In the counter to our column, Suanne Thompson, legislative liaison for Right to Life of Michigan, wrote:

"News stories report, 'Couple kidnaps pregnant daughter, drove to New York to force her to abort'; 'Mother forced pregnant 16-year-old daughter to drink turpentine to induce abortion'; and the latest, 'Arkansas man raped teen, forced her to have abortion.'

"These coerced abortions are a few of the most recent ones we know about. Forced abortions are at epidemic levels, yet are concealed in secrecy. This secret assault on women needs to be discouraged.

"Sixty-four percent of post-abortive women surveyed indicated they felt coerced to abort, having no choice but to comply with the wishes of others.

"Surprisingly, the No. 1 cause of death among pregnant women is homicide. Pregnant black women are seven times more likely to be murdered than pregnant white women. Often times the woman's refusal to abort precipitates the crime. Boyfriends, husbands, parents -- the very people who should protect the health and welfare of their pregnant spouse or daughter -- are the ones who selfishly demand the baby be eliminated.

"When women are threatened to abort, up to 80 percent feel guilt, regret, loss and depression afterward, especially if the coercion violated their conscience. They subsequently have shorter relationships, more divorces, live in poverty, repeat abortions, experience substance abuse and many more risk factors. There is a solution to this secret assault on women...

"After months of researching and evaluating numerous medical journal studies and thousands of personal testimonies, a package of bills has been written that makes it a crime to coerce a woman to abort her baby against her will.

"This legislation, known as the Coercive Abortion Prevention Act (CAPA), is sponsored by Michigan women legislators. It would give women the backing they need to stand up and say, 'You can't force me; it's against the law.'

"For those bullies who refuse to live up to this standard and continue to violate women, this law will identify perpetrators and bring them to justice. Abortion clinic personnel will screen every woman for coercion. If she identifies herself as being forced to abort, the clinic personnel will follow intervention protocols and develop a safety plan that may include a call to law enforcement or to a domestic violence shelter....

"This legislation is revolutionary first in the nation. This can also be a coming together of all factions who are interested in rescuing women from harm."

Read the full column here.

Several of Thompson's claims are questionable, to say the least. I would love to know more about the study where "Sixty-four percent of post-abortive women surveyed indicated they felt coerced to abort, having no choice but to comply with the wishes of others." Probably it was a self-selected survey where they took a group of women who feel they were victimized in relation to abortion, surveyed them, and then passed off the results as an indicator of how all women who have had an abortion feel.

The feminists do this all the time--for one example, see California NOW's Family Court Report 2002: Faulty Research, False Conclusions (Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, 7/11/02). In it I debunked a self-selected survey by the California branch of the National Organization for Women which they claimed showed that family courts were biased against women. California NOW didn't like my criticism, and complained about it in another report which they issued this October.

There are well over a million abortions a year, and have been for over three decades--do Thompson, Michigan Right to Life and their cothinkers really expect us to believe that in two-thirds of these cases the women only had the abortions because they "had no choice but to comply with the wishes" of the children's fathers? That's preposterous. The anti-male feminist left shifts all blame for gender-related problems onto men. Conservatives (or many of them) believe that abortion is wrong, so they try to shift the blame for abortion onto men.

Thompson claims "Surprisingly, the No. 1 cause of death among pregnant women is homicide." It's a "surprise" because it isn't true--see my next entry below for the details.

Thompson writes, "Pregnant black women are seven times more likely to be murdered than pregnant white women." Since black women are far more likely to be murdered in general than white women, it's hard to see what significance this statement is supposed to have. And women in general are vastly less likely to be murdered than men, the safest people of all being white women.

Thompson writes, "When women are threatened to abort, up to 80 percent feel guilt, regret, loss and depression afterward, especially if the coercion violated their conscience." Again, this is probably from a self-selected sample. And many women feel guilt or regrets over their abortions--I guess that's men's fault, too.

One of the main pillars of Thompson's castle is her claim--commonly made by misguided feminists and the mainstream media--that "the No. 1 cause of death among pregnant women is homicide." This claim got a big boost from the Washington Post and its affiliated papers in December of 2004 when it published a highly-publicized series of articles which detailed an alleged epidemic of maternal homicide by male intimates.

