LC 2.26 Financial Abortion Act (Debating)

[lfromnj]

In order to start debate on this bill, I have to say this bill has already been introduced federally (Lfromnj is both a Concillor and a federal Representative)

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=321810.0

In any case, I stand opposed to this bill for the same reasons I stand opposed in the federal debate.

To answer lfromnj's question for an exception for rape on the federal thread, I have to say that is already a thing. Let's say a man got raped and the woman who raped him got pregnant.

In that case, the man could still refuse to take custody of the child. The mother would be in jail as a rapist. And the kid (if not aborted, I can't think of many women rapists who wouldn't abort the child or use birth control of some kind to begin with) would be taken care of by the maternal grandparents or other relatives; or fall into the foster care system. But the father would have no financial obligations I believe.

I am not opposed to a bill clarifying this if done carefully, and I have said I am in support of allimony and divorce reform (which is a completely broken system). But this bill does not solve that issue.

Unless Lincoln/Atlasia specifically passed a bill to refuse to take custody of the child you are still liable for financial support

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma/201902/when-male-rape-victims-are-accountable-child-support

Even excluding rape there can be circumstances of sexual assault that include stealthing(eg poking a hole) or other similar actions such as lying about birth control.

In the end it is clear there has to be SOME circumstances for a financial abortion .

Even excluding that if you are pro choice and believe an abortion can happen anytime upto a certain number of weeks for any reason then this bill makes the same sense by only providing the same legal right to the other person. There is also a case where if a women remains opposed to abortion but does not want the child she may not let the child be adopted without the father's consent so she can be required to child support. Again all of this must be done in a reasonable timeframe before abortion is no longer a viable option so all facts of the future child are known.

[lfromnj]

Honestly, the more I see this bill discussed the more I feel it's some sort of "Ha-ha! Take that pro-choicers!" bill. Still I will answer the concerns:

In order to start debate on this bill, I have to say this bill has already been introduced federally (Lfromnj is both a Concillor and a federal Representative)

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=321810.0

In any case, I stand opposed to this bill for the same reasons I stand opposed in the federal debate.

To answer lfromnj's question for an exception for rape on the federal thread, I have to say that is already a thing. Let's say a man got raped and the woman who raped him got pregnant.

In that case, the man could still refuse to take custody of the child. The mother would be in jail as a rapist. And the kid (if not aborted, I can't think of many women rapists who wouldn't abort the child or use birth control of some kind to begin with) would be taken care of by the maternal grandparents or other relatives; or fall into the foster care system. But the father would have no financial obligations I believe.

I am not opposed to a bill clarifying this if done carefully, and I have said I am in support of allimony and divorce reform (which is a completely broken system). But this bill does not solve that issue.

Unless Lincoln/Atlasia specifically passed a bill to refuse to take custody of the child you are still liable for financial support

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma/201902/when-male-rape-victims-are-accountable-child-support

Even excluding rape there can be circumstances of sexual assault that include stealthing(eg poking a hole) or other similar actions such as lying about birth control.

In the end it is clear there has to be SOME circumstances for a financial abortion .

Even excluding that if you are pro choice and believe an abortion can happen anytime upto a certain number of weeks for any reason then this bill makes the same sense by only providing the same legal right to the other person. There is also a case where if a women remains opposed to abortion but does not want the child she may not let the child be adopted without the father's consent so she can be required to child support. Again all of this must be done in a reasonable timeframe before abortion is no longer a viable option so all facts of the future child are known.

After looking at that article and as I stated before, I am open to making this bill some sort of exception about rape. Stealthing and lying is disgusting and any man who sees himself on that situation should inmediately break up and if applicable get a divorce.

As I said in the House debate, those are all goals I actually agree with, the allimony and child support system is completely broken and many men do find themselves in horrible situations but I do not think this bill is really aimed at that.

If we are going to pass this we are going to need a full rewrite that vastly expands the scope of the bill.

We must also never forget about the best interests of the child. No children should see themselves suddenly in deep poverty because of a "financial abortion" or something like that.

Reminder I didn't write this bill to own the pro choicers. I myself am pro choice and voted to bring the limit back to 20 weeks provided abortion was not funded.

