# Break up with a pregnant woman in Michigan & go to jail! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713 "2006-12-03T18:17:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/1 "2006-12-03T18:17:22Z")
Pretty fascinating new law being proposed. Is this fair to men? [Bill assumes male guilt and opens door to unfair prosecutions.](http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061130/OPINION01/611300306/1008) > [@](#): > > House Bill 5882 creates the Coercive Abortion Prevention Act. Its purpose is to prohibit the putative father of a pregnant woman’s child from coercing or intimidating the woman into terminating her pregnancy. While preventing violence or threats of violence against pregnant women is an admirable goal, the proposal goes way beyond this by interfering with constitutionally protected personal prerogatives. > > The proposal actually makes it a crime for a man to “change or attempt to change an existing housing or cohabitation arrangement” with a pregnant significant other, to “file or attempt to file for a divorce” from his pregnant wife or to “withdraw or attempt to withdraw financial support” from a woman whom he has been supporting – if it is determined that the man is doing these things to try to pressure the woman to terminate her pregnancy. [The House Bill 5882 in pdf format](http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billengrossed/House/pdf/2006-HEBH-5882.pdf) It’s quite short, but the penalities being proposed are fascinating. [Bill in Html format](http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billengrossed/House/htm/2006-HEBH-5882.htm) ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2006, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/2 "2006-12-03T18:50:56Z")
Bit of a misleading title there. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2006, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/3 "2006-12-03T18:53:39Z")
Normally I find cries of ‘unfair to men’ to be based on flimsy reasoning, but this law says exactly what the newspaper article claims it says. Does anyone know whether the state has attempted to prosecute anyone under section 3(b), 3©, or 3(d)? I don’t imagine that 3(d) would stand up to a 15th amendment challenge. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2006, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/4 "2006-12-03T19:02:52Z")
[QUOTE=treis] Bit of a misleading title there. [/QUOTE] Have you read the bill? It’s not misleading at all. If you break up with a pregnant women predicate to her giving birth, and you go your separate financial way, you can be prosecuted, and put in jail. > [@](#): > > Text > > (a) Commit or attempt to commit an act proscribed under section 81, 81a, 83, 84, 86, or 411h against the pregnant female or a family or household member. > > (b) File or attempt to file for a divorce from the pregnant female. > > (c) Withdraw or attempt to withdraw financial support from the pregnant female that had previously been supplied or offered to the pregnant female. > > (d) Change or attempt to change an existing housing or cohabitation arrangement with the pregnant female. > > (e) Threaten to engage in conduct proscribed under subdivision (b), (c), or (d). ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2006, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/5 "2006-12-03T19:17:18Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] Does anyone know whether the state has attempted to prosecute anyone under section 3(b), 3(c), or 3(d)? [/QUOTE] No. You can’t prosecute someone under a bill. This is not yet passed into law. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2006, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/6 "2006-12-03T19:48:17Z")
[QUOTE=astro] Have you read the bill? It’s not misleading at all. If you break up with a pregnant women predicate to her giving birth, and you go your separate financial way, you can be prosecuted, and put in jail. [/QUOTE] Well if you cleverly neglect to quote the entire bill it seems that way. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/7 "2006-12-03T20:20:20Z")
[QUOTE=treis] Well if you cleverly neglect to quote the entire bill it seems that way. [/QUOTE] OK here’s the entire bill. The way I read it, (and please correct me if I am mis-interpreting it) if a man says, intimates, or makes statements that could be interpreted as " I do not want ot be a father, and I will not stay with you or support you if you decide to carry this pregnancy to term. If you do this I will break up with you." he could be prosecuted for “coercing” her to have an abortion. > [@](#): > > HB-5882, As Passed House, July 26, 2006 > 1. SUBSTITUTE FOR > HOUSE BILL NO. 5882 > A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitledv “The Michigan penal code,” (MCL 750.1 to 750.568) by adding section 15a. