John Whitehead's Commentary
The Human Element in Abortion Politics
The case made headlines in the national news. Twenty-two-year-old Tanya Meyers, nine weeks pregnant, planned to abort her unborn child. Believing that he should have an equal say--or at least some say--in whether his unborn child lives or dies and declaring his intention to take responsibility for the child's welfare upon its birth, the child's father, 27-year-old John Stachokus, asked a Pennsylvania court to order his ex-girlfriend to carry the pregnancy to term.
To the consternation of women's rights groups nationwide, who championed Meyers' right to do with her body what she chooses, and to the delight of fathers' rights and pro-life groups, one Pennsylvania judge agreed to hear Stachokus' plea and put the abortion on hold temporarily.
The drama, however, was short-lived. Seven days later, Judge Michael T. Conahan lifted the hold and ruled that Meyers had a constitutional right to have an abortion. Conahan declared, "Neither an ex-boyfriend nor a fetus has standing to interfere with a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy." His decision seemed to echo what women's rights advocates have asserted for so long: that possession being nine-tenths of the law, men should have no say over what happens to their unborn baby simply because it resides in a woman's womb.
And many of the courts have interpreted the Constitution's 14th Amendment right to privacy that way also. For example, in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that married women do not have to notify their husbands or gain their consent to have an abortion. And a handful of court rulings since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision have reinforced the notion that although men play a critical role in the reproductive process, they have no rights or say in the outcome.
Perhaps this notion stems from the mistaken belief that all men care about is sowing their seed; beyond that, they couldn't care less about the children that might result. Yet I believe there are men who care about their children, men who choose to be involved in their children's lives, who want an equal say in what happens to those children--especially in a decision about whether they live or die.
Stachokus seemed to care. He cared so much that he turned to the courts for help. In legal papers filed with a Pennsylvania court, he stated, "My preborn child at this moment is a living being who can feel and respond to pain, whose heart beats, who moves in Tanya's womb, who has brain activity and fully functional organ systems. He or she is a living being." He claimed that he and Meyers had even discussed what to name the child and had selected godparents.
As Dianna Thompson, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, stated, "We talk about fathers negatively so often, about how they don't want to be responsible for their children, and this guy is doing everything he can to be sure his unborn child isn't aborted. Men's rights are trampled on all the time when it comes to reproductive rights."
For Stachokus, caught in the ultimate double standard in the reproductive rights game, it is a travesty and a tragedy that he will be forced to stand by helplessly as his child is killed simply because its mother chooses not to carry it to term. Had Meyers chosen to have the child against Stachokus' wishes, he would have been required to pay child support and contribute to the child's welfare in a number of ways.
Perhaps we're all to blame for this sad state of affairs because we have politicized the issues. We've politicized abortion. We've politicized religion. We've even politicized love. But this case is not about politics. It's not about a woman's constitutional right to choose--or a moral/religious right to life. It's not about whether the National Organization for Women can chalk up one more victory for their side. It's not about whether the pro-life movement can find a chink in the armor of abortion laws. And it's certainly not about one man trying to impose his will on a woman.
What this case is about is one woman and one man who once loved each other enough to create a child. That their relationship disintegrated to such an extent that Tanya Meyers wanted to have an abortion and wipe the slate clean is tragedy enough. But after the cameras have stopped filming and the politicians have stopped talking in soundbites, it's Tanya Meyers, John Stachokus and their unborn child who are the real victims here.
So if we must grieve for anyone--or anything--let it be for those three and others like them. In every way possible, they are the ones who have truly lost in this high-stakes game of abortion politics.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
To the consternation of women's rights groups nationwide, who championed Meyers' right to do with her body what she chooses, and to the delight of fathers' rights and pro-life groups, one Pennsylvania judge agreed to hear Stachokus' plea and put the abortion on hold temporarily.
The drama, however, was short-lived. Seven days later, Judge Michael T. Conahan lifted the hold and ruled that Meyers had a constitutional right to have an abortion. Conahan declared, "Neither an ex-boyfriend nor a fetus has standing to interfere with a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy." His decision seemed to echo what women's rights advocates have asserted for so long: that possession being nine-tenths of the law, men should have no say over what happens to their unborn baby simply because it resides in a woman's womb.
And many of the courts have interpreted the Constitution's 14th Amendment right to privacy that way also. For example, in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that married women do not have to notify their husbands or gain their consent to have an abortion. And a handful of court rulings since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision have reinforced the notion that although men play a critical role in the reproductive process, they have no rights or say in the outcome.
Perhaps this notion stems from the mistaken belief that all men care about is sowing their seed; beyond that, they couldn't care less about the children that might result. Yet I believe there are men who care about their children, men who choose to be involved in their children's lives, who want an equal say in what happens to those children--especially in a decision about whether they live or die.
Stachokus seemed to care. He cared so much that he turned to the courts for help. In legal papers filed with a Pennsylvania court, he stated, "My preborn child at this moment is a living being who can feel and respond to pain, whose heart beats, who moves in Tanya's womb, who has brain activity and fully functional organ systems. He or she is a living being." He claimed that he and Meyers had even discussed what to name the child and had selected godparents.
As Dianna Thompson, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, stated, "We talk about fathers negatively so often, about how they don't want to be responsible for their children, and this guy is doing everything he can to be sure his unborn child isn't aborted. Men's rights are trampled on all the time when it comes to reproductive rights."
For Stachokus, caught in the ultimate double standard in the reproductive rights game, it is a travesty and a tragedy that he will be forced to stand by helplessly as his child is killed simply because its mother chooses not to carry it to term. Had Meyers chosen to have the child against Stachokus' wishes, he would have been required to pay child support and contribute to the child's welfare in a number of ways.
Perhaps we're all to blame for this sad state of affairs because we have politicized the issues. We've politicized abortion. We've politicized religion. We've even politicized love. But this case is not about politics. It's not about a woman's constitutional right to choose--or a moral/religious right to life. It's not about whether the National Organization for Women can chalk up one more victory for their side. It's not about whether the pro-life movement can find a chink in the armor of abortion laws. And it's certainly not about one man trying to impose his will on a woman.
What this case is about is one woman and one man who once loved each other enough to create a child. That their relationship disintegrated to such an extent that Tanya Meyers wanted to have an abortion and wipe the slate clean is tragedy enough. But after the cameras have stopped filming and the politicians have stopped talking in soundbites, it's Tanya Meyers, John Stachokus and their unborn child who are the real victims here.
So if we must grieve for anyone--or anything--let it be for those three and others like them. In every way possible, they are the ones who have truly lost in this high-stakes game of abortion politics.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