[lfromnj]

Financial Abortion Act

Giving the right to terminate any financial support of a future child

Section I: Full Financial Abortion

i. If one member of a couple that created a mutually conceived fetus that was created in terms was wronged during the conception either through lying actions such as claiming of a vasectomy or IUD or actions such as rape the wronged member may sign a financial abortion to sign away parental rights and never be required to pay child support.

ii. This Financial Abortion must take place either 12 weeks into the pregnancy or 2 weeks after disclosure of the pregnancy to both partners,whichever is the later date.

iii. The wronged actions in part i are not limited to those actions but can be expanded on discretion of the court system.

Section II:Partial Financial Abortion
i.In the scenario of a mutually conceived fetus conceived under normal circumstances that wouldn't be included section I part i or iii the member of the pair who does not wish to have the child may sign a partial financial abortion that fully signs away all parental rights
ii. Signing this partial financial abortion paper guarantees a maximum child support cap of $750 per month starting January 2020 and will be indexed to inflation
iii. Said partial financial abortion must be signed either 12 weeks into the pregnancy or 2 weeks after reasonable attempt of disclosure of the pregnancy to both members of the pair.which ever takes place at a later date.
iv. If stated signer of the financial abortion fails to keep up with child support payments for more than 2 months in a row a court may reanalyze the original document and withdraw the cap of child support and make them pay a higher amount.

Amendment that moderates the bill and could actually encourage child support pay to a limited degree in fear of the withdrawal of the cap.

[lfromnj]

Ok, so regarding the newly amended version, I am still against Section I as written now (but would allow it in the case of rape). I can think of many circumstances where this could be a bad idea, from encouraging bad late term abortions (if a woman wants to hide her pregnancy until it is obvious she can do so to try and lie to the father, then once he notices abort) to due process of law violations (if it applied for rape, imagine if the father got a "paper abortion", then the woman was found innocent).

I am still in favour fo the rape exception but it requires a bit of work still.

I am torn apart on Section II. I do believe a parent (not just the father but the mother hypothetically as well) should have a right to completely forget about their kids but the kids also deserve a family and not being thrown into foster care. At that point the rights of the parents directly conflict with the child's best interests. It is certainly a hard debate.

For now I will introduce this amendment on the parts I am more comfortable with:

Financial Abortion Act

Giving the right to terminate any financial support of a future child

Section I: Full Financial Abortion

i. If one member of a couple that created a mutually conceived fetus that was created in terms was wronged during the conception either through lying actions such as claiming of a vasectomy or IUD or actions such as rape the wronged member may sign a financial abortion to sign away parental rights and never be required to pay child support.

ii. This Financial Abortion must take place either 12 weeks into the pregnancy or 2 weeks after disclosure of the pregnancy to both partners,whichever is the later date. the guilty partner is found guilty of rape

iii. The wronged actions in part i are not limited to those actions but can be expanded on discretion of the court system.

Section II:Partial Financial Abortion
i.In the scenario of a mutually conceived fetus conceived under normal circumstances that wouldn't be included section I part i or iii the member of the pair who does not wish to have the child may sign a partial financial abortion that fully signs away all parental rights
ii. Signing this partial financial abortion paper guarantees a maximum child support cap of $750 per month starting January 2020 and will be indexed to inflation
iii. Said partial financial abortion must be signed either 12 weeks into the pregnancy or 2 weeks after reasonable attempt of disclosure of the pregnancy to both members of the pair.which ever takes place at a later date.
iv. If stated signer of the financial abortion fails to keep up with child support payments for more than 2 months in a row a court may reanalyze the original document and withdraw the cap of child support and make them pay a higher amount.

Sponsor feedback: 24 hours to specify, otherwise assumed unfriendly
Status: 24 hours to object

Currently if two parents both want to give birth to a child but don't want it adoption/safe haven laws exist anyway. If one parent doesn't want the kid they are still required to pay enough such that the childs best interest is taken care of. But after a while you might just lead to resentment on middle to upper class families and they can afford to just avoid child support entirely through the legal process. By forcing them to pay a moderate amount per month in exchange for not paying  a higher amount this should be good enough to allow more child support payments to be made.

Also noting on section I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-consensual_condom_removal

condom removal/poking holes isn't necessarily considered rape and I am not personally sure if it should be but it is a form of lying and deception.

[lfromnj]

Aye.

Anyway after this amendment has passed we can hopefully move to a final vote.

[lfromnj]

Aye.

Anyway after this amendment has passed we can hopefully move to a final vote.

As an amended version of this bill is presently moving its way through Congress, I would object to a final vote until we see the results in the Senate.

The congressional one is very limited and will almost certainly pass in the senate as it is 100% fixing a stupid loophole that should never have existed.