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT: Sec. 15a. > > (1) This section shall be known and may be cited as the “coercive abortion prevention act”. > > (2) As used in this section: > (a) “Compel a pregnant female to seek an abortion” means an act, attempted act, or threat to act by a person that is conditioned upon the pregnant female disregarding or refusing the person’s demand that she seek an abortion. > (b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of 2 or more separate noncontinuous acts evidencing a continuity of purpose. > (c) “Family or household member” means that term as defined in section 1 of 1978 PA 389, MCL 400.1501. > (d) “Threat” means 2 or more statements, or a course of conduct, by an individual that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the individual is likely to act in accordance with the statements or as implied by the course of conduct. Threat does not include constitutionally protected speech or any generalized statement regarding a lawful pregnancy option, including, but not limited to, an emotional expression by a family or household member of the pregnant female. > (e) “Unborn child” means a live human being in utero regardless of its gestational stage of development. > > (3) A person who has actual knowledge that a female individual is pregnant shall not do any of the following with the intent to compel a pregnant female to seek an abortion: > (a) Commit or attempt to commit an act proscribed under section 81, 81a, 83, 84, 86, or 411h against the pregnant female or a family or household member. > (b) File or attempt to file for a divorce from the pregnant female. > (c) Withdraw or attempt to withdraw financial support from the pregnant female that had previously been supplied or offered to the pregnant female. > (d) Change or attempt to change an existing housing or cohabitation arrangement with the pregnant female. > (e) Threaten to engage in conduct proscribed under subdivision (b), (c), or (d). > > (4) A person who violates this section is guilty of a crime or responsible for a state civil infraction as follows: > (a) For an act or attempt to act in violation of subsection (3)(a), the person is guilty of a crime punishable by the same penalty as for the violation of section 81, 81a, 83, 84, 86, or 411h. > (b) Except as provided in subdivision (d), for a violation of subsection (3)(b), (c), or (d), the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $2,000.00. > (c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), for a violation of subsection (3)(e), the person is responsibbe for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $1,000.00. > (d) If a violation of subsection (3)(b), (c), (d), or (e) is committed by the father or putative father of the unborn child against a pregnant female who is less than 18 years of age, and the father or putative father is 18 years of age or older, the father or putative father is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both. > > (5) Upon the request of the pregnant female, a law enforcement agency investigating a violation of this section shall notify the pregnant female not less than 24 hours before initially contacting the person alleged to have violated this section. > > (6) This section does not prohibit the person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any crime committed while violating this section. House Bill No. 5882 (H-4) as amended July 26, 2006 > > (7) The court may order that a term of imprisonment imposed for violating this section be served consecutively to a term of imprisonment imposed for any crime committed while violating this > section. > > (8) This section does not create a right to an abortion. > > (9) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a person shall not perform an abortion that is prohibited by law. [Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect October 1, > 2006. Enacting section 2. This amendatory act does not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 93rd Legislature are enacted into law: > (a) House Bill No. 5879. > (b) House Bill No. 5880. > (c) House Bill No. 5881. > (d) House Bill No. 5883.] ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2006, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/8 "2006-12-03T20:48:11Z")
[QUOTE=treis] Well if you cleverly neglect to quote the entire bill it seems that way. [/QUOTE] _Cleverly_? Are you insinuating that astro intentionally didn’t quote the part of the bill referring to jail time, and that was _clever_ on his part because he intended to fool you into posting that his title was misleading? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2006, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/9 "2006-12-03T21:36:20Z")
[QUOTE=astro] OK here’s the entire bill. The way I read it, (and please correct me if I am mis-interpreting it) if a man says, intimates, or makes statements that could be interpreted as " I do not want ot be a father, and I will not stay with you or support you if you decide to carry this pregnancy to term. If you do this I will break up with you." he could be prosecuted for “coercing” her to have an abortion. [/QUOTE] Which, of course, is a bit different than going to jail for simply breaking up with a pregnant women. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2006, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/10 "2006-12-03T22:42:04Z")
[QUOTE=treis] Which, of course, is a bit different than going to jail for simply breaking up with a pregnant women. [/QUOTE] True. If you meant that astro cleverly titled his thread to be provocative and grab attention by having us believe, before reading further, that one can go to jail merely for breaking up with a pregnant woman, it does seem that way. ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2006, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/11 "2006-12-03T23:42:52Z")
