Texas Anti-Abortion sonogram law assures the woman gets custody

[joko104]

The anti-abortion sonogram requirement in Texas law requires assuring the woman that the man will pay child support - while at the same time not hinting the man might get custody of the child at some point and she pay child support. So let's forget about pro-life doing anything put opposing equal rights for fathers.82(R) HB 15 - Senate Committee Report version - Bill Analysis

 

[JayDubya]

Assuming you linked the bill you meant to, it does no such thing.

 

[joko104]

Assuming you linked the bill you meant to, it does no such thing.

Yes it does, it requires informing the woman the man will have to pay. No mention of the woman possibly paying. Read it again.

 

[Northern Light]

Custody battles take place in family court though, unless the couple comes to an independent agreement about it.

Why on earth would doctors be giving women details about custody issues? They're not lawyers.

If the story is true then it's illegal on multiple levels.

 

[choiceone]

Custody battles take place in family court though, unless the couple comes to an independent agreement about it.

Why on earth would doctors be giving women details about custody issues? They're not lawyers.

If the story is true then it's illegal on multiple levels.

Indeed, just like why on earth would medically ignorant legislators be giving doctors and women regulations about abortion issues? They're not doctors.
These would be parallel illegalities!

 

[joko104]

If they cared about the "babies," why didn't they also include all the warning, information and assurances be required of women and doctors if a woman is carrying the pregnancy to delivery?

 

[nota bene]

Indeed, just like why on earth would medically ignorant legislators be giving doctors and women regulations about abortion issues? They're not doctors.
These would be parallel illegalities!

Some of the legislators are doctors, for example, Donna Campbell, who received threats from pro-choicers during the SB 5 debate that included the hope that she and her daughter would be raped.

 

[nota bene]

Yes it does, it requires informing the woman the man will have to pay. No mention of the woman possibly paying. Read it again.

Why don't you quote that part/direct others to the section that allegedly states this?

 

[iangb]

Why don't you quote that part/direct others to the section that allegedly states this?

Step 1 - click on the link.

Step 2 - hit 'ctrl-F' (or your 'search page' shortcut of preference)

Step 3 - type "support"

Step 4 - quote the following

SECTION 2. Amends Section 171.012, Health and Safety Code, by amending Subsections (a), (b), and (c) and adding Subsection (a-1), as follows:

(a) Provides that consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed only if:

[snip]

(2) the physician who is to perform the abortion or the physician's agent informs the pregnant woman that:

[snip]

(B) the father is liable for assistance in the support of the child without regard to whether the father has offered to pay for the abortion​

​

Step 5 - profit?

EDIT: In fact, it doesn't look like this is even a particularly new addition - the old text to be deleted included very similar sentiments. Le sigh for Texas.

EDIT2: Though the title of the OP is somewhat misleading, it has to be said - there is no 'assurance', simply implication. However, the text certainly makes the references Nota asked for.

 

[nota bene]

Step 1 - click on the link.

Step 2 - hit 'ctrl-F' (or your 'search page' shortcut of preference)

Step 3 - type "support"

Step 4 - quote the following

SECTION 2. Amends Section 171.012, Health and Safety Code, by amending Subsections (a), (b), and (c) and adding Subsection (a-1), as follows:

(a) Provides that consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed only if:

[snip]

(2) the physician who is to perform the abortion or the physician's agent informs the pregnant woman that:

[snip]

(B) the father is liable for assistance in the support of the child without regard to whether the father has offered to pay for the abortion​

​

Step 5 - profit?

No need to be snide. I read this. Since you're so clever, you tell me where custody is mentioned in what you've pasted. I'm only on my second cuppa. TIA.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

The anti-abortion sonogram requirement in Texas law requires assuring the woman that the man will pay child support - while at the same time not hinting the man might get custody of the child at some point and she pay child support. So let's forget about pro-life doing anything put opposing equal rights for fathers.82(R) HB 15 - Senate Committee Report version - Bill Analysis

What it states is that the state will pursue child support (just an established fact - they do that now)

I, also, don't see why whether or not they know he can get custody if he pursues it to be of interest, here. It also - might - not be true. Custody is complicated. Do you think women will agree or not agree to it based on that being provided or something? In fact, I'm sure some people would make the decision based on that - you know - using children as a pawn in divorce happens, too. It's not something I want to put out there at all in this decision making process.

Some women DON'T want to have an abortion. If they know they will be able to go to the Dr, and their children will be supported in the future by either/and state/father then they won't go through with it. I see nothing wrong with that.

