The legislative proposals I offer below have been extracted from a longer article I wrote here .
Recently, Hungary has been in the news. Hungary is offering €30,600 to married couples. The loan has to be repaid until the couple has three children. At that point, the debt is completely forgiven. If a couple has a child within five years, the loan’s interest and scheduled repayments are both suspended for a period of three years. This comes on top of a law introduced earlier this year that exempted Hungarian woman with four or more children from paying any more income tax.
https://summit.news/2019/08/02/hungary-married-couples-to-receive-over-e30000-free-if-they-have-3-children/
https://web.archive.org/web/20191020040320/https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/08/get-three-children-and-receive/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/world/europe/orban-hungary-babies-mothers-population-immigration.html
I find it commendable that Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, is addressing Hungary’s demographic crisis. Many western leaders, facing a similar demographic crisis, would prefer to import a foreign population with issues of societal cohesion that that will inevitably entail. But how effective will financial policies like those of Orban’s be? He and his party has been in power since 2010. The fertility rate has risen in Hungary from 1.23 children per woman of reproductive age in 2011 to 1.49 now (it hasn’t increased since 2016) but it is still far below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman of reproductive age necessary to maintain Hungary’s population without recourse to immigration.
I think a more effective means of addressing the demographic crisis that the entire West currently faces is a human rights based approach. I offer 5 legislative proposals below, the purpose of which is to apply clear and precise positive law, in alignment with the principles of natural justice, to the tradition of monogamous marriage. Whilst, in the current political climate, most of the discussion, often heated and emotional, is focused on abortion (point 2), a more expansive discussion needs to take place on wider issues pertaining to marriage over and above just that of abortion.
- A mandatory DNA test at birth to ascertain the paternity of the child.
- Abortion on request for mothers up to and including 13 weeks gestation.
- The legal provision of paternal abortion/paternal surrender.
- A new Ministry or Department for Adoption.
- Mandatory joint custody of children in the event of a separation or divorce of parents.
My Legislative Proposals
1) I propose a mandatory DNA test at birth which will determine who the biological father is.
I propose a mandatory DNA test at birth which will determine who the biological father is. According to this Newsweek article from 2014: “Ten years ago, 46 states were screening for just six conditions; now all 50 states and the District of Columbia routinely screen newborns for at least 30 genetic conditions, with some states testing for nearly twice that number.” Thanks to these newborn screening tests, conditions such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, congenital hypothyroidism, PKU and other inherited metabolic diseases can be identified early and effectively treated.
https://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/01/whos-keeping-your-data-safe-dna-banks-261136.html
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/newborn-screening/
Why not add one more DNA screening test for paternity? Will the heavens fall upon us? The test will be mandatory and copies of the results of the test will be conveyed to each of the parents. The parents will have the option to opt into submitting their de-identified data to state, federal and private company databases. Otherwise, the default will be that the record of the results is destroyed with the exception of the copies given to the mother and father. This is the case for example in Texas law. This addresses privacy concerns people have about their data being used by third parties without their consent.
It’s important to emphasize that, though I propose that the paternity DNA test is mandatory, the default will be that once the results of the test are conveyed to the parents, the results of the test are destroyed, unless the parents direct otherwise.
The same rule will remain in place when whole genome sequencing becomes available to replace current blood spot tests.
Why not use DNA screening technology that is now 99.99%+ accurate to establish paternity? The culture bound practice of monogamous marriage has traditionally been a means for providing the father with a crude guarantee that his children are his biologically. Now, it can be scientifically established. We should take advantage of this technology in much the same way that flowering plants harness pollinators like bees, hummingbirds and bats to assist them in their reproduction as well as many other animals besides for seed dispersal. Rather than repressing female sexuality which was part and parcel of traditional marriage, we should take advantage of DNA technology to scientifically establish the paternity of a child.
A Paternity DNA test should be mandatory. The emerging consensus in the west is that vaccinations against vaccine preventable diseases should be mandatory. This is the case in all but name, for example, in Australia.
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/13/asia/australia-anti-vaccination-welfare-cut/index.html
It is in the public interest that there is no outbreak of an infectious or a communicable disease, which is what a mandatory vaccination program helps counter. Similarly, it ought to be in the public interest that the father is given 99.99% + scientific proof that his child is his biologically.
Also, the Newsweek article I linked to earlier points out: “Every year, approximately 4 million newborns in the U.S. are screened for congenital disorders, and about 12,500 of these infants are diagnosed with an inherited condition.”. Would it be all that costly and administratively onerous to add one extra blood test for paternity to the 30 to 60 already done in each of the US states as of 2014?
A mandatory DNA test at birth should be adopted in combination with other measures.
2) I propose that abortion on request be provided for mothers up to and including 13 weeks gestation.
I propose that abortion on request be provided for mothers up to and including 13 weeks gestation. After that, abortion will only be permitted to save the life of the mother or preserve her physical health or if there is a fatal foetal abnormality.
The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that gathers statistics on abortion in the United States and internationally, estimates that in 2014, 926,200 abortions took place in the United States. It also estimates that 1.3% of these abortions are on or after 21 weeks gestation. That comes to 12,041 abortions on or after 21 weeks gestation.
