host

You started a thread founded on your idea that you are compromising by not opposing a woman's right to choose, but you do insist on a law, presumably with criminal penalties for non-compliance, requiring a woman to make a timely notification to recent sex partners, of her knowledge of her own pregnancy.

It is not unheard of for a woman (or a man....) to have several sex partners in a period where each, for the sake of compliance with your law, could be a candidate for paternity in the newly confirmed pregnancy. Would the pregnant woman, to "preserve their rights", be required to also make each partner aware of the other?

I'm assuming that meeting the notification requirements of your law would be a pre-condition of abortion. That would be a "foot in the door", to make a woman jump through a "new hoop", to exercise a right, already in law, for the past 38 years.

I explained what happened in Aurora, with the medical clinic experiencing a delayed opening, while the anti- abortion "crowd", convinced a sympathetic judge to issue a temporary injunction to delay the clinic's opening on the grounds that zoning and permitting for the clinic's construction was obtained through deceit by Planned Parenthood, because they made their applications via a realty subsidiary that listed the use of the building as a "medical clinic", and not an "ABORTION MILL"!

You think your idea is fair and reasonable, a compromise. What are you offering in this "compromise"? I don't think you understand that all you are offering is a "foot in the door" for those opposed to legal abortion to interfere, in a new way, with a woman's right to obtain one.

Have you considered that "some people", men and women, engage in intercourse on impulse, without exchanging last names, or other contact info, or by supplying their sex partners with inaccurate contact information? What happens to women who become pregnant as a result of those circumstances?
What happens if contact details are accurate, but the male doesn't respond to confirm that notification requirements have been met, because he is unavailable, does not want to confirm a potential paternal obligation, or doesn't recognize or remember the name of the "vessel" carrying his newly minted progeny?

You want to argue fine points of privacy rights precedent, but details of your proposal for a law which is actually a hurdle, a waiting period, a disqualifier for some women to have what they have now, a right to a safe, legal, medical abortion, are extremely lacking. If you object to implementing new legal hurdles in the way of exercising other hard won rights, voting, protections from discrimination because of race, or sex, age, or disability, because of the potential for abuse, by authority or by agenda driven opponents, why would you call what you want impelemented, a "compromise"?

If you don't get what you want, are you going to work to try to make it illegal to obtain an abortion?

If this is really a fairness issue, why didn't you respond to my idea about working to change parental financial support laws, as they pertain to males?