There are two main points to be said about this claim. One, death among pregnant women is very rare, so even a relatively small number of homicides of pregnant women could make it the top cause of death. Two, as best as one can tell, murder is not the top cause of death among pregnant women, and probably is not even close. In my column New Report on Maternal Homicide Crisis: Myth-Making and Manbashing (Lexington Herald-Leader, 1/3/05) I discussed the issue in more detail:

"'Pregnant women murdered at an alarming rate.' 'Killings of new, expectant mothers mount.' 'Many new or expectant mothers die violent deaths.' 'Violence trails expectant mothers.' 'Pregnant mothers often die of murder.'

"These headlines top a highly-publicized new series of articles by Donna St. George of the Washington Post. The series, which appeared in many major newspapers and media outlets this week, details an alleged epidemic of maternal homicide by male intimates.

"The series powerfully depicts the tragedies of murdered expectant or new mothers. The mother-to-be killed the day her mother ordered the cake for her baby shower. The pregnant 14 year-old murdered by her 14 year-old ex-boyfriend. The bank manager killed because she wouldn't convert to her husband's religion before their twins were born. However, despite the emotion, alarm bells and blaring headlines, the series fails to build the case that maternal homicide is an epidemic, is on the rise, or is even a significant social problem.

"According to the Post's numbers, there are about 100 documented murders of pregnant women in the United States each year. Yet according to the Centers for Disease Control, nearly four million women give birth each year. One out of 40,000 is not an epidemic. The Post  speculates that the true number could be significantly higher but also notes that 30% of these killings are not related to childbearing, but instead involve drug dealing, robberies, errant gunfire, or other causes. And some pregnant women are killed by other women, as in the recent Missouri murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnett by a woman who cut her live baby from her womb.

"St. George and others point to a Journal of the American Medical Association article which states that in Maryland a 'pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than to die of any other cause.' This sounds alarming until one considers that there are an average of eight murders of pregnant women each year in Maryland--alongside 75,000 live births.

"St. George also cites a study by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health which allegedly showed murder to be the biggest cause of death for pregnant women and new mothers. When this study was released the Boston Globe summarized its findings as follows:

"Murder is the leading cause of death for Massachusetts mothers in the 21-month period from when they become pregnant until their babies reach their first birthday, according to a state review that shows domestic violence today is more dangerous than medical complications from childbirth."

"However, when public health specialist Ned Holstein of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine examined the report, he found that murder was well down the list of alleged causes of maternal death. According to the study's own data, the leading causes of death of pregnant or recently-pregnant women over a 10-year period were Medical conditions (152), Motor vehicle accidents (21), Domestic violence homicides (20), other homicides (10), and Miscellaneous (29). The epidemic of domestic violence-related homicides sweeping Massachusetts consists of an average of two deaths per year.

"'The risk of murder by an intimate is extremely small, not an epidemic,' says Holstein, a physician who also heads Fathers and Families of Massachusetts. 'Although every death is tragic, murder of pregnant women simply does not rank as a significant public health problem.'

"St. George's article series expresses commendable concern about battery of pregnant women but errs in claiming a link between domestic violence and pregnancy. According to longtime domestic violence researcher Richard J. Gelles, co-author of Behind Closed Doors, 'to be pregnant alone doesn't put a woman at risk.'

"'Women between the ages of 20 and 34 suffer the highest rate of domestic violence, and that is also the most likely age to be pregnant,' he says. 'Age is driving the risk, not pregnancy'...

"St. George uses anecdote and emotion in place of facts and research in order to find a mythical crisis of maternal homicide. It is another example of how legitimate concern for battered women often devolves into an alarmist and anti-male view of domestic violence and gender relations."

Glenn Discusses the Coercive Abortion Prevention Act on the Nationally-Syndicated Lars Larson Show

Family law attorney Jeff Leving and I discussed our co-authored column Coercive Abortion Prevention Act Assumes Male Guilt, Opens Door to Unfair Prosecutions (Detroit News,11/30/06) on the nationally-syndicated Lars Larson Show on December 4.

On the Subject of Violating Men's Rights to Allegedly 'Protect' Women...

In a recent column Kofi's Legacy Misfires Wendy McElroy of iFeminists discusses the United Nations new Secretary-General's Study on Violence Against Women (SVAW). The SVAW suggests removing "obstacles" to eliminating violence against women. McElroy writes:

"[One] identified obstacle is 'privacy rights' - that is, 'legal doctrines protecting the privacy of the home and family' (e.g. Fourth Amendment guarantees in the Constitution). Such doctrines are accused of 'justifying' the failure of the State and society to intervene when violence is committed against women in the family.'

"Next, 'obstacles' should be overcome by instituting new policies at 'federal, state, provincial and local levels, as well as...the judiciary, legislature and executive.'

