Roe v. Wade for Men (TM) is neither Roe v. Wade, nor for men
Calgary Herald, Ben Li, Monday, March 20, 2006
The National Center For Men's clumsy attempt to mischaracterize a financial debate as a question of reproductive rights has suckered too many interested parties into choosing from among irrelevant positions.
First, this is not a case about reproductive rights. The reproduction in question happened more than three trimesters ago and no court or piece of legislation can change the biological fact that the litigant contributed half of the infant's DNA. The American legal system already has a mechanism for transferring parenthood known as "adoption". (Also, this suit is not asking for men to gain the right to reproduce, an entirely different issue.)
Second, this is not a case about abortion. No one disagrees that the infant has been alive since 2005. The argument that "A man must choose to be a father in the same way that a woman chooses to be a mother" a la Roe v. Wade implicitly demands rights fathers to abort fetuses, which the father does not seek.
Third, this is not a case about equal protection. No legislation currently prevents men from reconfiguring their bodies to exclude the presence of a fetus. The current legislation is congruent with the almost universally accepted interpretation that one's personal rights do not extend into another person's body.
Finally, this is not a case about the natural rights of the born, unborn or adult person. The lawsuit does not seek to establish the right for the father or mother not to have the child in question. The suit's explicit goal is to change the legal and economic framework under which fathers, mothers and children can interact when a parent makes a mistake: "The state of Michigan is seeking to force Matt to pay child support for a child he never intended to bring into this world."
But then again, a debate about tort reform or altering strictly parental rights and obligations in Michigan would be much less sexy for the headlines.
Calgary Herald 2006
Woman convicted of killing 3 kids after custody battle
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, USA, August 26, 2008
HELSINKI, Finland - A court in Finland has convicted a woman of murdering her three young children and has given her a life sentence.
The Espoo District Court says Thai-born Yu-Hsiu Fu was found guilty of strangling her 8-year-old twin daughters and 1-year-old son in her home.
She tried to kill herself afterward.
The verdict on Tuesday says the 41-year-old woman was found to be of sound mind at the time of the murders.
Court papers show the murders were preceded by a bitter custody battle with her Finnish husband who was living separately from her at the time of the murders.
A life sentence in Finland mean convicts usually serve at least 11 years in prison.
New Brunswick woman ruled responsible in burning of baby's body
ST. STEPHEN, N.B. - A New Brunswick judge says a woman who burned and dismembered her newborn son is criminally responsible for her actions.
Becky Sue Morrow earlier pleaded guilty to offering an indignity to a dead body and disposing of a newborn with the intent of concealing a delivery.
Judge David Walker ruled Friday that the 27-year-old woman may have been suffering from a mental disorder when she delivered the baby but that that was not the case when the baby's body was burned and its remains hidden.
It is not known if the baby was alive at the time of birth.
At a hearing last month, the court heard contrasting reports from the two psychiatrists. One said Ms. Morrow was in a "disassociated" mental state when the crime occurred. The other said she clearly planned her actions and understood the consequences.
Ontario woman convicted of son's starvation death granted full parole
Canadian Press
Wednesday, May. 22, 2002
KINGSTON, Ont. (CP) -- An Ontario woman who was sentenced to 16 years in prison in one of Canada's stiffest penalties for child abuse will be released on full parole after serving less than half her term.
Lorelei Turner, 38, and her husband Steven were convicted of manslaughter in July 1995 for beating and starving their three-year-old son John to death in a case that horrified Canadians who followed the trial.
But on Wednesday, a panel of the National Parole Board in this eastern Ontario city ruled Turner will be released but placed on probation until July 2011.
Until then, she must remain within 25 kilometres of her residence, is not allowed unsupervised contact with anyone under 16, and must continue to receive counselling.
"The board would have looked at the risk and obviously found a low risk to reoffend," Carol Sparling of the National Parole Board said Wednesday.
Woman who cut off her newborn son's private parts handed 5-year prison term
Mainichi Daily News, Sakai, Osaka, Japan, November 26, 2006
SAKAI, Osaka -- A woman accused of cutting off her newborn son's private parts in 2004 was ordered Monday to spend five years behind bars.
The Sakai branch of the Osaka District Court convicted Shizue Tamura, 27, a resident of Izumi, Osaka Prefecture, of inflicting bodily injury.
"The way she committed the crime was unprecedented, inhumane and cruel," Presiding Judge Masahiro Hosoi said as he handed down the ruling. Prosecutors had demanded an eight-year prison term. Read More ..