It has been estimated that, give or take, 20% of these late term abortions are for reasons of foetal abnormality or maternal physical health, as opposed to purely elective reasons where the baby is perfectly healthy. This is evidenced, for example, from official late term abortion statistics obtained from Arizona between the years 2012 and 2017 inclusive. An analysis of that data found that only 20% of the late term abortions on or after 21 weeks gestation that took place in that state were for reasons of foetal abnormality or maternal ill-health. The rest were purely elective on a perfectly healthy baby.
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2019/05/making-sense-of-arizonas-late-term.html
The testimony of late term abortionists and their employees corroborate this.
In 1995, the late term abortionist, George Tiller, told the National Federation Convention in New Orleans:
“We have some experience with late terminations; about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 foetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years.”
This means that only 800 out of 10,000 post-24-week abortions were on unhealthy children.
“Dr. Martin Haskell, the pioneer of the “partial-birth abortion” procedure (a method of late term abortion) brought this issue to the attention of the nation, when he said that 80 percent of the abortions he performed this way were purely elective. Only 20 percent involved foetal defects.”
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/328629-most-late-term-abortions-are-elective
The approximate 20% figure for foetal abnormality would include conditions such as a lip cleft, a club foot or microtia that can be treated after birth.
Related to this, a “U.S. study [by the Elliot Institute] examined Medi-Cal records for more than 173,000 low-income California women who had experienced abortion or childbirth. Linking these records to death certificates, the researchers found that women who had state-funded abortions were 2.6 times more likely to die from suicide compared to women who delivered their babies. Giving birth, on the other hand, was shown to reduce women’s suicide risk compared to the general population.”
This was corroborated by similar studies conducted worldwide in places such as Finland, Denmark, U.K., Australia and New Zealand. A Finland study from 1997 found that “the suicide rate among women who had undergone abortions in the prior year was three times higher compared to women in the general population and six times higher compared to women who gave birth.”
Suicide Rate for Women Having Abortions is Six Times Higher Than Women Giving Birth
Giving birth has been found to be a protective factor for women against poor mental health, depression, attempted suicide and suicide.
It seems reasonable to extrapolate that women who abort at a later stage of their pregnancy are particularly vulnerable to suicidal ideation, attempted suicide and suicide. If we take the figure, I gave earlier, of an estimated 12,041 abortions in the United States annually on or after 21 weeks gestation, 80% of that would be 9,632 abortions. That is, approximately 9,632 abortions are performed annually in the United States on perfectly healthy babies 21 weeks old or older which have no foetal defects whatsoever. Is it too much to surmise that this act of killing a perfectly healthy child at such a late stage of the pregnancy will have a negative impact on the mental health of the woman who let it happen? It is too much of a stretch to suggest that some of the women in California who take their own lives after having had an abortion, as uncovered by the Elliot Institute, are the same women who contribute significantly to the 9,632 abortions performed annually in the United States on perfectly healthy babies 21 weeks old or older and which have no foetal defects whatsoever?
By their own admission, abortion rights advocates brazenly lie through their teeth when they claim that most late term abortions are performed only in cases where the woman’s life is in danger or in cases of extreme foetal abnormality.
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/most-late-term-abortions-are-not-for-medical-reasons/
A 2008 study, led by Professor David Fergusson, found that “Although some studies have concluded that abortion has neutral effects on mental health, no study has reported that exposure to abortion reduces mental health risks.”
It is important to implement the will of the public.
The public is opposed to both 2nd trimester and 3rd trimester abortion. A 2013 Gallup poll found that 80% of the US public believe abortion should be generally illegal in the third trimester as opposed to just 14% who said it should be generally legal – a yawning gap of 66 points. 64% believe it should be generally illegal in the second trimester (gestation weeks 14 to 27) as opposed to 27% who think it should be generally legal – a still significant gap of 37 points. This flips around somewhat for the first trimester. Just 31% of the public think it should be generally illegal in the first trimester as opposed to 61% who think it should be generally legal – a 30 point gap.
Also, according to a 2011 Gallup poll, 97% of pro-choicers and 69% of pro-lifers support the legal option of abortion when the woman’s life is in danger. Likewise 96% of pro-choicers and 68% of pro-lifers support it when “the woman’s physical health is endangered”.
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2016/07/no-most-late-term-abortions-are-not_13.html
My proposal therefore that abortion on request be provided to mothers up to and including 13 weeks gestation and, after that, abortion only being available to save the life of the mother or preserve her physical health or if there is a fatal foetal abnormality would align with the nuances of the public’s view on the issue.
Whilst I propose that abortion on request is available up to 13 weeks gestation only, by way of compromise, I propose that there will be only a couple of administrative hurdles on abortion on or before 13 weeks gestation. I suggest those be a mandatory waiting period of 3 days and mandatory counseling where alterative options available to the woman intending to have an abortion are presented such as bringing the child to term and giving it up for adoption. This is the situation, for example, in Germany.