(2) the physician who is to perform the abortion or the physician's agent informs the pregnant woman that:

(A) medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care;

(B) the father is liable for assistance in the support of the child without regard to whether the father has offered to pay for the abortion; and

(C) public and private agencies provide pregnancy prevention counseling and medical referrals for obtaining pregnancy prevention medications or devices, including emergency contraception for victims of rape or incest;

Sec. 171.0123. PATERNITY AND CHILD SUPPORT INFORMATION. Requires the physician or an agent of the physician, if, after being provided with a sonogram and the information required under this subchapter, the pregnant woman chooses not to have an abortion, to provide the pregnant woman with a publication developed by the Title IV-D agency that provides information about paternity establishment and child support, including:

(1) the steps necessary for unmarried parents to establish legal paternity;

(2) the benefits of paternity establishment for children;

(3) the steps necessary to obtain a child support order;

(4) the benefits of establishing a legal parenting order; and

(5) financial and legal responsibilities of parenting.

This really irons out the concern some people raised about 'being forced to see it - hear it' - she's not forced.

You know what this bill would amount to? A few sheets of paper - some signatures - without it ever being read. That what patient consent and rights are, today - just sheets they print off and you sign hastily while they drabble on about what's in it.

Sec. 171.0122. VIEWING PRINTED MATERIALS AND SONOGRAM IMAGE; HEARING HEART AUSCULTATION OR VERBAL EXPLANATION. (a) Authorizes a pregnant woman to choose not to view the printed materials provided under Section 171.012(a)(3) after she has been provided with the materials.

(b) Authorizes a pregnant woman to choose not to view the sonogram images required to be provided to and reviewed with the pregnant woman under Section 171.012(a)(4).

(c) Authorizes a pregnant woman to choose not to hear the heart auscultation required to be provided to and reviewed with the pregnant woman under Section 171.012(a)(4).

(d) Authorizes a pregnant woman to choose not to receive the verbal explanation of the results of the sonogram images under Section 171.012(a)(4)(C) if:

(1) the woman's pregnancy is a result of a sexual assault, incest, or other violation of the Penal Code that has been reported to law enforcement authorities or that has not been reported because she has a reason that she declines to reveal because she reasonably believes that to do so would put her at risk of retaliation resulting in serious bodily injury;

(2) the woman is a minor and obtaining an abortion in accordance with judicial bypass procedures under Chapter 33, Family Code; or

(3) the fetus has an irreversible medical condition or abnormality, as previously identified by reliable diagnostic procedures and documented in the woman's medical file.

(e) Provides that the physician and the pregnant woman are not subject to a penalty under this chapter solely because the pregnant woman chooses not to view the printed materials or the sonogram images, hear the heart auscultation, or receive the verbal explanation, if waived as provided by this section.

Oh - and I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-informed-choice.

 

[joko104]

What it states is that the state will pursue child support (just an established fact - they do that now)

I, also, don't see why whether or not they know he can get custody if he pursues it to be of interest, here. It also - might - not be true. Custody is complicated. Do you think women will agree or not agree to it based on that being provided or something? In fact, I'm sure some people would make the decision based on that - you know - using children as a pawn in divorce happens, too. It's not something I want to put out there at all in this decision making process.

Some women DON'T want to have an abortion. If they know they will be able to go to the Dr, and their children will be supported in the future by either/and state/father then they won't go through with it. I see nothing wrong with that.




This really irons out the concern some people raised about 'being forced to see it - hear it' - she's not forced.

You know what this bill would amount to? A few sheets of paper - some signatures - without it ever being read. That what patient consent and rights are, today - just sheets they print off and you sign hastily while they drabble on about what's in it.



Oh - and I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-informed-choice.

Pro-informed? What is pro-informed about that law? A woman can get a sonogram if she wants to. Apparently you believe it impossible without this law?

Since a woman can opt out, it truly is absolutely irrelevant to medical practice and irrelevant to information. Rather it is just harassment - economic and time. So a woman has to spend a day to pay for a sonogram unless she travels a hundred miles to wait hours at a prolife church or facility offering free sonograms to try to convince women and teens not to abort - that makes her wait 5 hours while they berate and sermonize at her - for a sonogram she doesn't want to and won't look at - and the give her papers she doesn't want to read and won't... taking off work to do it losing that pay/money too...

