No, this is not one of those topics concerning when the “Moment of Life” begins, Abortion or anything else of a moral or religious nature.  No, that’s not my style!

The excellent article, “New Mom delivers bad news”, which discusses the situation in question, was in the Miami Herald, as a re-print from Slate,  The issue appears to be whether a Father can be in the delivery room at the time of a Baby’s birth, against the wishes of the Mother.

The setting is that an unmarried couple conceived a Child and, when the Woman informed her ex-boyfriend that she was pregnant, he proposed and they became engaged.  Subsequently, however, they broke-up prior to the Baby’s Birth.  The Father-to-be asked to be present in the delivery room for the Birth, and to be advised when the Expectant Mother went into labor.  She told her ex-boyfriend that she would be uncomfortable with his presence during the delivery.

He decided to hire an attorney and to exert his Rights as the Father to be present for the Birth.  The Mother-to-be also hired an attorney to exert her rights.  Letters from each side went back-and-forth and, apparently, the situation could not be resolved amicably.  The Expectant Mother had agreed to have the Father’s Name on the Birth Certificate and for him to be listed on the visitors’ log; but, she just did not wish him to be present at the Birth.  Accordingly, the Case went to Trial.

A New Jersey Judge, Sohail Mohammed, ruled that “It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the Child a Woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the Mother’s liberty than on the Father’s.”  In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the U. S. Supreme Court established that precedent, and  thus re-affirmed Roe v. Wade.

There is one related issue, however, which was not present in this case: what if the couple were Married at the time of the Birth?  If that were the case, I wonder how the Court would rule in  that very hypothetical situation.  Now I am neither an attorney, nor a legal expert; but, it would certainly be an interesting one.  Frankly, I believe that the Court might still take the Mother’s side since, by default, she represents the Baby’s Right to a healthy delivery, as the Court’s ruling appears to support.

NOTE:  This is not a conception issue; rather, it supposes that a live Birth is anticipated within a very short time-frame.



  1. #1 by cheekos on March 6, 2016 - 3:50 PM

    The linked article, about a mother of seven children, who opted for an illegal abortion in 1921, is as follows:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: