The Men’s Equality Choice Act.

The Law shall be titled: The Men’s Equality Choice Act.

Summary:  No man who does not choose to be a father shall have a child and fatherhood forced upon him, just as no women is forced to be a mother against her will. Women currently have all the reproductive options including making all the decisions for men.  No man shall be forced to pay in any way for a child of another man. Paternity tests shall be mandatory in any dispute.  A male of any age to whom it is made known he is or could be a potential father, shall have the choice of relinquishing forever all parental rights, responsibilities, and all financial obligations. The man or young man, shall have seven days upon learning of a pregnancy, birth, or child of any age, to which he is a party, to declare his reproductive, parental, custodial, or any other intentions in writing, notarized, and filed with a family court, with no questions or challenges allowed by any other party.  The woman or young woman then has the information to make her decisions.  Just as married women can have abortions without the consent of their husband, so married men can choose to separate any financial or parental responsibilities for children for whom they choose not to be a father.  Resulting divorces shall not be able to charge men for child support when they have declared within seven days of learning of a pregnancy, in writing, notarized, and filed with a family court, that they chose not to be father to that child.  No family intervention, court action or lawsuit, nor any other consequence shall be brought upon any male of any age making a reproductive life choice for themselves.  The “best interests of the child” doctrine is superseded by this Act when it violates the independent life choice of any father or potential father.

As long as we are a pro-choice country for women, it is criminal not to allow men and teenage boys exactly the same rights and options, so we have to be a pro-choice country for men. What we can not allow any further, is that women can make the choice FOR men, because no one has the right to force parenthood on someone else. Her body, her choice – His life, his choice.  Pro-life future actions should apply equally to both men and women as appropriate.

The guiding principles of this law shall be:  No person may make a decision for another person.  No person may force another person to pay, support, give time, work, take part in any family or symbolic family event, or participate in any way they choose not to, because of the result of any decision or choice made by the original person.  No man may make a reproductive decision for a woman.  No woman shall make a life altering choice for a man.  Everyone is fully and independently responsible, in all matters, for the decisions and choices they make, and may make no claim, of any kind, on another.

Obviously there are problems with teenagers or younger and some parental supervision and guidance should be understood to be taking place.  But we live in a time where physical biology comes before an understanding of law, parenthood, good life choices, influence of peers, family, teachers, authority figures, societal pressure, and other factors.  Therefore special consideration in this law shall be given to the youngest of parents as we craft this law.

The problem with the philosophy and legal conditions of being pro-choice in law, is that it is only pro-choice for women.  In reality, it is pro-choice x 3. Let me explain.  Pro-choice x1 – this is the woman who has all the choice over herself. Her body, I understand and accept that. And if that were the full extent of the reproduction issue, we probably wouldn’t have an issue. But it is more complicated than that. Which brings us to Pro-choice x 2. This is where the woman once pregnant has full choice over the man whether he becomes a father when he would choose for himself not to, or to not be a father when he would choose to. She also has the choice to secure 18 or more years of child support from the man, who may never even have the child in his life, or never wanted a child in the first place, if given the choice. So now the woman is pro-choice over the man’s fatherhood, and pro-choice over his finances, where the man has no choice over either. And that brings us to Pro-choice x 3 – the baby. Whether you view it as a fertilized egg, the liberal view, or human life on conception, the conservative view, the fact is that you have a potential human. or already human. If not human life, with all the genetic material for independent human life, then what? I can’t answer that question for everyone. But, the woman, who has choice over herself, x 1, and over the man, x 2, also has a life and death choice over the fertilized egg / human baby, which is pro-choice x 3. So if a woman is pro-choice, she is saying that she is pro-choice with the power over herself, whether a man will be a father or not, whether a man has control of 18 or more years of support money or not, and whether a baby will be born and grow potentially to adulthood, or be aborted and killed. My question is whether any one person should have all the choices, and therefore all the power, of money, parenthood, life and death, for all the people involved? Pro-choice x 3.  The answer is obviously no.

The “best interests of the child” doctrine is superseded by this Act.