The very last line says, “This amendatory act does not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 93rd Legislature are enacted into law: (a) House Bill No. 5879. (b) House Bill No. 5880. © House Bill No. 5881. (d) House Bill No. 5883.” Do any of you Michigan folks know what these other bills are? This seems like a very broad-brush bill that could end up doing more than it intends. Does it have any chance of becoming law? ---
**Author:** ![ReuvenB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@ReuvenB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ReuvenB)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2006, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/12 "2006-12-03T23:47:58Z")
It seems to me that this bill could lead to an actual use of the third amendment (have we ever had one of those before?) if said pregnant female was serving in the armed forces. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2006, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/13 "2006-12-03T23:51:38Z")
So, if this bill makes it to law, will they drop charges or expunge the records of husbands they prosecuted if it is proven that the child is not the husband’s child? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/14 "2006-12-04T00:14:29Z")
[QUOTE=Zabali\_Clawbane] So, if this bill makes it to law, will they drop charges or expunge the records of husbands they prosecuted if it is proven that the child is not the husband’s child? 😕 [/QUOTE] No. The law is clearly aimed at _anyone_ who tries to coerce a woman to abort a pregnancy against her will. If, for example, the woman’s mother tried to force her daughter to get an abortion by threatening to kick her out, she can be prosecuted under this bill, if it is passed into law as is. Excepting section 4(d), paternity is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/15 "2006-12-04T00:19:13Z")
Well, if the man knows he didn’t have sex with his wife at the time she fell pregnant, and decides to move out and file for divorce, would he face prosecution if she is then torn between letting him go, or keeping the baby? What if he won’t be back even _if_ she gets an abortion, but she doesn’t realize it? Will he still be prosecuted uner this law? Yeah, big scenario, but I could see it playing out that way more than once. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/16 "2006-12-04T00:31:04Z")
No, he’s perfectly free to leave. What he _can’t_ do is to try to force her to have an abortion by saying “if you do, I’ll stay”, or somesuch. The same goes, in fact, even if he IS the father of the unborn child. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/17 "2006-12-04T01:15:31Z")
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.] No, he’s perfectly free to leave. What he _can’t_ do is to try to force her to have an abortion by saying “if you do, I’ll stay”, or somesuch. The same goes, in fact, even if he IS the father of the unborn child. [/QUOTE] Suppose the man wanted the woman to have an abortion. They fight about it. They break up. There’s a big difference between that and coercion, but I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be in the position of having to prove as much in court. It would come down to one person’s word against another’s. Pretty silly and unenforceable law. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/18 "2006-12-04T01:22:25Z")
Which is the point I was trying to make. I can see it coming down to “he said, she said” pretty often, with the courts erring on the side of male wrongdoing. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/19 "2006-12-04T01:26:17Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Pretty fascinating new law being proposed. Is this fair to men? Is it even fair to women? According to [MARAL Pro-Choice Michigan](http://www.prochoicemichigan.org/s04politicalupdates/legupdates.shtml), a reproductive-rights organization which opposes the bill, > [@](#): > > House Bill 5879, House Bill 5880, House Bill 5881, House Bill 5882, and House Bill 5883 are a package of bills, dubbed the “Coercive Abortion Prevention Act”, which seeks to require providers to “screen” all patients for any potential “coercive” behavior on the part of anyone in the patients life and mandates public notices in clinics stating that it is illegal to be coerced into having an abortion. If the patient is a minor, and indicates that someone has tried to “coerce” them to have an abortion, the provider most call child protective services. Additionally, anyone defined as exhibiting such “coercive” behavior would face possible criminal and civil penalties. > > Domestic violence groups also oppose these bills. Amendments to ensure women were not coerced out of having an abortion failed in the House Committee on Health Policy. The bill appears to be an attempt to effectively reduce access to abortion, masquerading as concern for women’s safety. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2006, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/break-up-with-a-pregnant-woman-in-michigan-go-to-jail/382713/20 "2006-12-04T04:58:32Z")
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.] No, he’s perfectly free to leave. What he _can’t_ do is to try to force her to have an abortion by saying “if you do, I’ll stay”, or somesuch. The same goes, in fact, even if he IS the father of the unborn child. [/QUOTE] It actually looks like you get one free shot at it.