... which you call "being informed?" Yeah, informed that if you seek and abortion the government will force you to go thru government and prolife intimidation, harassment and expenses after expenses - and informed you are a "murderer murdering you own baby" at the "free sonogram" prolife facilities.

AGAIN, let's NOT pretend this about medical practice OR about "being informed." If it was, they would require a woman planning to give birth to also have a sonogram so "she is informed." This has nothing to do about babies. It is about harassing and financially harassing and time harassing women - plus massive invasion of her privacy physically and in terms of government information gathering about her.

I know you're pro-choice. But our portrayal of "just sign a couple papers" is not accurate.

Prove me wrong. Schedule yourself for a "free sonogram" and just go there, wait it and then say you changed your mind. I bet you can't go there, wait and be back home within 5 minutes like you claim. Remember, this is a special trip that can not be one the day an abortion is done.

 

[joko104]

You know what this bill would amount to? A few sheets of paper - some signatures - without it ever being read. That what patient consent and rights are, today - just sheets they print off and you sign hastily while they drabble on about what's in it.

Oh - and I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-informed-choice.

That statement is completely false, isn't it?
You leave off she is forced to undergo a sonogram.
That she has to pay for the office visit for one unless she travels to a prolife facility to wait for a free one.
You leave off she has to take off a day of work specifically and solely for this.
You leave off all the records required to be taken about her including medically and about the fetus -
- all of which is an invasion of privacy.

NOTHING prevents her from having a sonogram. Nothing prevents her from seeking out a free one. It is NOT accurate that she can just sign some papers and its over as a 2 minute annoyance as you suggest.

And it false that the father automatically is financially liable. In fact, SHE may be financially liable to him. So it is a FALSE statement. He also is not liable financially if he is in prison, prisoners can not be required to pay child support. So it is a law requiring doctors LIE to women in their professional capacity as a doctor - government ordered lying to women by doctors for a political prolife agenda.

NOR is there ANY information required to be given of the costs of having and raising a child, or the financial liabilities for the child such as medical costs and more and more for years and years. It is not an "informed" set of information. It is a selective prolife set of information including deliberate selective lies doctors are ordered to tell her and in writing. Selective false information and selective of what is and is not told to her. It is not being "informed." It is being misinformed on government decree.

 

[joko104]

Some of the legislators are doctors, for example, Donna Campbell, who received threats from pro-choicers during the SB 5 debate that included the hope that she and her daughter would be raped.

Its not as if there aren't dozens of messages by prolifers on this forum who hope that women who have abortions die. Oh, excuse me, I'll use our distortion and post it as "prolifer on this forum who THREATENED women with hoping they die if they have an abortion, THREATENING millions of women with death" for your FALSE use of the word "threatened."

 

[joko104]

No need to be snide. I read this. Since you're so clever, you tell me where custody is mentioned in what you've pasted. I'm only on my second cuppa. TIA.

Child support is not required of the custodial parent. MOST people know that.

 

[joko104]

Custody battles take place in family court though, unless the couple comes to an independent agreement about it.

Why on earth would doctors be giving women details about custody issues? They're not lawyers.

If the story is true then it's illegal on multiple levels.

It is false on numerous accounts as I stated above. A custody parent if the father will NOT pay child support. Fathers in prison will NOT pay child support. If the government takes adverse custody/conservatorship of the child revoking parental rights, the man will not pay child support.

AND the doctors - in addition to those required FALSE legal advice lies - also is required to be an expert in advising of all local, county, state and federal welfare and assistance agencies - plus required to hand out the addresses of every religious facility offering free sonograms thus advocacy of religion too.

And there is the question of the government requiring doctors to be pro-government, pro-religion, pro-bad-law anti-abortion activists in the most literal sense performing an unnecessary medical procedure and unnecessary invasion paperwork time as pro-life employees for their political and religious advocacy.

 

[JayDubya]

Yes it does, it requires informing the woman the man will have to pay. No mention of the woman possibly paying. Read it again.

It is true that the man will have to pay his fair share, and that should be part of informed consent. It is also true that the woman can give up custody of her kid. It is also true that there can be joint custody. In any event, the point is that financially the father is also on the hook and that needs to be made crystal clear before someone kills their kid for purely financial reasons.

I read the entire thing and your thread title is a lie.

 

[joko104]

Do you think prolifers would go absolutely beserk if prior to examining a pregnant women - at least 1 day before an examination - the woman was required to attend a presentation and provided paperwork to make certain she is aware of the legal right to abort and all the protections and safeguards the government, police, courts and government would provide her if she opted to abort?

