I don't know how this works in Texas but apparently an alleged father whose partner went to Colorado for an abortion has asked a Texas court for authority to conduct discovery in order to sue everyone for damages who may have assisted the woman to get her abortion. Texas passed this "private right of action" a few years ago pre Dobbs. What makes this case interesting to me is that it's an attack on free speech, free association, and free movement between states. It also looks like an invalid attempt by Texas to impose its law extra-territorially. Texas is famous for that. Remember the 2020 election suit? I have a pretty good idea how it should work out but at this point, who knows.
It will be interesting. Ken Paxton is probably very excited and wondering how he can get himself involved.
It is an interesting case. Where do the rights of a father of a child (fetus) begin and end. And then what about the responsibilities and so on. Not as easy as we might assume. When there is a case of adoption of an infant the law requires (at least in the state I am aware of) that the adoption agency make good faith efforts to notify the father. Of course, many mothers simply claim they don't know who the father is.
IMHO, it's the woman's body and her call. I don't know the details of this case but if they are not married then he has even less say in the matter. Although as Garp mentions, if the baby is being put up for adoption then it is a different situation.
It is interesting. Depends how we interpret the rights of the child/fetus (often even has a different blood type than the mother). Under the scenario you mention, if a woman chooses to carry the child to terms and it's her choice, couldn't a man say he didn't want the child, took reasonable steps to avoid pregnancy, and she made a decision he disagreed with. Therefore, he might argue he shouldn't have to pay medical expenses or shoulder an 18 year financial burden. Her choice her problem.
This is older established law that I don't believe was impacted by the more recent Dobbs decision. I assume different states have different laws but generally I assume the most common law is that the father can get joint custody and if he has a greater income then has to pay child support.
It is one of the things that fascinates me about the law (sorting out all of the complex relationships, rights, and responsibilities). Or trying to sort them out. Often a work in progress.
I think if the case will generate a lot of interest. This may in a way to affect some people's decision to travel out of state for the procedure, because they may want to avoid being sued and have to deal with courts? Same for clinics/clinicians out of state of TX, if they are sued and have to defend their actions. Will the case be appealed to higher courts? Also, if the Alleged Father of the aborted fetus looses the case, this will set a precedent, yet the non TX clinics may feel intimidated and have lower priority in accepting patients from TX?
I see. So there ARE consequences to engaging in sex. And they impact a life with often different blood type (differentiated from the mother). And a life that feels pain (as early as first trimester according to some studies).
Based on the overwhelming percentage of citizens that believe women should have access to abortion, I suspect that eventually it will once again be the law of the land. Keeping that in mind, perhaps in the future with the advance of medicine doctors may be able grow a few weeks old fetus to full term. At that point then you can save those unwanted fetuses, pay the probably $100,000's in medical costs, and then adopt the child. I suspect you would probably only have to adopt less than a few dozen babies so that they all have families. Then perhaps both sides can be satisfied?
An overwhelming percentage of citizens supporting something is not necessarily a good thing nor does it commend it to anybody. We can think in terms of slavery as an institution or certain activities in Nazi Germany. Ethics is a much more complicated matter. Plus I have developed less confidence in the average American voter. All I need to do is to look at the candidates for the two main political parties in the United States and that speaks volumes.
The problem is that the will of the electorate is all we have to go on. Our system was designed that way; it's why the Preamble says "We the People". Our Constitution does restrict the power of the people in an immediate sense but even the Constitution was adopted by the people and can be amended or replaced by the people. There is no other source of sovereign authority. But We the People
