the life or death of his own child if the mother has this ability.

We see an example of this in parental consent laws for parents of a minor seeking an abortion herself. Both father and mother must sign, unless one is dead or otherwise unable to, so the same applies to a father of an UNBORN child.

No medical decision of a hugely important nature involving a child (as abortion obviously is) can take place without the consent of both parents, and if the father does not want the child aborted, his right as the parent of the gestating baby itself to deny consent to termination must be enforced, as would be the case if the child itself merely wanted their ears pierced, since he, like the mother, is the guardian and co-parent of the minor child. Both parents must consent to any medical proceedure, like abortion, invloving a given parents' child or the operation is illegal. It cannot occur otherwise.

It only makes sense for BOTH parents to make the choice together, if possible, or not at all. After all, it takes two make a baby, it should take two to terminate a pregnancy. Otherwise, it should *term* as the default-just like it is in nature.

It is clear by law that fathers owe their fetuses a share of his estate and current earnings from conception. Other's can initiate a paternity suit, for example, on behalf of the child, (including "Next Friend Status") even before birth and also all during the the legally allowable period of abortion and pregnancy. This includes the father himself, and indicates he has or can obtain parental status to an *unborn* child.

If any father takes advantage of the opportunity to act as a father, his parental rights are secure and take on the cover of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the father's right to his child as fundamental if he "grasps the opportunity".

He must also NOT be thwarted by others, including the mother in securing this relationship and subsequent opportunity, as we have seen in the Baby Jessica adoption case and others like it, where temporary ignorance of the pregnancy was used against him deliberately to circumvent his rights, as happens routinely in abortion. He must be given notice of impending abortion as in adoption to claim the baby and his inalienable rights as a father. He must AT LEAST get his day in court.

His acting on behalf of his unborn child, to protect it and see it term, to secure a father-child relationship with all its attendent rights and responsibilites and to ensure that his child has the right and the option of concurrent and later estate inheritance and support, surely indicates that he has "grasped the opportunity" of fatherhood.

No man can or should have his parental rights terminated without consent unless proven an unfit father, and this must be done in a court of law by clear and convincing evidence. This right of a continuing  relationship until the age of majority is a funadamental right of any fit father, to provide support, both emotional and financial, to his offspring.

From this it follows, that no woman can simply unilaterally electively terminate a pregnancy and thus the Constitutionally gauranteed parental rights of any father, at least not one who opposes the abortion, which demonstrates clearly asserted paternal interest and thus equal protection rights as a parent.

She must at least *prove* INTENTIONAL abandonment to do so, and any father who shows clear interest in stopping the termination of a pregnancy he has caused, obviously does not fall into that category. This is precedent-backed in adoption.

Fathers are increasingly involved in pregnancy-related decisions, and they should be, for the health and safety of his child is of enormous importance to a father, mental-health-wise and for the child. The right to be consulted about *any* fetus-affecting decision is primary to his parental rights.

This includes input on the behavior of the mother during her pregnancy, not limited to but encompassing diet, exertion levels and types, fetal manipulation such as CVS sampling, and clearly any elective abortion which cannot be unilateral automatically without impinging on his paternal rights.

Since a father is assigned by the state as being forcibly responsible in a variety of ways as we have seen, it follows that the child is *owed* protection by its father. One way he does this is by financial support, which buys food, etc., and another is by emotional support, training and loving guidance, which he cannot (continue) to do if his relationship is severed via an unwanted pregnancy termination.

He is the natural guardian of his child appointed by God, and the law. A father who demonstrates his willingness to defend the child's life and wellness, which reflects positively on his fitness as a father is at least entitled to a hearing over the fate of his own child. He is entitled to speak in the child's defense and on behalf of the child. He is uniquely qualifed and entitled and even *expected* to do so as the child's father.

There a growing number of men who are opposing unwanted pregnancy termination involving their child in the U.S. courts. They are being recognized by the judicial system as having a right of legal redress. Restraining orders have been and are being issued to delay abortions until the father can at least plead his case in the courtroom.

In a recent case, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld a lower court restraining order on a woman seeking a medically unrequired elective early trimester abortion. It also voted that she could *NOT* terminate the pregnancy without the father's consent. That would terminate his parental rights absent a proven demonstration of fatherly unfitness.

The right to privacy and non-interference in at least early-trimester abortions by the state does NOT apply to the father, the Supreme Court of Indiana said, who may have a compelling interest in the fate of his child.

THERE IS NOTHING IN ROE VS WADE THAT SAYS  HE CANNOT INTERVENE, ONLY THE STATE ACTING ALONE IS DISQUALIFIED-IT IS A *PRIVATE* DISPUTE BETWEEN *TWO* LEGALLY HUMAN INDIVIDUALS REQUIRING LEGAL INTERVENTION AND REPRESENTATION IN COURT OF BOTH THE WOMAN AND THE MAN, BOTH ARE "INTERESTED PARTIES" AND IT THEREFORE REQUIRES A TRIAL TO RESOLVE THE CASE FAIRLY. MEN DENIED THIS RIGHT ARE DEPRIVED OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHICH IS GAURANTEED BY THE USA CONSTITUTION.

