Something cheesy in the state of Wisconsin

The state Supreme Court gives women a victory over deadbeat dads -- but at the cost of endangering reproductive rights.

Topics: Abortion,

Something cheesy in the state of Wisconsin

It has been hard enough to be a pacifist in the midst of the much-hyped Mommy Wars. Now that a new skirmish has erupted on a completely different front, it is tempting to head for the hills. In a ruling earlier this week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a “deadbeat dad” to stop having children until he produced evidence that he could support his kids — creating a new and confusing political hostility between Americans who have typically been united in feminist battles. Suddenly, the issue of choice is about choices that no one wants to make.

The case, which involves a 34-year-old man who has nine children by four women and owes $25,000 in support, divided the Wisconsin court along gender lines. The four male justices weighed in with a slightly paternalistic opinion in which they agreed that to bar David Oakley from having more children is a reasonable way to force him to pay child support for the kids he already has. The three women on the court opposed the order, citing Oakley’s constitutional right to procreate.

Oakley’s lawyer, meanwhile, told the New York Times that he is mulling an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis that the ruling could have a ruinous effect on reproductive rights, “specifically that a class of individuals will be limited to the number of children based upon financial resources.”

Maybe it is not too surprising to hear that the men on the Wisconsin state court went for the “time-out,” a concrete penalty for repeated displays of inappropriate behavior. Predictable, too, perhaps, is the staunch defense of basic reproductive rights by the women justices. What is troubling, or at least foreboding, is the enthusiastic support of the ruling by those who believe that the current means of enforcing child support are failing and that families who suffer at the mercy of deadbeat dads need all the help they can get. The decision also gets a resounding hurrah from proponents of a man’s right to choose, who see the ruling as opening the door for them to demand that their pregnant partners get an abortion.

It is a safe bet that you are not going to find many people (and certainly very few feminists) who don’t agree that deadbeat dads need to be taken down by any means necessary. At least it was a safe bet a few days ago. Now that the issue of reproductive responsibility has commingled with the issue of reproductive rights, it is a sticky place to go, a proverbial no-man’s land where a woman suddenly must choose between her exclusive right to continue or terminate a pregnancy and her right to expect financial support if she chooses to give birth. Of course, the link the court has drawn between choice and child support also severely limits men’s reproductive rights, such as they are.

There would appear to be haunting similarities between this politically charged dilemma and the fascinating maneuver of several weeks ago by the former Wisconsin (there is that state again) governor, now Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, in which he suggested that states be allowed to define “an unborn child” as a person eligible for medical coverage under the Children’s Health Insurance Program. By making this “magnanimous” gesture, he was able to deliver for antiabortion folks while seeming only to be concerned for the health of pregnant Americans.

It’s a familiar splintering technique. How many pro-choice advocates are against full access to prenatal care for all women? Roughly none — the same number of women who advocate choice but oppose the enforcement of child support laws. So is this brilliant (and embarrassing) or what? Divide and conquer!

Look at the success that has come from pitting working mothers against stay-at-home mothers in an impossible debate about which are the better parents. This particular cat fight (to which women have succumbed with disappointing ease) has effectively prevented these assorted child-bearers from joining forces to demand quality child care and compensation for the monumental task of mothering. Were one to go beyond the division of feminism into various “waves” and splinter the ranks of women even further, one might find it relatively easy to both ban abortion and establish financial and other social or economic barriers to the right to give birth.

The purpose of these arguments and tactics is to make sure that women, especially those who call themselves feminists, must pay a price for their beliefs. The penalty for fighting to preserve reproductive rights is limited access to prenatal care. The penalty for demanding that fathers participate in the support of their children is the loss of reproductive rights.

It is entirely legitimate to expect that a person, man or woman, be prepared to defend their advocacy of human rights with knowledge, energy and fairness. But it is ludicrous to assume that a person’s defense of constitutional rights and humane treatment of children should result in the arbitrary limitation of both.

Let us not be fooled. We owe it to ourselves — men and women — to reject attempts to herd us into artificially hostile camps. As always, our greatest challenges are about choice — not just the preservation of choices that give us equal rights, but the prevention of legal or governmental attempts to narrow our choices out of existence.

Jennifer Foote Sweeney, CMT, formerly a Salon editor, is a massage therapist in northern California, practicing on staff at the Institutes for Health and Healing in San Francisco and Larkspur, and on the campuses of the Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Berkeley.

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 17
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails
    John Stanmeyer

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    Container City: Shipping containers, indispensable tool of the globalized consumer economy, reflect the skyline in Singapore, one of the world’s busiest ports.

    Lu Guang

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    Man Covering His Mouth: A shepherd by the Yellow River cannot stand the smell, Inner Mongolia, China

    Carolyn Cole/LATimes

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    Angry Crowd: People jostle for food relief distribution following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti

    Darin Oswald/Idaho Statesman

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    “Black Friday” Shoppers: Aggressive bargain hunters push through the front doors of the Boise Towne Square mall as they are opened at 1 a.m. Friday, Nov. 24, 2007, Boise, Idaho, USA

    Google Earth/NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    Suburban Sprawl: aerial view of landscape outside Miami, Florida, shows 13 golf courses amongst track homes on the edge of the Everglades.

    Garth Lentz

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    Toxic Landscape: Aerial view of the tar sands region, where mining operations and tailings ponds are so vast they can be seen from outer space; Alberta, Canada

    Cotton Coulson/Keenpress

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    Ice Waterfall: In both the Arctic and Antarctic regions, ice is retreating. Melting water on icecap, North East Land, Svalbard, Norway

    Yann Arthus-Bertrand

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    Satellite Dishes: The rooftops of Aleppo, Syria, one of the world’s oldest cities, are covered with satellite dishes, linking residents to a globalized consumer culture.

    Stephanie Sinclair

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    Child Brides: Tahani, 8, is seen with her husband Majed, 27, and her former classmate Ghada, 8, and her husband in Hajjah, Yemen, July 26, 2010.

    Mike Hedge

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    Megalopolis: Shanghai, China, a sprawling megacity of 24 Million

    Google Earth/ 2014 Digital Globe

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    Big Hole: The Mir Mine in Russia is the world’s largest diamond mine.

    Daniel Dancer

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    Clear-cut: Industrial forestry degrading public lands, Willamette National Forest, Oregon

    Peter Essick

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    Computer Dump: Massive quantities of waste from obsolete computers and other electronics are typically shipped to the developing world for sorting and/or disposal. Photo from Accra, Ghana.

    Daniel Beltra

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    Oil Spill Fire: Aerial view of an oil fire following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, Gulf of Mexico

    Ian Wylie

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    Slide 13

    Airplane Contrails: Globalized transportation networks, especially commercial aviation, are a major contributor of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Photo of contrails in the west London sky over the River Thames, London, England.

    R.J. Sangosti/Denver Post

    Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot

    Fire: More frequent and more intense wildfires (such as this one in Colorado, USA) are another consequence of a warming planet.

  • Recent Slide Shows



Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>