Assuming you linked the bill you meant to, it does no such thing.
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!
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?
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?
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
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, your message is the lie.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?