And, as a baby's father is obligated to meet various responsibilities even pre-birth, concurrently or back asessed,  he is entitled to judicial protection if showing sincere interest, which is implied in his stance on the prospect of  imminent pregnancy termination and his efforts to oppose it and thus secure a continuing  protected father-child relationship.

No! It takes TWO to cause a pregnancy and thus make a baby, so it must at least take two to terminate one. If the mother does not agree to a medical abortion, she can still *unilaterally* TERM. What she cannot do under this proposal is abort on demand alone-without the father's consent. This idea rewards RESPONSIBILITY.

The logic is that both are committed to a term infant if they cannot agree to a consensus of what to do about a pregnancy, as that way both keep their original defualt POSITIONS with regard to the pregnant state (terming as the default as it is naturally) once a pregnancy is already a reality.

Neither motherhood or fatherhood, true reproductive rights in a positive sense, can be arbitrarily terminated by ONE of at least TWO involved parties. Therefore, a father (or mother) can expect a pregnancy to continue to term if the other desires an abortion, and each has the same basic rights and responsibilities for any child born. Only if BOTH parties agree to termination is it considerable, absent proof of parental unfitness of the dissenting party, and voluntary fetal/child abandonment. 

In this special case, the law can consider giving the woman the final word, IF it is clearly true, and verified by medical experts. He has a right to review in any case, to discuss the options and their resolution. This is not a reason to oppose the Veto 4 Fathers concept out of hand.

The goal, ideally, should be to save *both* patients. Sometimes the treatment for such a condition causes miscarriage indirectly, but this is not the same as an induced termination.  Abortion, even in this case, is seldom needed in reality, but if both will die, it may have to happen to save her life, but this is the exception, not the rule.

In those rarest of rare cases, the principle of gauranteed legal review for the father is handy, so that if a father STILL objects, the court can overrule him if need be.

The minimum due process of the father is protected and so is the mother's life, if she elects to terminate in an absolute life-death, utterly severe health or similar such case, verified by impartial experts-she still can have the final vote to choose a form of self defense or to take her chances.

We argue men in any NORMAL situation should have equal votes. That means they are getting at least 49.8 of the votes to her 50.2 in all possible situations. Special rare exceptions can be drawn up in the details of the Veto 4 Fathers plans as they are passed into law.

Touchy and unclear ones include rape, as a woman can simply CLAIM (possibly falsely) that the pregnancy resulted from that, and use it to permit unilateral abortion on possible paternal unfitness grounds. Perhaps an outright legal conviction should be required.

However, if a WOMAN even forcibly rapes a man, (it is possible in theory!) and becomes pregnant, she still has full rights. She is not AUTOMATICALLY declared unfit, and her consent for abortion is assured, while for adoption it is likely still needed as well.

So, it cannot automatically refute such a father's standing in this under equal protection. And, pregnancy resulting from rape is NOT a reason for an abortion in the eyes of many.

The point is get the discussion going and the plans and the possible odd exemptions codified and formatted. The details can be worked out in time and we can begin giving men general coverage and rights to handle most situations. The men wanting protection from unwanted abortions are not likely to be rapists or even men demanding terming when a woman's life is flat out on the line, anyway! 

This is debatable. Plans include:

1) Passing a law that requires paternal signature for ANY abortion a woman tries to get in any state. No matter which clinic she visits, with or without the father being there, she cannot proceed and the doctors will not act until his signature, live and uncoerced, is obtained. It cannot occur at until week 10, when he must first consent to a buccal swab and she a CVS sample to sign consent for an abortion proceedure to verify he really fathered it.

She would have to name him and he would have to be contacted for consent to move forward at all. It is NOT unreasonable for this to be expected, as often demanded for adoption. He is then given the ability to deny the abortion, or at least delay it to appear in court to plead his case as a loving father.

2) A putative father abortion registry check law is passed for *all* clinics performing abortions. The registry could have a central database on the internet. The potential putative biological father would have the responsibility to register, as in birthfather adoptions. This way, he can assume, as in adoption, that any sex act with a female could lead to an abortion plan (as in adoption) that would give him a limited opportunity to act on behalf of the fetus, demand terming and child custody.

He gives the name of the possible biological mother who could seek an abortion without his knowledge in any state. The abortion providor would be forced, as in adoption the agency, to search the state putative father abortion registry. Since he provided her name and details, the clinic, which must have her REAL name and social security number and other identifiers to even consider an abortion, has to perform this preliminary proceedure by law or face enormous penalties.

By having the national database online, no matter which state she tries to terminate in, no matter which clinic, she cannot escape being identified by the possible putative biological father, as his plugging in the specs in association with her name, etc., provides the link back to the invisible father.

