For the past 49 years, abortion rights in the U.S. have been solely a creature of constitutional law. The right of privacy created by Supreme Court precedents that, in turn, created the right to an abortion, applied, of course, only to women. Men naturally had no right to privacy as it applied to pregnancy and abortion rights.
Therefore, an overturning of the Court’s abortion precedents, if it happens, would remove the issue from its constitutional framework and place it in a statutory one to be decided by state legislatures. That could allow the parallel issue of men’s right to avoid the consequences of conception, for the first time, to enter the public debate and possibly receive a serious hearing. I’m not holding my breath, but the demise of Roe and the constitutional regime governing abortion rights could conceivably open the door to the concept of parental surrender.
When asked by researchers, including those at Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute, women overwhelmingly cite reasons of practicality for having an abortion. In survey after survey, reasons like their own age and immaturity, lack of financial wherewithal, lack of a sufficient relationship with the father and the like are given as their reasons for terminating a pregnancy in 89% – 95% of cases.
Given that, it’s hard not to notice that men face the same issues. Men too may be short of money, too young to become a parent, not have completed their education or not have a secure relationship with the mother. So if a woman can avoid the consequences of conception via abortion, shouldn’t men have the same right?
True, those consequences are greater for women than for men. Contrary to certain loony beliefs currently in vogue, men can’t become pregnant, carry a child to term or give birth. But what’s just as true is that, when a woman has an abortion, she doesn’t just avoid the consequences of pregnancy and childbirth, she also avoids 18 or more years of child care, support, sleepless nights, medical worries, college funds, heartache, etc. So, if women can avoid all those years of the consequences of conception, shouldn’t men be able to do so as well?
More specifically, shouldn’t state legislatures grant to men the right to sign a state-approved form saying, in essence, that they’re aware that a certain woman is pregnant, that the signer believes himself to be the father and that he knowingly and willingly waives all his parental rights to the child forever? If so, state law would then prohibit the mother and the state from enforcing parental obligations against him. Such a document, properly executed, would mean that he could never assert parental rights to the child and could never be required to pay support for it. It would mean that the mother could never demand support from him or be subjected to his demands for custody or parenting time.
First and foremost, a man’s right of parental surrender is a matter of equality between the sexes. If one sex has the legal right to avoid the consequences of conception that’s conferred on women by abortion rights, the other sex should have a parallel right. Those who trumpet their support for gender equality seldom also support the right of parental surrender, but without it, the sexes can never be equal before the law.
But parental surrender is about more than equality, important as that is; it’s about fundamental fairness too. As things stand now and have for far longer than Roe has been in effect, women generally exercise considerable control over men’s reproductive rights. Particularly with abortion rights, a woman can literally decide whether a man becomes a father or not. Does he passionately desire to have a child? He may, but the issue is not his to decide, a policy position with which I enthusiastically agree. Is he one of those men who, like the millions of women who have abortions, is not ready to be a parent but who learns that his girlfriend is pregnant with his child? Again, whether he’s saddled with 18 years of support is simply not his to decide. Her decision, his obligations. To exist at all, gender equality must go both ways (that’s what equality means) and at present men’s fundamental right to decide whether to have a child or not is placed squarely, not in his hands, but in hers.
Assuming no medical issues, there is not a single argument against parental surrender that’s not also an argument against abortion rights. If you support abortion rights, you must, as a matter of intellectual honesty also support the right of parental surrender. In those fairly rare instances in which a woman has an abortion for medical reasons, the consequences of that abortion extend far beyond those medical issues. They include the 18+ years of caring for a child that burden both the mother and the father.
Now, do I seriously believe that state legislatures will, any time soon, even consider the concept of parental surrender? I do not. They should, but they won’t. That’s because even a casual glance at all the issues regarding children, parents, child custody, fertility and the rights and duties related thereto unequivocally tell us one thing – that society is perfectly content with women maintaining effective control over men’s fertility, and rights and access to their children.
I’ll say more about that next time.
