Today, January 22, many accross the nation will celebrate another anniversary of an event that they revere as significant to the American ideals of freedom and liberty, as the Fourth of July – the Supreme Court’s landmark “Roe vs. Wade” decision and it’s tenet of “freedom of choice”.
While the concept of “freedom of choice” is almost penumbral with the ideals of individual freedom and liberty, the Supreme Court, in reaching its decision in “Roe”, appeared to abandon the ideal of “Equal Justice Under the Law”, as inscribed on the portico of the Supreme Court building itself, and instead, handed down a decision that was more closely akin to the tyranny of “rule by decree”.
Just five days prior to “Roe”, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of “Gomez vs. Perez”. But, rather than being consistent with the principle of “freedom of choice”, the Court elected to rule contrary to the concept of “choice” by overturning existing state law that did not hold men responsible for children born by women to whom they were not married. In doing so, the Court may have engaged in something along the lines of the sinister, by delaying the “Roe” decision until after Gomez vs. Perez, so as to facilitate a politically correct definition of “freedom of choice”.
A Supreme Court case consists of two phases, the “argument” and the “decision”. A case is first argued before the Court and the decision is usually rendered four to six weeks later. The general rule for Supreme Court cases in 1972-73 found the arguments and decisions falling in chronological order. One of the few exceptions to the rule came in the cases of Roe vs. Wade and Gomez vs. Perez.
Roe vs. Wade was argued before the Court on Oct. 10, 1972 and, after an unusual length of fourteen weeks, was decided on Jan. 22, 1973. Gomez vs. Perez was argued before the Court on Dec. 6, 1972 and, in a timely manner, decided on Jan. 17, 1973.
Had the Supreme Court followed the chronological order of the cases heard, as was the rule, a problem would have presented itself for the Court to reach the desired decision in “Gomez”. How could the Supreme Court set a precedent that would deem a woman’s pregnancy to be autonomous and affirm the concept of “freedom of choice” through a “right of privacy”, and a week later render a decision that would assign an unmarried man a financial responsibility for that so-called “autonomous” and “private” concern? Obviously the answer was to delay the decision of Roe vs. Wade until after Gomez vs. Perez.
However, one cannot morally argue against the Court’s ruling in Gomez, being that couples who maintain a sustained relationship, even outside the institution of marriage, should not be allowed to abandon their partners upon the event that a child should be born within that relationship. The problem with Gomez vs. Perez, the Supreme Court ruling that states use to enforce child support laws on unmarried men, is that the law has evolved into a vehicle that is sometimes used to reap a veritable cornucopia of social welfare entitlements or a guaranteed percentage of a man’s personal wealth.
Nowhere in the arena of political discourse does there exist a more blatant example of hypocrisy than with the issue of “freedom of choice”.
A man cannot require his wife to bear his child to term, but a woman can require a man, with whom no relationship exists other than a consensual sexual encounter, to support a child that she “privately” chooses to have.
The argument most often used by those in support of the “agenda” is, “It takes two to make a baby”. Not only does that proclamation belie the premise of “privacy”, it also contradicts the ideological assertion that the only thing a man makes is an “unviable tissue mass”.
Thanks to Roe vs. Wade, it is the woman’s personal and private “choice” to cultivate that tissue mass into a living and breathing entity. If the woman has the right to excise that tissue mass from her reproductive system, without any regard for the wishes of the so-called biological father, then, to be consistent with the concept of “equal protection of the law”, a man should have the same right to disavow that tissue mass.
The legal theory that a biological father is obligated to provide support for an illegitimate child is founded on the premise that both parents have an obligation to provide support for a child or that a child has a “right” to support from it’s parents. These are false premises based on emotion rather than the rule of law.
First, a child does not have a “right” to support from its biological father because there is no such thing as an arbitrary right. Either a right exists or it doesn’t. There is no law that requires a birth mother to disclose the identity of the biological father of a child that she bears. The birth mother, if she so wishes, has the right to be the sole guardian of “her” child. Today, women often make the “choice” to become single mothers so as not to be encumbered with the presence of the biological father. Whenever a pop star, film actress or any other woman of fame and fortune makes the “choice” to have a child without revealing who the father is, she is applauded as a heroine for raising a child without the assistance of a man. In fact, single-parenthood has become such a viable option for women that a national organization exists to support those who choose to become single parents. The organization “Single Mothers by Choice” now has local chapters in over twenty cities across the nation. No, the only time that a child’s so-called “right” to support from it’s biological father is recognized, is when the birth mother wants financial assistance with the “choice” that she unilaterally made.
Second, whether a child is supported by its biological parents, is another arbitrary “choice” that is decided by the birth mother*. Even after the birth of a child, the birth mother still has the option to decline her parental responsibilities through the adoption process. After a birth mother gives up her child to adopting parents, she is free of any further responsibilities to her child regardless of the future hardships that may befall that child. Furthermore, many statges now, through what are euphamistically referred to as “safe haven” laws, allow women the opportunity to relinquish their unwanted newborns at specified locations on a no-questions-asked basis. *([SIZE=2]While technically the biological father must give consent to an adoption, in instances where no sustained relationship exists between the birth parents, it is the mother that makes the “choice”.)