ALL CLINICS AND ABORTION PRACTITIONERS would have to follow these checking proceedures to allow an abortion plan to move forward at all, and a woman cannot simply walk in and get same day service without the laws being followed in face of huge enforcable penalties.

Note that he does not have to even know the woman is pregnant by him. He simply assumes that sex could lead to a baby, just as in some adoption law. He is then notified, and given a chance to respond with a denial and restraining order. He can claim paternity immediately, and then the mother would have to *prove* he was not the father via an intrauterine CVS sample BEFORE the abortion procedure takes place.

The advantage of this plan, is, like in adoption, no so-called "invasion" of the mother's privacy is needed as regards naming the father pursuant to an adoption. She reveals no past sexual partners, and any men who do not apply to the registry who likely know they slept with her (as we can reasonably assume) are not covered.

If we followed option #1, or in #2, to proceed with abortion would REQUIRE the CVS sample, this would prevent a false biological father from claiming rights, and would demonstrate that it is his so the mother cannot play paternity games. Now that he has delayed the abortion, and prevented circumvention, he can fight it in court or the law can simply grant an unconditional veto if a normal pregnancy is the situation.

The CVS sample can be done as early as week 10 of pregnancy, more than early enough to allow early term abortion if the father's claim fathering the fetus is refuted. Or, if example #1 is followed, the mother would have the onus to secure consent, as she is the one requesting unilateral dual termination of fetal life and thus parental rights.

An important feature of CVS sampling is that it prevents a misguidedly *sympathetic pro-choice male* from posing (committing felony fraud) as the father signing the papers as the "father" to authorize the proceedure, and her terminating and the REAL father showing up too little too late. The real father *must* be determined to ensure the correct biological father signs off or can contest in court or withold consent outright.

He should have to prove it prenatally, be permitted by law to do so *IF* she demands an abortion, but not if she agrees to term, when an umbilical cord blood draw can suffice at birth.

And the woman cannot in *any* plan proceed by law if she won't agree to the amniotic sac fluid draw, the baby MUST TERM unless she submits, and all methods of early terminations must be banned, including RU486, etc., which could allow a mother to unilaterally terminate sans paternal consent before a father could possibly defend himself.

The father must NOT be victimized by mere biology, he must have equal rights to withold and enforce no consent for an abortion. It is his child as much as hers 50% each and both are co-conceivers. It took two, so his rights must be respected. He must try and act on his own, but we must give the tools and reasonable opportunity to do so on his own behalf and that of the baby.

This must be law as a mother cannot consent to an adoption before birthing, prior to paternity establishment in adoption, as a method of side-stepping the father's right to keep the baby, using his TEMPORARY lack of legal status as a weapon to unilaterally terminate BOTH paternal and maternal rights without permission by adopting.

If the court cannot decide conclusively that a father is unfit, the abortion cannot occur. If the court rejects his plea , the father can appeal, and the abortion CANNOT be ordered to go forward in the face of a lower court order pending investigation or appeal, by the hand of the higher court justice who may be pro-choice and could order the termination ban to be lifted pending the father's due process proceedure.

NO FATHER should EVER be denied his day(s) in court, and no father should have any action taken to lift via high court a preliminary ban *while* his case is still pending. If the case he presents is so compelling, he proves paternity, the court is indecisive, and she passes the legally allowable period of safe legal abortion via the immutable laws of gestation, that cannot be helped, terming is nature and biology is destiny anyhow for both sexes, proven by science.

Abortion is an extra right in any case *NOT* an uncontestable gauranteed constitutional right, as the FATHER is not the state, who cannot interfere *acting alone* in early term but CAN when the FATHER HIMSELF protests, as demonstrated in the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling.

He is a very "interested party" as he has a unique relationship to the child that takes on TOTAL constitutional protection if he "grasps the opportunity" of fatherhood, as his opposal to the abortion and direct intervention action demonstrates, he is acting out of fatherly love and a war between TWO *private parties* when a conflict of rights DEMANDS due process of law so fathers cannot be circumvented willy-nilly by Roe.

They must get their day(s) in court, and anything else is or should be illegal. They created the baby together, they cannot act alone about such important matters like termination of parental rights, in either adoption or abortion without representation by neutral third party representatives appointed by the impartial state.

Otherwise, men have no obligation to pay for support for women's unilateral decisions when they term and he does not want it. The state cannot dimantle the OSCE, as the child's best interest is at stake, so they cannot deny a father who *is* expected by law to have both pre and post natal responsbility to have no corresponding rights. With rights come responsibilities and vice versa.

This is a very instructive point. In adoption, a putative father's rights are often tied to his PREGNACY SUPPORT. This is emotional, FINANCIAL and other related types. His rights to oppose a birthmother's adoption plan are often dependent on his actions PRENATALLY. This tells us at least two things:

1) Fathers ARE parents with support duties prior to birth, from conception in fact. They are expected to pay, or at least try to pay, for prenatal health care and expenses, and show interest in the mother and her well-being and her care and feeding, as she is carrying his child.