The reason is because it takes away power from the man, or young man, every bit as much as the current laws on reproduction and child support.  Family courts use this doctrine to empower women, give primary custody to women with the assumption that women are better parents, award women with the house, property, finances, cars, and child support, all while divorcing men from their children yet holding them still financially responsible, but not able to participate as an equal parent.  Family courts give all the options and choices to women, all the power over men, and even rule that men have to pay for children that are not theirs.  For boys as young as 11 who are rape victims (made to penetrate)  and sexual assault from women in their 20’s and 30’s, usually their teachers, are condemned by courts to pay for children that result from any such criminal act by the adult woman, for something they could not legally consent to, even if they say they wanted to.  It is simply too easy to coerce, confuse, pour on the guilt, fake love, and manipulate a minor male as young as 11 or 12.

Regarding the “best interests of the child.”  This shall be determined AFTER the man, the father, or whatever category the male falls into, has made their choices and decisions.  No court can interfere, change, revoke, violate, modify, influence, or have any impact whatsoever on the reproductive and life choices and decisions of men, regardless of their marital or other status.  Family Courts shall only be able to exercise the “best interests of the child” doctrine after a father has willingly accepted parental rights and responsibilities they were of age to make, and only to the extent that an equal burden, equal property distribution and control, equal employment consequence, and equal financial impact, is placed on the mother.  No parent shall suffer any inequity or inequality no matter what any Family Court or judge may desire.  Since we burden adults fully for their decisions and choices, we can not as a society burden them for things they specifically did not choose or decide.  Adults are sovereign.  Courts can not violate this to be activist or enforce whatever is on their particular agenda or convenience.  Joint custody shall be the assumption, unless it would result in actual harm to the children.  The courts shall presume that fathers and mothers have equal standing in Family Court, and no favor shall be granted either parent, nor presumption made, and appeals can be made to any decision of Family Court.

14th Amendment Equal Protection/Privileges and Immunities/Due Process of the Laws.  Pro-choice reproductive decisions can not extend only to women.

The basis of this law and equality for men is enshrined in the the 14th Amendment.   The 14th Amendment, Section 1.  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The relevant sections for the Men’s Equality Choice Act begin with “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.  Family Courts are an organ of the states, therefore this clause enforces that state family courts shall not deny, nor treat differently, men from women, as that would abridge the privileges and immunities of men.  The clause “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” guarantees that no state or state family court shall deny a man, or young man, his right to make his own life choices, financial choices, and parental choices.  One could question whether depriving a person of life extends to the life they create?  In other words, could a life created by a man be determined to be part of his life, and then constitutionally part of his rights under the 14th Amendment.  Such a determination would forever change family law and family court decisions.  Women can not be deprived of any life they create.  And since this law guarantees equal treatment under law, this is a case that could be made.  States may not deprive any man of “liberty.”  This includes the liberty of parental, life and financial choices and obligations, for fatherhood certainly is a change in liberty.  “Property” would include financial resources, child support, and all property accumulated by a man at his point in life.  No court, nor decision of anyone shall deprive a man of his property resulting from any decision or choice he did not personally make for himself.  Due process of law shall be changed in regulation, and judicial decision, to fully implement this law.  “Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  This guarantees that in all matters, equal protection shall extend to men and women, such that no one has any advantage or unequal position, in any matter whether personal decisions, or force of law, regulation, or judicial action.

For a discussion of this issue, please see this article:  https://www.salon.com/2000/10/19/mens_choice/

Please follow and like us:

3 comments

  1. Jean Paulsen says:

    I am a 34 year old, single woman, and I agree. Please change the title to “The Men & Women’s Equality Act.” People should not live in fear from sex. 90% of the world performs sex once in their life. Sex is a blessing; it bring people together in love. It should never shackle couples with grief and financial burdens. There is enough misery in the world without forced slavery.

    How do I know? People allowed millions of Irish babies to starve, in the name of God, during the Potato famines. So, nobody lay that “pious holier-than-thou” pro-life rant on me. I’m part Irish-American and duel Christian-Taoist. If you are pro-life, adopt a single, pregnant mom…and not just her kid, because she is abandoned by her man, God, and people like you.

    If you talk the talk, then walk the walk.

    1. Greg Penglis ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

      Did you read the bill? Because your comment, although interesting and covering of many subjects, it is not relevant to my legislation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *