Bill Would Grant Biological Fathers Veto Power Over Abortion - Granite Grok

Bill Would Grant Biological Fathers Veto Power Over Abortion

fetus, baby. life

I’m betting that newly elected NH State Rep Edward “Ned” Gordon(R) (currently the Chair of the Judiciary Committee; who knows if it will become “former” after tomorrow’s Leadership meeting) would be in favor of this given that he threw in with the Democrats in voting against every Pro-Life bill and aborted them all.

Except, there was no blood and guts to clean up afterward – but there will be a political cleaning up in one way or another. I’m also betting that current RepublicanHouse Speaker Sherm Packard is going to end up with some of that on his suit (and definitely on his reputation for knowingly placing Ned Gordon in charge of that Committee). But I digress, if only a bit.

The Left has twisted the meaning and use of sex for decades. This whole thing about “My Body, my choice,” the idea of “Body autonomy,” has been used to effectively reduce the guy in all this to merely a sperm donor but a baby supporter.

It’s all about the woman and what she desires before, during, and after the creation of that baby. It’s the archetype of Progressivism – no thought for the before, only be in the moment, and if it ends up with a “bad” consequence (as Obama once said about one of his girls), no worries, Daddy Government will make it all better via the use of laws and tax monies.

In this time of Equality and “Equity,” it exposes how biased the Left is about this topic where only ONE of the three ‘participants” has the ability to make all the decisions (reformatted, emphasis mine):

Tennessee bill would grant biological fathers veto power over abortion

Tennessee lawmakers have proposed a bill that would enable a biological father to stop a woman from getting an abortion. Republican state Sen. Mark Pody introduced SB0494 on Feb. 8 that calls for:

As introduced, permits a person to petition a court for an injunction to prohibit a woman who is pregnant with the person’s unborn child from obtaining an abortion; requires the petitioner to execute a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity that is not subject to being rescinded or challenged. Once the injunction is issued, the court must hold a hearing with both parties within 14 days, The Hill reported. Should the woman violate the injunction and get an abortion, “The court may hold the respondent in civil or criminal contempt and punish the respondent in accordance with the law.”

About freaking time that the Law starts to recognize that a man is personally invested in the act that created that baby as well as the mom. In this, the Law has been entirely biased and discriminatory for decades. Hey, “discriminatory” – isn’t it the case that the Democrats are supposed to be the Party against discrimination? Yet, there they are on this issue – Ned Gordon included. And this Law makes it stick

“The voluntary acknowledgement of paternity may be executed without the signature of the child’s mother,” the bill states. “The voluntary acknowledgement of paternity must be proven by filing a certified copy with the court.”

A judge could grant the petition as long as the petitioner proves he’s the biological father of an unborn child and there is a “reasonable possibility” that the woman would seek an abortion, according to USA Today. The alleged father does not need to “provide DNA evidence to prove that the petitioner is the biological father of the respondent’s unborn child,” according to the bill.  “If the woman acknowledges the petitioner’s fatherhood, no DNA evidence would be required,” Pody said.

And any man that instigates such action is acknowledging their personal responsibility in and of the act:

Pody noted that any man who claims to be the father would then be responsible for child support and other parental obligations. The man would not be able to rescind or challenge the paternity of the child after the birth of the child. “He can’t turn around under any circumstance and say, ‘I was wrong, and it’s not mine,'” Pody explained.

And add this as well:

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) signed a heartbeat bill into law last July that banned abortions at the detection of a heartbeat. Lee called signing the new law a “historic moment,” adding that the legislation is “arguably the most conservative, pro-life legislation in the country….It’s our responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our community,” Lee said at the time. “Certainly the most vulnerable in Tennessee includes the unborn, which is why with the signature of this bill, Tennessee is one of the most pro-life states in America.”

The Democrats, and now Ned Gordon, are always kvetching that this identity group, and then the next one, are always “vulnerable” and must be protected.

It has taken Republicans in Tennesse to really recognizing the real “vulnerables” in society – NH Republicans, not so much. No, that’s wrong – not at all. How’s that “representing” working out for all those that put such prohibitions in the NH GOP Platform?

Both Sherm Packard and Ned Gordon, with those votes in Committee, have just transformed the NH GOP from being Pro-live to be Democrat-lite again and in one of the most important issues to those that are Republican or Republican-leaning – the life of a new baby. Is this the Legacy of Packard in the making? After all, he appointed Gordon, right? So, how does this enhance the Brand of the NH GOP?

Do I really have to even give you the answer? I bet that former NH GOP Committeeman Steve “I give to Planned Parenthood to compete against Republicans” Duprey (who showed great disdain for the NH GOP Platform) would be approving.

(H/T: The Blaze)

>