“Law and Justice are not always the same. When they aren't, destroying the law may be the first step toward changing it.” - Gloria Steinem
Hello and thank you for visiting my site.
I am not sure why you have come to this site...perhaps you bought my book, or searched for information on the topics addressed here, or were referred by a friend...whatever the reason, I welcome you!.
My wish, if you are a woman visiting this site, is that you have a willingness to have an open mind, and put yourself in my shoes, and in the shoes of the fathers who are discriminated against in the family law courts everyday and who can't see their children because of bogus restraining orders, and some of whom are deprived of ever having a relationship with their child, because the mother decided to terminate the pregnancy in abortion.
My wish, if you are a man, is that you take responsibility for the children you brought into this world, and fight for your rights in this area. If you are already doing this, then I hope the content of this site will strengthen your resolve to continue.
Please understand that I am not a lawyer or politician. I am only a single father and custodial parent of two young boys. I suffered years of mental anguish and verbal oppression from my former wife (and yes she probably feels the same way), who then attempted to deprive me of the right to be in our children's lives.
The anti-father inequities that I discovered because of my own marriage failure have motivated me to become an activist in these causes, and I have drafted 3 items: The Holland Bill, The Paternal Protection Amendment, and The Paternal Protection Act.
The Holland Bill is proposed legislation that contains two very simple points:
1. The family law court machine must stop making decisions based on gender, and instead, make decisions in the best interest of the children.
2. Restraining Orders cannot be filed under false pretenses, and any instance of doing so, or anyone influencing someone to do so, should be considered criminal behavior.
The Paternal Protection Amendment, and Paternal Protection Act based on the amendment, assert the following:
1. A father has a right to have a relationship with his unborn child.
The Family Law Court Machine
Nearly 75 percent of all custody awards are made to the mother. About 10 percent of awards are made to fathers, and the rest involve joint custody arrangements, according to the latest data compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics..
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/mvsr/supp/44-43/mvs43_9s.htm
It is amazing to me that in a day and age where “equality” is so esteemed, and “discrimination” so reviled, that this sort of de facto discrimination can take place. It almost seems like the family law courts are waging a hidden campaign on behalf of the mother, and it’s not that the judges who adjudicate these decisions are unaware of the discrimination. Some are actually willfully perpetuating it.
If you want some actual quotes from family law judges, I would recommend the following link (read quotes for “Bad” and “Ugly” judges):
This is not fair. It is not right. This overt discrimination must stop!
The State of Fatherhood
Demand that your representatives in Congress and the Senate address this issue NOW!
Children from fatherless homes account for:
Men, if you are not currently present in your children’s lives, you need to be! And you need to take whatever legal measure you can to assure that you will continue to be!
Shame on any man that out of laziness or indifference allows the child that they brought into this world to grow up with a father named UNKNOWN. I am certain that the darkest and hottest parts of hell are reserved for such men!
USING RESTRAINING ORDERS TO KEEP THE OTHER PARENT FROM SEEING THE CHILDREN
The Holland Bill seeks to curb the misuse of restraining orders that keep a parent away from his/her children through the assertion of totally false claims.
Men and women both do this, and it is usually done based on the advice of lawyers who influence their clients to use this as a malicious tool to hurt the other parent. I know this as a fact, as when I was going through the divorce with my ex-wife, a lawyer (not the lawyer who ultimately took my case) recommended that I do this. I have also had this done to me in my custody fight for my daughter.
Is it any wonder that we are killing each other, when we will stoop to such levels?
Father’s Right To His Unborn Children
This next item, which I am sure will cause quite a stir, is the right of a man to have a relationship with his unborn child.
Ladies, please hear me loud and clear on this: I don’t want to control your bodies and most other men don’t either. The men that really have the desire to do this are criminals, and are better known by the term rapist.
Well don’t you believe in “Choice” you ask? I sure do. Real choice begins before intercourse. You don’t want to deal with a pregnancy: Don’t have sex. That goes for both men and women. I think it is a disgusting shame that our supposed enlightened society can distill the death and dismemberment of a human fetus down to a mindless two syllable mantra (Pro-Choice). We speak in ivory tower-isms about “liberty interests”, “a woman’s right”, and “Choice”, but in reality these are all flowery, feel-good labels for the right to casual convenience at the expense of the unborn.
I would also advise caution for those who unify themselves in ideology with an organization that was founded on the premise of promoting negative eugenics: Planned Parenthood. Do you think the denizens of this group are promoting the “right of a woman to choose” because they have the best interests of women at heart? Or could it be due to the fact that they are the leading provider of abortions in the U.S? If ever there was a classic case of incentive caused bias, the promotion of “a woman’s right to choose” by Planned Parenthood would be a textbook example.
When writing my book, one of the issues I discussed was the pursuit of gender domination by radical feminists, especially when it came to the Roe vs. Wade decision. Unfortunately, the issue of a father’s rights in the whole abortion albatross was only a footnote:
A. The Roe vs. Wade ruling did not address the man’s right to his unborn child at all (mentioned in End note #67):
“Neither in this opinion nor in Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, do we discuss the father's rights, if any exist in the constitutional context, in the abortion decision. No paternal right has been asserted in either of the cases, and the Texas and the Georgia statutes on their face take no cognizance of the father. We are aware that some statutes recognize the father under certain circumstances. North Carolina, for example, N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-45.1 (Supp. 1971), requires written permission for the abortion from the husband when the woman is a married minor, that is, when she is less than 18 years of age, 41 N.C. A. G. 489 (1971); if the woman is an unmarried minor, written permission from the parents is required. We need not now decide whether provisions of this kind are constitutional”.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113#f67
Three years later, the unfortunate and deeply divided Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, hammered the nail into the coffin of a father’s rights, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 just reiterated more of the same, as Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter opined in their plurality:
“...it cannot be claimed that the father's interest in the fetus' welfare is equal to the mother's protected liberty, since it is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the fetus will have a far greater impact on the pregnant woman's bodily integrity than it will on the husband.”
Though they were dealing specifically with spousal notification and not directly with a biological father’s rights in Danforth and Casey, I think the liberal bloc of the court would hold to stare decisis, and apply the “undue burden” test, and directly relate the above plurality opinion segment to any father’s right challenge today. I am sure such a decision would divide along the same lines as the Casey decision did, which reveals just how divisive this issue is, even among the justices themselves.
The horrible irony in all of this, if it is indeed all about rights and liberty, is that a father’s “liberty interest” is seriously compromised if the woman decides to have a child against his wishes in the form of an eighteen year long revenue stream from his pocket to her bank account. Then again, what can one expect from a society whose representatives make a law (Laci’s Law) where it is only a crime if a man (the OB/GYN performing the abortion for the woman excluded) kills an unborn child?
Barring any clear consensus challenge regarding the point in time “personhood” begins within the establishments of science, philosophy, and theology, Roe v. Wade related deteriorata will continue to manifest itself time and time again as legal arteriosclerosis within the caseload veins of our nation’s highest court.
It is an exercise in futility to continue to bring any more abortion related challenges in my opinion. Even if at some point the court did have solid anti-Roe justices, who were courageous enough to overturn that decision, the teeter totter of justice would most likely swing back in the opposite direction at some point in the future.
Probably the most salient point made in the whole abortion debate, was written by Justice Scalia in his Casey dissent:
The emptiness of the "reasoned judgment" that produced Roe is displayed in plain view by the fact that, after more than 19 years of effort by some of the brightest (and most determined) legal minds in the country, after more than 10 cases upholding abortion rights in this Court, and after dozens upon dozens of amicus briefs submitted in this and other cases, the best the Court can do to explain how it is that the word "liberty" must be thought to include the right to destroy human fetuses is to rattle off a collection of adjectives that simply decorate a value judgment and conceal a political choice
He was right on the money.
The bottom line is this: We should not leave value judgments of life and death up to a nine member tribunal of grumpy old men and women, whose only guide is a two hundred year old document that currently gives no definitive guidance whatsoever in the matter.
We need a clear direction and a decision of permanence.
We need to amend that old document to say what is in our hearts, if men and women in this country truly value a Father’s role, and his relationship to his children, born and unborn, even a little.
By proposing an amendment to the constitution, and introducing explicitly related legislation, the will of the people, and not just that of radicals, will be promoted. And, once this amendment is ratified, it will preclude this issue from ever having to go through the circus court routine again.
Should these proposed items get lost in a dark sea of rhetoric, and become an issue of partisanship, rather than one of humanity, the fathers of this nation, present and future, will either have to await the advent of a viable in-vitro gestation technology, whereby the woman’s “liberty interest” and the father’s “relationship interest” can both be satisfied, and the father’s right causes no “undue burden”, or we must beg and plead with our pregnant partners to exercise a just decision. If we are forced to do the latter, then sadly my dear sisters, the gods and masters you so vociferously rebelled against in the pursuit of your “rights”, you have now become.