2) For his genetic tie which is his alone to lose, to take on the full cover of the U.S. Constitution, he must support her in some serious way to show that he has "grasped the opportunity" of fatherhood. He is then permitted to block an adoption. So it follows they have prenatal rights if they *want* them and show some worthiness of having them.

A father MUST have a similar right in abortion. He can immediately require court ordered child support to begin during gestation. He must not be blocked in his efforts to pay whatever he can, or to set-up prenatal care visits and pay for them and the mother's food. Men can be concurrently or back-assessed child support over the pregnancy time period phase, so they must have rights to block abortion or adoption during those stages and beyond birth as in common adoption.

A father can do so as soon as he learns of the pregnancy, or in court as a part of his case pleading or during appeal of his case or during a restraining order or as a part of it. The child is owed support until the age of majority whether the mother wants it or not, and she cannot attempt to circumvent his rights to impair abortion by refusal of the monies.

The father has a right to immediately pay ongoing child support during gestation, for the baby's needs and to act in a fatherly manner that adds fuel to his claim of paternal love and constitutionally protected parental rights, which the father establishes by such ongoing compulsary support as this is always in the child's best interests.

Father's sometimes unfortunately have to be forced to make such payments, made by the mother and state when the shoe is on the other foot, equal protection of the father's right and duty of financial support in a claim brought on behalf of father and child by the father himself MUST be respected.

The father then has helped established parental fitness and cannot be terminated in abortion or adoption without proof of unfitness in court, and his right of ongoing until age 18 support must not be interfered with by the mother or any other party as this conflicts with the best interests of the child standard of law.

Father's today, some say, are more involved in pregnancy matters than any other time in history. Actually, they have always been so involved one way or another, this applies to members of the human species and even some lower-level animals.

But their power to protect their child has only RECENTLY been undermined by a series of unconstitutional laws that effectively prevent a father from guarding his young as it gestates. No father should have the state interfere in his ability to see to it that his offspring feeds internally and gestates safely during a pregnancy that he is the higher-power appointed gaurdian of. Abortion on demand allows this *abuse* of fathers.

Fathers suffer equally with mothers in miscarriages emotionally, as we now are learning. Most outsiders today still console the wife in a miscarriage, even though he suffers in private Hell equally. His love for his child must not be taken lightly.

He is not stopped from loving his child from conception, as it grows in utero, and caring about its welfare and support, and he shows this via his monitoring of the mother's pregnancy and his attention to her taking prenatal care possibly paid by him and escorting her to the doctor, and protecting his young as it gestates and internally feeds-even with his life, if need be.

Men have been doing this since the Titanic, when pregnant wives went in the lifeboats and the fathers actually gladly killed themselves (almost all of which voluntarily) to save their unborn children and born children alike. It's time we recognized paternal love goes as deep as maternal love, even if it differs in some ways, the father can love and want the baby as much or more than its own mother. And he has a right and duty to protect his young, from all those who may harm it, even the mother is fair game.

Abortion researches often believe PAS (Post Abortion Syndrome) exists in women, but it SURELY does often even MORE so in men, as their consent is NOT NEEDED, amazingly over their own child's termination, a child they may already love and want and need and vice versa.

A man who is pro-life, who opposes this particular abortion who is bypassed WILL suffer immense emotional distress, anger, pain and torture that will never go away. A woman SOMETIMES does not feel nearly as bad as SHE CONSENTED to the proceedure, is possibly likely at least somewhat pro-choice and probably feels ok with it, which influences whether PAS occurs in women in many cases.

But he will feel a failure as a father, even if it is not his fault, which impacts future handling of later children. He may become overprotective as a father, or avoid women, suffering mistrust of females or suffer sexual dysfunction in response and hate sex, fearing another devastating uncontrollable pregnancy loss. He may commit suicide successfully or at least try, possibly several times.

He will be permantly disfigured emotionally by a forced abortion that he is opposed or is morally or religiously agianst on pro-life grounds, so his beliefs must be respected. Both parties must decide prior to sex their intentions and stick to them, it the only fair way to respect each side, with the original default (terming) held up unless both sides agree otherwise pre-sex...just as it is in nature.

To suggest his baby can be terminated unilaterally is outrageous. He may be strictly pro-life. If so, non-consensual termination is equal to forced abortion on an unwilling female parent who may be a pro-lifer. This is not "pro-choice" at all. Such policies are rightly condemned as they are practiced in present-day China by all decent human /civil rights activists.

A father is 50% of the pregnancy. A mother's pregnancy *is* HIS. He is NOT a "third party", a member of congress or a mere relative. He is the baby's father! His actions in support during pregnancy have bearing on his rights in adoption, so they do in abortion. He must have his fathery love of his baby and duty of support protected by law, and this may not be interfered with or terminated by the mother or even the state.