Finally, while both parents supposedly have an obligation to support a child, in many cases the State will provide the birth mother’s part of the parental obligation with cash benefits, housing allowances, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. The State will then appropriate the biological father’s income and sanctimoniously chastise him about a parental obligation.
This exposes the true intent of child support in the instance of illegitimacy. While being sold as a bill of goods described as “what is in the child’s best interest”, child support payments are also designed to allow birth mothers, who have little or no education or job skills, the means of keeping the children that they choose to bring into the world without the benefit of marriage. Aiding the status quo, social service agencies operate under the theoretical agenda that a child is naturally better off with a biological parent, despite the almost daily evidence of children who would obviously fare much better with loving adoptive parents. Compounding the problem, the welfare entitlements and court ordered child support payments that come with an illegitimate child are offering some young ladies the opportunity for a lifestyle they otherwise could not afford. Meanwhile, America’s illegitimacy rate is among the highest, if not the highest, in the industrialized world and childless couples are relegated to searching overseas for adoptable children.
State legislatures and courts insist that child support payments are not to enrich a birth mother, but in practice, child support is considered to be a payment due to the birth mother. Sometimes birth mothers, especially in the instance of illegitimacy, wish to rid themselves of the presence of the biological father of a child. Usually the birth mother has entered into a romantic relationship with another man, and now finds the biological father to be an inconvenience. To get the biological father out of the picture, the birth mother will tell him that she no longer wants or needs his contribution to help raise “her” child. The birth mother may even sign an affidavit stating that she voluntarily assumes all responsibilities of support for her child, and releases the biological father from any further monetary obligation. Years may pass before the birth mother decides that she no longer wishes to abide by the agreement that she persuaded the biological father into and files charges of non-support against him. When these cases come to trial, Domestic Court Judges are prone to find these so-called “deadbeat dads” liable for all child support payments in arrearage, without any consideration of the signed affidavit initiated at the behest of the birth mother.
In an outright abandonment of logic, Domestic Court Judges, as a stipulation of child support, frequently assign all medical and dental expenses a child may incur to the non-custodial biological father, despite the fact that the health and welfare of a child is in direct correlation with the lifestyle and supervisory skills of the custodial parent.
Probably the most unjust and punitive aspect of child support law is the tax code. When using the “earned income tax credit”, which is nothing more than an additional government stipend offered to the “working poor” in the guise of a tax refund, a custodial parent can work part time, pay no federal income tax throughout the year, but yet receive a “tax refund” of a thousand dollars or more. On the other hand, an unmarried, noncustodial father, who is required to forfeit up to 25% of his take-home income for child support purposes, receives NO dependant tax deduction. This is a blatant violation of the “equal protection” clause of the Constitution.
It has been estimated that approximately 1.75 million conceptions occur annually due to contraceptive failure. Abortion rights activists insist that abortion remain a safe and legal procedure because a young woman should not have to suffer the consequences of having her life interrupted with an unplanned pregnancy. Should a failure of birth control or a “mistake” occur, the young woman should have the option to terminate her pregnancy for any reason. She may wish to continue her education, enter the job market or concentrate on her career. She may wish to travel, purchase a home or automobile, or just avoid the responsibilities of parenthood if she should so desire. However, the true agenda of the “pro-choice” movement is exposed when those who gallantly rush to the defense of a young lady facing an unplanned pregnancy, idly stand by while the same legislative and judicial systems, that recognize a constitutional tenet of “freedom of choice”, violate the concept of equal protection of the law by forcing an unmarried man into an eighteen to twenty-one year parental obligation.
While rape, incest and the health of the mother are the most publicly touted justifications for legalized abortion, the fact of the matter is that abortion is primarily used as a remedy for a “mistake” or a failure of birth control. The Supreme Court’s “Roe” ruling was a judicial exercise that enacted a provision to provide women with an opportunity to relieve themselves from the consequences of sexual intercourse. But, revealing the particularly odious hypocrisy that is inherent to the politics of feminism, unmarried men are vilified and forced, under the threat of incarceration, to be fully accountable for the consequences of sexual intercourse.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinions concerning the issue of abortion, it has to be acknowledged that a Supreme Court ruling has certain legal ramifications. As a result of the Roe vs. Wade decision, a woman’s pregnancy was determined to be autonomous and protected by a constitutional “right to privacy”. The Supreme Court ruled that it is solely a woman’s personal “choice” to either bring a child into the world, or to terminate a pregnancy without any regard for the wishes of the “biological father”.
Therefore, for child support laws to be consistent with the application of law that our system of jurisprudence demands, a certain relationship must exist between a birth mother and a biological father. If the birth mother has the legal means of a “contract” of marriage or an “implied contract” of a sustained relationship with the biological father of her child, only then should the law be applied to require that man to provide support for a child that is the result of that relationship. If a birth mother does not have the obligatory contract with the biological father, then that man should not be required to support a child that the birth mother unilaterally chooses to bring into the world. The only other scenario that would justify the application of child support law is if an adult male impregnates a girl under the age of consent.
For the State to require an individual, not bound by contract, to be financially responsible for a “private” concern of a second party, not only violates the rule of law, it violates the very essence of freedom, liberty and justice that America stands for.
Razorsharp[/SIZE]