"A specific example of a policy change: when prosecuting cases of violence against women 'rules of evidence and procedure, should be conducted in a gender-sensitive manner to ensure that women are not 're-victimized'.' This means criminal trials should provide 'in-camera proceedings where appropriate.' Specifically, courtroom procedures should 'protect the privacy of victims' by 'allowing evidence to be given by video link or restricting [public] access to courtrooms.'

"These changes alone would overhaul American courtrooms. The right of an accused to face and directly question an accuser is a fundamental principle of Western jurisprudence; the presence of transparency is an effective check on judicial corruption. Presenting evidence by video link to a closed courtroom would eliminate both."

As I've commented before, to the radical feminist mind, all that stuff about due process, the presumption of innocence, the right to face your accuser, etc., is just a patriarchal scam designed by men so they can rape and abuse women without consequence. The SVAW is another example of this thinking.

According to the Associated Press story 7M in U.S. jails, on probation or parole:

"A record 7 million people -- or one in every 32 American adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, according to the Justice Department. Of those, 2.2 million were in prison or jail, an increase of 2.7 percent over the previous year, according to a report released Wednesday.

"More than 4.1 million people were on probation and 784,208 were on parole at the end of 2005. Prison releases are increasing, but admissions are increasing more."

Of course, even though this tragedy disproportionately affects men--particularly men of color--the author can't resist explaining why the problems is so bad for women, who make up all of 7% of the prison population:

"Men still far outnumber women in prisons and jails, but the female population is growing faster. Over the past year, the female population in state or federal prison increased 2.6 percent while the number of male inmates rose 1.9 percent. By year's end, 7 percent of all inmates were women. The gender figures do not include inmates in local jails.

"'Today's figures fail to capture incarceration's impact on the thousands of children left behind by mothers in prison,' Marc Mauer, the executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group supporting criminal justice reform, said in a statement. 'Misguided policies that create harsher sentences for nonviolent drug offenses are disproportionately responsible for the increasing rates of women in prisons and jails.'

"From 1995 to 2003, inmates in federal prison for drug offenses have accounted for 49 percent of total prison population growth."

I sympathize with women incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses, of course, but I see no reason to separate their situations from those of all of the (many more) men who are incarcerated for the same reasons.
 

Concerned about Financial Issues in Your Divorce?
If you're concerned about financial issues in your divorce, contact Jim DiGabriele of DiGabriele, McNulty & Co by email here or at 973-243-2600.

Los Angeles Dads--Free Legal Consultation on Your Case
If you are involved in a divorce, domestic violence, paternity, child custody or support case in the greater Los Angeles area, call Stephen A. Gershman to schedule your FREE initial one hour consultation at (888) 295-1756 or (818) 990-6505. Gershman is certified as a Specialist in Family Law by the Board of Legal Specialization of the State Bar of California. He is an experienced attorney, over 25 years, who will competently and aggressively defend you against unjust domestic violence restraining orders or unfair financial obligations. When Parental Alienation or custody is an issue, he will help you protect your relationship with your kids. www.losangelesfamilylawyer.com  

Michigan shared parenting advocates and the Michigan chapter of the National Organization for Women are squaring off over HB 5267, a Michigan shared parenting bill which will be heard by the House Families and Children Services Committee on December 6. Last week NOW issued an "Action Alert" against the bill. Michigan shared parenting groups, including Dads of Michigan, the American Coalition for Fathers & Children's Michigan affiliate, the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan, and others, are rallying support for the bill.

The contact information for the members of the House Families and Children Services Committee who will be deciding on HB 5267 next week are below--I suggest you call and write them. While letters from Michigan residents are best, letters from other states are also helpful.
 

The Case for HB 5267

Michigan NOW makes its case against shared parenting and HB 5267 here. I laid out the case in favor of HB 5267 and discussed many of NOW's criticisms in my co-authored column HB 5267 Will Help Michigan's Children of Divorce (Lansing State Journal, 5/28/06). Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, and I wrote:

"HB 5267 is primarily sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer (R-Horton), who has been joined by 10 other legislators. When parents cannot agree on custody arrangements, the bill instructs courts to order joint custody unless there is clear and convincing evidence that one of the parents is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for his or her child. A mediator will then help the parents draft a shared parenting plan based on each parent having substantially equal time with their children. The principle behind the bill is difficult to dispute--as long as both parents are fit and there are no extenuating circumstances, they should both share in parenting their children... 

"NOW claims that HB 5267 'places the interests of parents over the child's interests.' Yet when researchers have examined children of divorce, and studied and queried adult children of divorce, they've found that most prefer joint custody and shared parenting.

