Judge says fathers can be banned from hospital delivery rooms

4
1718
Photo by Nina Matthews Photography

SAN DIEGO, March 18, 2014 —Those who believe that a father has as much right as a mother to watch his newborn child come into the world received a stark awakening from a recent court decision.

A New Jersey Superior Court judge ruled in February that a mother is entitled to bar her child’s father from the delivery room while she goes through labor.

Privacy was offered as the official reason. The parents in question were unmarried and had a strained relationship.

Defending his decision, Judge Sohail Mohammed offered legal precedent by way of case law:


“A finding in favor of plaintiff for both notification and forced entry into the delivery room would in fact be inconsistent with existing jurisprudence on the interests of women in the children they carry pre-birth,…It would create practical concerns where the father’s unwelcomed presence could cause additional stress on the mother and child. Moreover, such a finding would also lead to a slippery slope where the mother’s interest could be subjugated to that of the father’s.”

The judge referred to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two cases which overturned  a state law forcing women to inform their husbands of any decision to have an abortion.

The comparison to abortion is significant. Those who are bothered by the eroding rights of fathers ought not to be surprised.  The handwriting has been on the wall ever since 1973’s historic Roe v. Wade ruling.

Up to now, most of the debate regarding abortion has bounced back and forth between the rights of a mother to protect her own body and the rights of an unborn infant inside her body.

The rights of the father have somehow been lost in the shuffle.

Many who call themselves “pro-choice” make an argument that amounts to little more than the geography of the baby. Supposedly, while the baby is inside a mother’s womb, it is hers and hers alone. The father has absolutely nothing to say in the matter. And yet, miraculously, after birth, the child is every bit as much the father’s. Should he himself think otherwise, he is threatened with a palimony suit.

If there’s any consistency here, it would take quite the microscope to find it.

Even when a husband and wife decide together to have children, the woman can change her mind after she becomes pregnant. The man must accept her decision.

Bottom line: A woman has a right to chose parenthood. A man who also wants to be a parent is subject to the whim of his wife or girlfriend.

In point of fact, this debate is not really a man vs. woman issue. It is an issue that sharply divides women from other women and men from other men. Indeed, the most outspoken leaders in the right-to-life movement are women, even though our liberal media would prefer to quote some loud mouthed male preacher who denounces abortion.

Whether or not an unborn child is truly a human life with rights of its own should be the only pertinent question.

Be that as it may, since those who justify abortion generally express discomfort when the rights of the unborn baby come up and instead make the issue one of maternal choice, the question of PATERNAL choice becomes a fair discussion, especially with the recent New Jersey ruling pushing the rights of the father even further away.

Now, even a woman who decides to carry her baby to full term can claim that the father has no business being in the delivery room.  And yet, the moment she takes the baby home and wants dad to chip in with the bucks, it becomes very much his business.

There was a time when double standards were corrected by courts. These days, courts have become the canonization of the double standard.

 

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

 

 

Bob Siegel is a radio talk show host and columnist. Information about his radio show can be found at bobsiegel.net.

 

The New Jersey Law Journal contributed to the hard news portion of this article.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

Previous articleProgressives: Time to break up with the Democratic party
Next articleFear in flight: A personal account of a “terrorism dry run”
Bob Siegel
A graduate of Denver Seminary and San Jose State University, Bob Siegel is a radio talk show host and popular guest speaker at churches and college campuses across the country, using a variety of media including, seminars, formal debates, outdoor open forums, and one man drama presentations. In addition to his own weekly radio show (KCBQ 1170, San Diego) Bob has been a guest on many other programs, including The 700 Club, Washington Times Radio's Inside the Story, The Rick Amato Show, KUSI Television's Good Morning San Diego, and the world popular Jonathan Parkradio drama series, for which Bob guest starred in two episodes and wrote one episode, The Clue From Ninevah. In addition to CDN, Bob is a regular contributor for San Diego Rostra. Bob does a good deal of playwriting as well (14 plays & 5 collaborations), including the award winning, Eternal Reach. Bob has also published books of both fiction and non-fiction including; I'd Like to Believe In Jesus, But...and a fantasy novel, The Dangerous Christmas Ornament.
  • So basically the woman who is the innkeeper, so to speak, can tell daddy, you can help me make the baby, deal with my hormones for 9 months, pay for this child until adulthood (some don’t but that is not my point) but you may not watch them take their first breath and come into the world??? I am certain there are circumstances that it is needed for, but this is PATERNAL, how could you deny a participating (notice I said participating) father, the right to be in the delivery room? I do not understand this at all. The government has NO BUSINESS making this kind of decision in my opinion!

  • PaulaCarrasquillo

    I think in cases of domestic violence and abuse, this ruling protects both mother and child. When a relationship is healthy, there is no need to bar the father from participating. Certainly, this type of ruling has the potential to be abused just as any law can be abused. Think “Stand Your Ground” laws? Keep in mind that judges don’t rule on such cases to hurt and harm people. These types of decisions are made because someone is currently being harmed or hurt due to the lack of a law in place. It’s too bad we don’t respect each other enough to understand that sometimes privacy is necessary. Too bad we need rulings and laws like this to have adequate control over people who have no control over themselves.

    • bobsiegel

      I appreciate your comments. For such abusive situations I believe a restraining order can be obtained.

      • PaulaCarrasquillo

        An RO won’t stop or prohibit someone from lying to hospital staff in order to harass and wreak havoc on a situation. But a hospital policy signed by a patient under the law and HIPAA guidelines will. You underestimate the abusive among us.