Even parental (grandparent) consent laws of minors are currently more pressing, available, and enforcable than FATHER consent, the co-conceptor and parent. This is absurd, as he is equally responsible (and must pay child support) for the baby and thus must have concurrent and future equal rights by default. He made the baby, he gave it life, he must be consulted in its death and asked for permission, too.

A father who is thus denied even a day in court is denied free speech, due process, the opportunity to "grasp fatherhood" as outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court to have constitutional protection-by the unilateral actions of the mother. The courts and the mother cannot take away or interfere with his ability to grasp that relationship.

They cannot declare fatherhood meaningless in such a manner. By unilateral abortion laws as currently framed, the state is declaring fatherhood meaningless or optional by the mother. This is absurd.

Once he impregnates, the fetus *owns* its father, and he owns it. Both father and child are entitled to a minimum18 year relationship involving monetary and emotional support, and father-child love. The father is of the baby, and the baby is of the father. The baby depends on its father to protect it, as it gestates and internally feeds, by his overseeing of the mother's pregnancy and her behavior during gestation. He must continue to see that it gets food and shelter and love for 18 years from womb forward.

He already *IS* a father, he already HAS a support duty that is ongoing and the mother has no right to act against the best interest of the baby and release him from it without even agreement by the father who put that baby inside her, and his relationship cannot be terminated by her acting alone without approval to be even remotely lawful.

We know from law that paternity claims and establishment can be made by the father at ANY TIME after sex with the mother, which are used to ensure some avenue of legal due process for that possible putative biological father in adoption plans made by the birthmother.

If proven to be the father, if paternity is ESTABLISHED-and men have this right under law, then he cannot have his baby terminated (which is the same as terminating his parental rights to an existing child) without court action and proof of parental unfitness in the opinion of noted experts after a trial. Anything less is due proceess rights violation and equal protection under the Constitution being circumvented illegally.

Men must have the right of preborn paternity establishment as the putative biological father could die as it gestates, leaving the baby with no inheritance. If his relatives refuse to test genetically, they cannot take samples from his corpse, as that violates his due process rights to CONTEST paternity if a claim is made by others!

He would be deprived of his rights if dead and unable to refute the mother's claims by having the opportunity to consent to a DNA test to determine parentage, and a dead man cannot consent, so the mother would obtain a normally legal determination of parentage without any opportunity for the father to contest the claim as would happen under a regular case.

The father's right of free choice and beliefs are at stake. His love for his baby, his identity as a man who currently *IS* a father are hanging in the balance. He cannot have his fatherhood taken away from him by such tactics, for he already possesses it exclusively and uniquely and lovingly.

That fatherhood let let no woman or state put assunder, as it is owned by the father himself and nobody has the unilateral right of removing it absent a court-proven judgement of parental unfitness or abuse of the baby-otherwise he is the child's most natural gaurdian and protector and advocate alive in at least equal measure to the mother. He is a loving father who is acting selflessly to protect his helpless baby, the way only a father can, with total self-sacrifice and good faith to the bitter end.

His possible pro-life views are not respected with regard not merely to another's child but his *very own young*. The results emotionally can be devastating, as we are now learning. One father hung himself to death over an unwanted abortion forced upon him brutally. That should never happen to any man, and it won't again if Veto 4 Fathers becomes the law in most cases, at least.

Does she deserve any? Seriously, men are not given any favors over unplanned unwanted pregnancy. 18 years of support over 10 seconds of pleasure. And justly so. Women deserve no more or less. They cannot be favored sexistly. So if a man blocks abortion, it terms, she can give custody to him but cannot expect to avoid paying support, and cannot expect unilateral adoption.

The father cannot be expected to trade his baby's life for an agreement to terminate his rights in adoption. He deserves to raise it as well as see it birth. Unless he agrees to an adoption, usual child support laws apply to BOTH parents, the woman cannot claim exemption on the basis that she forgot her spermicide, pill, etc., as no man is able to that to avoid unwanted fatherhood establishment and child support or force an adoption for agreeing to terming.

However, one can consider one of two or three plans in return for her agreement to term-although she should be expected to do so without favors as it is the natural default in nature anyway:

1) To block the abortion the father must assume full custody and childcare. The mother pays support. He cannot expect to block it, just like in adoption, and insist SHE raise it alone while he stops by now and then and pays child support. He must be willing to face alot of dirty diapers.

2) To block abortion he must offer to assume full custody, childcare, allowing her to proceed with her life and she does NOT even owe child support as a gift for terming. She can terminate her parental rights unilaterally but not his in a purely legal sense, ala "choice 4 men" style. 

He in both #1 and #2 MUST take custody and childcare is all his problem. Failure to do so where he dumps it on the mother, say three violations of involuntary custody-reversal inflicted on the mother, allows her to unilaterally have it adopted if she was a mother who originally intended abortion.