"For example, a study by psychologist Joan Kelly, published in the Family and Conciliation Courts Review, found that children of divorce 'express higher levels of satisfaction with joint physical custody than with sole custody arrangements,' and cite the 'benefit of remaining close to both parents' as an important factor.

"When Arizona State University psychology professor William Fabricius conducted a study of college students who had experienced their parents' divorces while they were children, he found that over two-thirds believed that 'living equal amounts of time with each parent is the best arrangement for children.' His findings were published in Family Relations in 2003.

"Under current law, judges decide custody cases based on the 12 factors delineated in Michigan's Best Interest of the Child Test. Both the Michigan Bar and Michigan NOW assure us that this system is effective and should not be changed. However, the 12 factors fail to place sufficient emphasis on protecting children's relationships with both parents. According to the Michigan Family Independence Agency, the most common parenting time schedule in Michigan allows children only 15% physical time with their noncustodial parents.

"Moreover, the custody decisions based on the factors are often subjective and arbitrary. Under HB 5267 a court cannot deny requests for joint custody without stating its reasons on the record.

"Michigan NOW also asserts that HB 5267 will 'further impoverish children of separated or divorced parents' because in Michigan, as in most states, the amount of physical time divorced parents spend with their children and the concomitant expenses are calculated into the child support obligation. These fears are also unwarranted.

"Research demonstrates that joint custody leads to higher rates of child support compliance. This isn't surprising, since parents who are permitted little role in their children's lives have less motivation to make sacrifices for them. Also, under the current system noncustodial parents are often forced to wage expensive court battles in order to protect their time and relationships with their children. These parents end up supporting lawyers instead of kids.

"While Michigan NOW is correct that there are fathers who put their pocketbooks above their children's best interests, they ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 40 or 50% physical time with his children simply to lower his child support obligation, doesn't it also hold that a mother may seek 85% physical time in order to increase it?

"Both Domestic Violence Escape and NOW claim that the bill will put abused women in harm's way. According to DOVE, HB 5267 'sends a clear message to battered women and children that the 'rights' of a batterer take precedence over their safety and wellbeing.' Yet under HB 5267 only fit parents are eligible for joint custody--battered mothers should and would receive sole custody.

"Unfortunately, NOW, DOVE and other misguided women's advocates seem capable of recognizing only two types of divorces--ones where both spouses agree on a custody arrangement, and divorces involving domestic violence. However, the overwhelming majority of breakups fit neither profile. Instead, decent, fit parents often cannot agree on custody. In such cases, HB 5267 will ensure that children won't see one of the two people they love the most pushed to the margins of their lives."

More on HB 5267

Dr. Michael T. Ross of the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan has some interesting and informative links on HB 5267, including much opposition commentary, below:

HB 5267 as Introduced
HB 5267 Legislative Analysis
Michigan State Bar Public Policy Resource Center (CapWiz)
Family Law Section Article on HB5267 (page 3)
Family Law Section Position on HB5267
Referee Association Article on HB5267
Michigan National Organization for Women
Hanna's Blog: Response to Comments that a Presumption of Joint Custody is Appropriate
Hanna's Blog: Custody Determinations Should Depend Upon the Particular Facts of a Case, Not a Presumption
Proposed Joint Custody Legislation HB 5267 | Make Your Voice Heard in Lansing
Michigan Poverty Law Program - Rebecca Shiemke
 

Help for Michigan Dads
Michigan family law attorney Mindy L. Hitchcock has experience fighting for noncustodial parents against Michigan's abusive FOC. Her holistic approach to divorce gets results for her clients while avoiding the scorched earth approach to law that leaves families emotionally and financially devastated. www.Lady4Justice.com

Save Money and Get Better Gas Mileage
Do you want to save money and get better gas mileage? Get more performance from your vehicle? Make your engine last longer? MPG-CAPS is a 100% organic engine conditioner that simultaneously improves fuel economy and power by creating a micro-thin coating on the combustion chamber in your engine allowing your fuel to burn more efficiently. MPG-CAPS are perfect for gasoline, diesel, biodiesel and gasoline-ethanol powered engines. To learn more, click here or contact FFI Independent Representative Ted Wacholtz here. FFI products come with a 100% money back guarantee.

The LaMusga Company
The LaMusga Company provides customized solutions to assist individuals and business owners in reaching their financial goals. The LaMusga Company is committed to helping you accomplish your long-term financial objectives. LaMusgaCo.com