Over and above that, I propose that a sonogram be offered to the woman/girl intending to have an abortion but she has a right to refuse to take one and to see the result. Also, I propose that it will not be a requirement to inform the parents or obtain their consent with regard to an underage abortion. A 2004 survey by the Guttmacher Institute found that 1% of women who had an abortion said one of the reasons for their having an abortion was that they had been raped and up to 0.5% of women said one of the reasons for their having an abortion was that they were the victim of incest.
3) I propose the provision of paternal abortion/paternal surrender.
I propose the provision of paternal abortion/paternal surrender. Regarding the mechanics of paternal abortion/paternal surrender, I think an opt in arrangement would be best.
If the assumed father is informed before the birth that the child is his, then he should be given a maximum timeframe of 7 weeks to decide if he wants to be the father (opt in timeframe). Within that timeframe, if he decides to raise the child, he opts in. Within that timeframe, if he refuses, he opts out. If 7 weeks elapse, and he makes no decision, he forfeits his right and responsibility to raise the child. In effect, he opts out.
I base 7 weeks on the fact that abortion is available to women on request up to 12 to 14 weeks gestation in most western countries. I calculate a maximum 7 week timeframe from this. 13 weeks minus 6 weeks – a woman on average finds out she’s pregnant at around 6 weeks gestation. Let’s say that a woman tells the assumed father that she is 6 weeks pregnant with his child. The man then has a legal right to consider whether he wants to opt into the duties of fathering that child up to the 13th week of her pregnancy – up to 7 weeks after she has informed him. To be clear, even within this 7 week window, she may abort her child if she wishes.
I think the same maximum 7 week timeframe can apply after birth too if the father is not informed until after the birth of a child that is biologically his and the same opt-in timeframe will apply.
If the man was informed before birth he was the assumed biological father but the subsequent DNA test at birth reveals that he is not the biological father, then he is automatically opted out and the biological father is sought out and offered the maximum 7 week process of opt in/opt out instead – the opt in timeframe.
If the man opts out before or after birth, he’s not to be punished with child support payments. If he opts in before or after birth, then he still has joint-responsibilities with the mother to support the child.
So that’s two new things, a mandatory DNA test at birth and legal paternal surrender, that are going to cause a lot of short term pain in society before the long term gain kicks in.
4) I propose a new Ministry for Adoption
I propose a new Ministry for Adoption. A new Ministry for Adoption will help tide things over in various jurisdictions.
As things stand, an estimated 1% to 3% of children are not biologically related to the man who is assumed to be the father.
https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-chances-that-your-dad-isnt-your-father-24802
http://insidestory.org.au/the-fatherhood-myth/
I can anticipate that many men, upon learning from the DNA test at birth that he is not the biological father, will be happy to be opted out of fathering the child. I can perfectly understand this. Both men and women have a biological imperative to pass down their own genes, not someone else’s. Additionally, many men may feel betrayed by a woman who led him down the primrose path of believing that the child was biologically his when, in fact, it was not. The mother who has no father to support the child will be free to give her child up for adoption (or she can keep the child but will not receive coerced child support payments from an unwilling father) and the new Ministry for Adoption will have a remit to place these children with psychologically stable two parent families.
My proposed Ministry for Adoption will also have an investigative division tasked with tracking down biological fathers. It may not be possible to track down the biological fathers in all cases, for example, in the case of jet-setting romeos who live overseas. We mustn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. There should also be a time limit on this investigation to minimize psychological disruption to the newborn infant.
5) I propose that mandatory joint custody be implemented
I propose that mandatory joint custody is implemented so that in the event of a subsequent separation or divorce the child will have the benefit of continuing to be raised by two parents.
This right is provided for in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (article 9). Secret family courts must also end. All orders of family courts including orders for joint custody or visitation must be enforced. Custodial sentences will be imposed on those who refuse to comply. In the UK, one senior judge, Mr Justice Coleridge, stated in 2010 that around 5000 parents a year – almost always mothers – defy orders to let the other parent have contact with their children.
The Islamic Ruling on Denying a Parent Access to Children from Scholars in UK
They’re not punished. They should be punished with incarceration.
Tragically, linked to this, research in the UK by the Sunday Daily Express has found that between June 2003 and January 2015, 8,515 non-resident parents have died compared to 3,090 residents. “It was unearthed by Sunday Express staff who compared the number of Child Support Agency (CSA) cases closed after “nonresident” parents died with cases closed due to the death of the “parent with care””. “According to the information released under the Freedom of Information Act, 94.8 per cent of CSA cases involved a male nonresident parent.”.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/550037/Family-separation-fatal-toll-absent-parent-die-earlier
In Manchester, in the UK, in September 2015, a man got a 3 month prison sentence for filming crown court proceedings.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-caught-filming-court-mobile-6503841
Why not give parents who defy visitation orders issued by a family court a similar punishment?
Whether we like it or not, part of the role of law is to deter. For the personality disordered, the threat and execution of punishment is probably the only thing that is going to adjust their behaviour in a way conducive to the public interest.
I emphasize that my proposals grant reproductive freedom to both men and women. A child can be transferred in a timely fashion to adoptive families by the Ministry for Adoption before attachment issues for the child become a problem. That window is generally considered to be the first year of the child’s life.