This way, she CANNOT get stuck with the child, if the father is all talk, blocks the abortion and then fails to fully embrace fatherhood as he promised in stopping termination. He either fathers and does it all by himself, or he loses the baby. The baby is not her problem, nor is it her childcare duty in any way at any time.

3) If she is blocked from her abortion request, his offer of full custody expected by the court can be retracted by her, and equally divided joint physical and legal custody can by established, as should be the norm from birth in all pregnancy cases that do not involve such disputes in or out of wedlock.

Or, she can let him have it and still have rights, but no child support duty while the father raises it and has all the troubles. She can go on with her life, but unlike adoption, no concrete termination/relinquishment pain, avoid child support, all in return for agreeing to do her part by terming as a minimum.

Two simple things come to mind:

1) Use the above implementation plans coupled with stringent enforcement. The trouble with current enforcement of restraining orders is that they are worth only the paper they are printed on. The mother simply defies the order, goes to a clinic and aborts, without penalty.

But with the implementation plan, they cannot give one to her willy-nilly, which they can now as no abortion clinic ever ASKS about the father consenting presently. If they are required to do so as a CONDITION of proceeding, that catches alot of violators right off. It can be tied up in court and blocked simply by the above methods being required by law.

2) So, if any clinic, doctor, etc., is caught NOT following the implementation rules, as in adoption, and/or they perform an unauthorized abortion anyway, they get huge prison sentences and fines in the zillions. Penalties can be assessed by the father who sues as in late-term partial birth abortion proposals for paternal redress as is currently being legislated.

The fake father poser can also be manhandled, so the real father sends a message to such an abusive male who attempts fraud by posing as the baby's father faces his wrath and legal assault. This will provide incentive for men to steer clear of such fraud, and should exist also in adoption. If was an innocent victim, mislead by the mother and this is shown, he can avoid retribution. The use of CVS samples solves phony father posing anyway, allowing only true fathers to sign or block.

Similarly, mothers cannot expect to escape unscathed, as they currently do. A few mothers have defied court orders, and yet no penalties have occurred of any real consequence. Women must know her baby's father has clear inalienable parental rights, which *cannot* be terminated alone without his approval.

If she finds a way to abort, she gets prison or huge fines-period. Perhaps 18 years without parole, the number of years of lost parental rights to a minor lost by the father. Or, ALL her earnings for 18 years are confiscated and paid in damages to the father.

Do not fear miscarriages. Those are usually identifiable medically, and she can refute the rare chance of such nightmare charges by medical examinations. Abortions, especially illegal ones, poorly done will likely show up as such, so an innocent woman is unlikely to be convicted falsely.

The women who defied the court orders in some of the other cases mentioned clearly HAD ABORTIONS anyway, in the face of the court rulings, not inadvertant miscarrys. Some proof of her obtaining an abortion must be presented to have these penalties apply, including medical, records, witnessess, and demonstration of lack of current pregnant state that previously applied.

If these measures sound harsh, consider the father's loss. His child, when he is likely pro-life, was terminated agianst his will , causing permanent emotional damage and possible suicide in some cases. Females who break the law should not be handled with kid-gloves. They are criminals.

Yes! And it can *become* alot greater if we can get the message out that father's have rights from fertilization handed down by God and the higher powers naturally, and that these must be protected. Fathers must be EMPOWERED, not devalued!

So successful has been the notion that men have no rights in abortion, that in 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the father has virtually no say. But that ruling is out of line and totally unable to pass Constitutional scrutiny.

No man can EVER have his parental rights terminated absent PROOF of unfitness, and abortion allows the mother herself, not even using the court, to calmly terminate these unilaterally. There is *no way* women should have this kind of abusive power.

That utterly ignores due process of law requirements of equal protection as demanded under the Constitution! If there is no evidence of a man being an unfit father, there can be NO adoption, so there can also be no abortion! That is why YOU must do your part in educating the masses.

But it is not all gloom and doom. Statistical polling data shows that despite the immense brainwash by feminists to make fathers invisible or irrelevant,  more Americans than you might think FAVOR the idea of required by law pregnancy termination notification or even *outright* paternal medical abortion vetos: 

 62% would support a legal right for a father to prevent the abortion of his unborn  child. Clements Research/Parade Magazine, May 1992

 76% favor requiring a woman to notify her husband before she has an abortion. Clements Research/Parade Magazine, May 1992

         Gallop, done in 1991, reported on January 16, 1992:

 73% support spousal notification

 69% favor requiring a woman to notify her husband before she has an abortion . Times Mirror, May 8, 1992

63% favor "a law requiring a pregnant woman to notify her husband if she decides to have an abortion." - Gallop, January 18, 1992

The National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicage conducts periodic surveys on a variety of current social issues. They asked people about abortion and paternal consent. In 1985, a majority of respondents thought abortion UNACCEPTABLE if "she is not married and does not want to marry the man?" (57%) So, they do not feel a unilateral decision is in order even here.

Also, other survey respondents also denied her abortion if "the husband is against the abortion despite the wife's desire to have one" (64%) This last question covers the whole period of 1972-82, which means since the start of Roe to the Senate re-evaulation period of it in '82 64 precent of Amercians think husbands/fathers of the baby should have full blocking power! 

Yes! In addition to the ground breaking Indiana Supreme Court case, which argues against the commonly accepted (as interpreted) privacy statutes of Roe v Wade,adoption laws for unwed fathers argue in like-fashion. And, restraining orders requested by fathers to stop abortions  are being GRANTED with *increasing* frequency by U.S. courts.

At least TWO such cases have led to the abortion plans being delayed via the father's efforts and resulted in live births.  The Indiana case resulted in new legal precedent which supports the father's claim of rights and blocked an elective abortion legally. The woman defied the court and secured and abortion, but the ruling sets the tone for future cases and due process rights being accorded to fathers.

In addition, in partial birth abortion bills being presented, ride-alongs are suggested and tacked on (one in Michigan) which allow the father of such an aborted fetus to seriously sue the doctor/provider for damages, etc. This is clearly a growing trend! 

They *should* be as follows, in a paper by the National Coalition of Free Men:                      

RESOLUTION SUBMITTED BY MEMBER HUGH NATIONS AND ADOPTED BY THE NCFM BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AUGUST 19, 1992

WHEREAS, the function of men in parenting has been confined largely to the second-class role of material provider; and

WHEREAS, healthy relationships and healthy families require that men be equal participants in every facet of parenting, including responsible contraception and conception; and

WHEREAS, in a substantial number of abortions, the prospective fathers are excluded from all phases of the pregnancy termination process, including any prior knowledge of the initial decision to abort and even post-abortion notification; and

WHEREAS, purported "freedom of choice" is neither freedom nor choice as long as one of the two partners-in-conception can unilaterally impose a decision on the other without notification, discussion, consultation, or any other form of reasonable or humane discourse; and

WHEREAS, the question of the participation of the prospective father in any decision to abort is a separate and distinct matter from those positions normally identified as "pro-choice" and "pro-life"; and

WHEREAS, individuals may in good conscience fully embrace either position and still hold to the heartfelt principle that conception and pre-natal participation, as a vital part of a man's role in parenting, should be respected along with all the other facets of his parenting role; and

WHEREAS, the decision to abort or to carry to term is an intensely private matter, and, to the maximum extent reasonable, the decision to do either should be made solely by the partners-in-conception; and

WHEREAS, ensuring that all options are fully understood and supported by each partner-in-conception before irreversible decisions are implemented requires the complete and healthy involvement of both partners; and

WHEREAS, for the prospective father to participate fully in that process and to fully exercise his pre-natal role as nurturer and protector, notification of conception and establishment of paternity are necessary:

NOW THEREFORE, this organization, in recognition of the foregoing facts, hereby adopts the following:

I. The prospective father has the fundamental right to be informed by his partner-in-conception that conception has resulted from their union.

II. The prospective father has the fundamental right to participate with his partner-in-conception in any decision affecting the future of the fetus he helped create.

III. The prospective father has the fundamental right to consult with his partner-in-conception or the health care provider, and to be apprised of any relevant information concerning the pregnancy or the abortion process.

IV. A putative father has the fundamental right to a determination of paternity, during both pre-natal and post-natal periods, at the earliest practical time, and by the most conclusive methods reasonably available.

V. The prospective father has a fundamental right of custody equal to that of his partner-in-conception and superior to that of any other.

VI. The prospective father has the right to personal guardianship of the fetus when required to protect the well-being of the fetus or to preserve the right to custody.

VII. The prospective father has the fundamental right, with the consent of his partner-in-conception, to be present at delivery.

VIII. The foregoing fundamental rights shall be neither abrogated nor abridged without due cause clearly and appropriately established.

IX. A prospective mother has the moral responsibility to respect and support the rights of her partner-in-conception.

X. Both public policy and medical ethics should seek to protect and advance the fundamental pre-natal rights of the father.

     Friends of Choice for Men     http://www.nas.com/c4m/

No! Veto 4 Fathers supports *RESPONSIBLE* *LOVING* FATHERHOOD! Do *NOT* confuse these proposals please! C4M is a male version of abortion, to be able, during a limited time period, to DISCARD one's parental rights and responsibilities. It throws the baby and father out with the bathwater!

Our proposal supports the concept of rewarding sexually responsible males. We advocate that ALL men are entitled to VETO an abortion, a death of a child and also a man's fatherhood and fathering dreams. C4M wants to perform a legal version of abortion, where the child is dumped on the mother, gets no child support or father to love, protect, and take care of him or her. That is not what any *real* man does.