Don't you think pregnant women should be required attend THAT "information" session PRIOR to medical treatment and examination too - since is this just about assuring pregnant women she knows all her rights and options?

 

[joko104]

It is true that the man will have to pay his fair share, and that should be part of informed consent. It is also true that the woman can give up custody of her kid. It is also true that there can be joint custody. In any event, the point is that financially the father is also on the hook and that needs to be made crystal clear before someone kills their kid for purely financial reasons.

I read the entire thing and your thread title is a lie.

No, your message is the lie.
The father is NOT liable if the child is "given up for adoption."
The father is NOT liable if he is in prison.
The father is not liable "for payments" if he obtains custody.
The mother is ONLY entitled to financial assistance of she gets custody.
He is not liable if he dies.

And "being liable" doesnt' assure the woman gets a dime anyway, does it?

Every lawyer in the Wisconsin and Texas legislature or on the staff knows all of the above - meaning they know they passed a law ordering doctors pretend to be lawyers and outright ordered to lie to women under threats if the doctor refuses to lie to his patients.

So... when the woman doesn't get a dollar from the father and all the mythical assistance doesn't appear, the prolifers just tell her "HA! HA! GOT YOU! You fell for it! That'll teach you to ever listen to any doctor again!"

The law is a mass of deliberate false information, deliberate misleading information and deliberately selective information.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

The anti-abortion sonogram requirement in Texas law requires assuring the woman that the man will pay child support - while at the same time not hinting the man might get custody of the child at some point and she pay child support. So let's forget about pro-life doing anything put opposing equal rights for fathers.82(R) HB 15 - Senate Committee Report version - Bill Analysis

Child support is not for the benefit of the parents (supposedly) but for the benefit of the child. Both of them pay, one just pays via a court order, the other pays via day to day living.

 

[joko104]

Could a doctor legally tell his patients under this law: "the papers and statements I am required to tell or give you are Prolife politicians' lies - and in both my personal and professional opinion you should not believe what they say?" Or is truth and free speech also outlawed too?

Could the doctor additionally give his patients a statement in writing and a big sign on the wall disavowing the papers? If not, wouldn't the doctor be legally liable for how it is false?

"YOU TOLD ME THE FATHER IS LIABLE. MY LAWYER SAID HE'S NOT BECAUSE HE'S IN PRISON FOR LIFE. I TOLD YOU HE WAS IN PRISON FROM THE START. THEN YOU TOLD ME HE IS LIABLE AND THAT WAS FALSE. SO YOU LIED TO ME. YOU, DOCTOR, OWE ME 18 YEARS OF CHILD SUPPORT!"

Fair, right?

 

[joko104]

Child support is not for the benefit of the parents (supposedly) but for the benefit of the child. Both of them pay, one just pays via a court order, the other pays via day to day living.

No. Not always. I could go thru the list of all the lies again, but some prolifer men generally just ignore facts they don't like and keep repeating false statements like religious chanting.

And again, being liable and paying aren't the same.

How many people win civil judgments of all kinds that the other person is liable - and never get a dime of it?

That is example of politician's trick of deliberate misinformation in the statement. To trick teens into thinking "being liable" has any financial assurance to it.

Government mandated lies they order doctors to tell to patients. I suppose that is 100% predictable for pro-life religious zealots because God says "LIE TO WOMEN, TELL ALL LIES NECESSARY TO GET WHAT YOU WANT" - as one of the 10 commandments.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

No. Not always. I could go thru the list of all the lies again, but some prolifer men generally just ignore facts they don't like and keep repeating false statements like religious chanting.

And again, being liable and paying aren't the same.

How many people win civil judgments of all kinds that the other person is liable - and never get a dime of it?

That is example of politician's trick of deliberate misinformation in the statement. To trick teens into thinking "being liable" has any financial assurance to it.

Government mandated lies they order doctors to tell to patients. I suppose that is 100% predictable for pro-life religious zealots because God says "LIE TO WOMEN, TELL ALL LIES NECESSARY TO GET WHAT YOU WANT" - as one of the 10 commandments.

Ok let me clarify, I was saying they are both required to pay. Wasn't meaning they actually do so, but that isn't actually the point. The point is, both of them are responsible no matter which has custody.

 

[JayDubya]

No, your message is the lie.

What you claim in the title is not in the text of the bill. You linked the bill. You didn't read it, obviously.