Doctor Proposes $50,000 Impregnation Fine to End Abortion


We’ve seen a lot of “men’s health” laws get proposed recently as an answer to the ceaseless bills that seek to limit woman’s rights. Now, here is yet another proposal to try to limit unintended pregnancies… and it’s drastic.

The Standard Examiner reports that a local doctor in Utah has written three-page proposal to fine every father who impregnates a woman or girl, saying the fee — and the subsequent penalties — ensures, “No boy would dare have sex without wearing three condoms.”

The consequences?

  • Restrict elective abortion to the first 16 weeks.
  • Require DNA testing to determine paternity of all out-of-wedlock children, even aborted.
  • Require the father to establish a $50,000 trust fund to care for any out-of-wedlock child, even if adopted. If the child is aborted, the fund is used for sex education.
  • If the father can’t pay, he joins the military and uses his enlistment bonus and salary to pay.
  • No man can avoid paternity claiming “she seduced me,” or that she claimed she was on the pill, had her tubes tied, whatever.
  • Man under 18? His parents are responsible.

Pipe dream? Of course.  But still fun.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • veggietart

    One big problem with this is that contraception is imperfect and people do use it imperfectly.    I’m all for making men responsible as well, but  this really is drastic.

  • jen-r

    “No boy would dare have sex without wearing three condoms.”

     

    Which, ironically, would greatly increase the chance of condom failure.

  • bj-survivor

    Since this has less than a snowball’s chance in hell of even coming up for consideration, I think it’s safe to just laugh. Remember, not a single law to restrict men’s sexual choices or hold them at all responsible for pregnancy has come to pass, not ever. Men’s personhood and right to live free from harassment for their sexual choices is never questioned, because they are indisputably persons.

  • progo35

    Actually, I like it. :)

  • progo35

    Repeat of above

  • kiddo

    Aren’t men on the hook already for support and upkeep of each child? Isn’t that bill substantially larger than $ 50,000? 

    Just what kind of a dunderhead is this doctor?

  • kiddo

    …hold them at all responsible for pregnancy…

     

    There are things known as child support payments which have been known to crop up. This is widely considered to be holding men responsible for pregnancy.

  • purplemistydez

    If men actually paid any support.  The court system doesn’t enforce child support orders enough.  Where do you think the phrase “dead beat dad” comes from? 

  • 26-world

    Pipe dream? Hardly. Most all the “consequences” here still manage to penalize and/or take choices away from women (and hit poor people the hardest). Until people let go of the “pipe dream” of zero abortions, we won’t have sound policy and women won’t truly have reproductive rights and true choice.

  • bj-survivor

    Nope, child support holds men responsible only for the children that are a result of pregnancy. They have never been under any obligation to support the woman during pregnancy. Men are responsible only for the actual, born children that result from their shooting their sperm into fertile women.

    Also, men can and do skip out on paying chld support or pay only a pittance, even when they knowingly and willingly created children with women they were once married to. This was the case with my own family and with many others.

    Statistically, a large percentage of non-custodial parents, whether men or women, don’t pay their court-ordered support.

  • michaeltuchman

    Child support is often too little, too late, and too poorly enforced. 

  • michaeltuchman

    [deleted - the poster below me said it much better than I could]