A real man fathers. He values every child as a precious gift from God or a higher power than himself, and readily assumes full responsibility for the life he has jointly created. That is why men need enforcable abortion vetoes! They  need rights and means to EMBRACE fatherhood, not to reject the most important of all manly roles!

Our society is constantly giving men mixed messages. On the one hand they are told they must pay child support, but have no rights, no choices, no reproductive freedom whatsoever! They are expected to embrace and pay for a child they have no say to keep alive for for the first 9 months of his or her life! Even though the child's life STEMS from his or her father!

Most of the C4M advocates fail to see that their plan is almost as bad for men, women, and children as abortion is. It rewards IRRESPONSIBILITY and paternal pregnant-woman dumping, baby dumping, and gives unilateral rights to men to abandon the entire situation.

It is true that there IS an inequity, but that is NOT solved by trying to give men a pseudo-comparable option to opt out! It is solved by givng men enforcable abortion vetoes! This IS enforcable with the proper legal structuring, and punishments for violators and sends the appropriate message to women about what men really want when they say they deserve reproductive rights.

It gives men a positive reason to father lovingly and responsibly, and ensures female sexual responsibility and requirement that THEY pay child support, too. It will lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies as women will be more careful who they sleep with.

It will make *men* fully accountable and thus co-blamable for abortions, which will open societal  and women's eyes about the true hidden  role men  often play in abortions, and will pave the way for possible banning of abortion and at the very least, if an abortion happens it will be a joint decision where both are at fault, and this will ensure greater mutual sexual respect and sexual responsibility.

Bringing men into the abortion debate will lead to them sharing birth control as well, and will lead to better methods of contraception, like Natural Family Planning, and the result is that both sexes benefit tremendously, and real abortion debate occurs.

There are *no* such true benefits to C4M, in fact, it actually  perpetuates male sexual irresponsibility and related indifference to the needs of pregnant females and the resulting children, and it also promotes and even uses as a basis for its arguments abortion for women, for which it depends on continuing to justify its implementation, while Veto 4 Fathers does not. 

This is a grassroots movement, it depends on you! Many, if not most men are ignorant even to the possibility that they may or should have rights in this regard, such is the power of the media and modern feminism-led popular culture brainwashing.

Abortion DOES concern you! You have a right to object and stand in the way of an unwanted abortion. Educate men wherever you are and women too that men should have veto power in abortion. Statistics show that at least 62% of Americans favor men having a voice and rights in the medical /chemical abortion decision . Contact groups like Fathers of Aborted Children Together as 1 as a starting point.

F.A.C.T. 1:  http://www.fact1.org/ 

Next, read the sample legal briefs and court precedents on this web site to use in your defense at the trial, if you can get one. Use them in court with your lawyers help. You should also immediately sue for paternity concurrently and demand a CVS sample *ONLY* you must to prove paternity.

But  if she refuses to allow it prenatally, ask for a default judgement of parentage pending an umbilical cord blood draw at birth by court order if your child survives. Act with extreme speed on *ALL* matters relating to your child, like paternity and restraining orders-visit the pro-father paternity establishment page for more details:

Paternity Information Page: http://www.peak.org/~jedwards/paternity.html 

If you have been harmed by a forced abortion in any way, you should see a professional to help you deal with it and to heal. Therapists at groups like Project Rachel can help men grapple with the trauma of PAS (Post Abortion Sydrome).

Project Rachel for fathers: http://www.mu.edu/rachel/fathers.html

Please believe you CAN stop an abortion, even by legal means, men have already done it, more than once, and can keep doing it until we are fully protected and accorded due process of law if we play our cards right-consider the Indiana case!

If you currently just got a woman pregnant, and she is threatening to abort, you must act quickly. Analysis of the current methods of impedence (restraining orders) show that a father must act as soon as possible if he is to get the desired results and to delay the termination until he has had his day in court, and may just succeed in "stonewalling" her pregnancy long enough to force terming via her passing the allowable period tied in court. Get a restraining order against her abortion at once!

In any case, you must get a good lawyer to represent you and your child in court. We hope to get a case before the United States Supreme Court and maybe it will be yours that codifies the father's rights in abortion and gives us a solid veto. You could be the new,  male "Jane Roe", only arguing FOR the children, not against them! 

Some lawyers are now willing to fight for these crucial rights for men and fathers, and they can help you with your fight and may be able to argue your case using legal precedents like in the Indiana case and perhaps build on it. Good luck... 

Attorney needs (Illinois) fathers who are willing to testify!

A very prominent Chicago father's rights attorney, Jeffery Leving, has an opportunity to get a bill for father's abortion rights written in Illinois. He needs fathers, especially Illinois fathers, whose lives have been negatively impacted by abortion and who are willing to testify.

If you can help Jeff, please contact him at 312-807-3990. Or call me for more information. Michele Delo 206-939-4032. Feel free to rewrite and repost this anywhere it might find a father willing to help end abortions!