Class action lawsuit against Christian religion to pay for unwanted children?

[Kidsaretryingtodestroyme]

I’m not in America but I was wondering if rich American women could band together to fund a class action lawsuit. It would be against evangelical Christian churches to force them to pay for the upkeep of all children up to 18 in states which have banned abortion. They should also be sued to pay for medical bills for the mothers including mental health bills.

I don't think it's the church though, is it? It's the government that's abolished abortion. Sue them.

It's the US Supreme Court which is independent of the US Government, hence Biden's public statements on it.

The justices overturned it due to their relight beliefs. Every news piece shows the religious right overjoyed by the news. They should all dig deep to support their ‘pro-life’ beliefs.

Have you seen the man who sued God?
It may have worked for Billy in the movie but unfortunately like most things in movies it wouldn't work in real life

They should sue the lawmakers.
If you are going to force women to give birth you should pay their medical bills and bloody child support!

I image their defence would be under their teachings you only have sex for procreation. Don’t they teach abstinence in their colleges etc?

I can’t believe America is now behind Ireland in women’s right.

Evangelical and Catholic churches are already putting together their plans to have the government award them contracts to run foster homes and crisis pregnancy centers and adoption services.

They want for there to be more babies, they want to adopt them out and they want an income stream from the government while they do it. It's part of the plan. Idaho's governor already alluded to it.

The Mormon church calls it bleeding the beast

What they are not going to do is allow poor mothers to get money from the government directly in order to be able to raise their children. Those babies are going to go to Christian homes to be raised.

It’s not the church or the government who have made this ruling. It’s the Supreme Court. The highest court in the land. The US constitution guarantees free exercise of religious belief. So no, you can’t sue the church.

The lawsuit could also be extended to Trump and various Fox News hosts. We can invent a new three word chant: Make Them Pay!

I think some of these US states should continue this theme by criminalising people who leave their children (i.e. mainly men) or who don't pay maintenance! Lets see how long the opposition to abortion lasts then.

A serious point is that many men change their mind after the woman has become pregnant or lie about not being married, etc and then just sail off to impregnant another woman and fail to pay child support.

TBF, I think churches have proposed funding for continuing a pregnancy and looking at options for the birth mother keeping the child.

I can’t see how that’s going to work. What law would require them to do this?

You're right that it's got to be a financial argument though.
I said on another thread that what exasperates me about these men in grey suits, there is just the blase expectation that women buckle in for 18-22 years of the expense of raising a child, as well as the reduced freedom to earn.

men are free to give 11% of their net earnings, men are free to work everyday and earn if that's what they want. Women aren't getting a reduction in their rent, they're not being taxed less or paying less paye. There are no breaks. Only disadvantages.

Women bear the cost of continuing the species (and this is true in the case of many wanted children too). But society as a whole needs to be funding childcare if women are going to be restricted from having abortions.

I am still pro-choice obviously, but I do think that this argument is the only thing that would make the dinosaurs do a u turn. OMG, pay more tax to fund childcare so the mothers can work? oh no no no.

Completely wrong. The supreme court is the judicial branch of the government. It’s as much a part of the government as Congress (legislative branch) and the president and cabinet (executive branch is).

We already do criminalize the act of being a non-paying parent in child support cases. If you are the Jon-custodial parent and don’t pay what has been country ordered there are sanctions. You lose your drivers license and your passport. You can even be sent to county jail for being in contempt of court.

And what does the UK do in such cases?

It would be counter-sued (if it even got that far) by the claim that you are free to travel to another state should you wish to have an abortion and you live in a state where it is illegal. It’s not illegal all over the country. Not even close. Many states have abortion laws that are more relaxed than Europe.

I think it’s kind of cute that all the European woman are jumping onto this cause to fly the flag for women’s rights. Are you doing as much for women in Afghanistan? They can’t even choose what they wear outside of the house. Girls can’t even go to school beyond year 6 there. Surely that’s far more worthy of a fight?

Yawn.

Even when the RvW decision came down, it was understood to be a weak legal decision - RBG said so herself. You could just as well say it lasted as long as it did because of the ideological make up of the court at an earlier time. Neither is what is supposed to happen.

In both instances it was justified on legal, not ideological grounds, and the difference between the two decisions reflects as much a difference in views about the role of the courts and how to interpret the constitution as it does in an underlying view about the ethics of abortion. There are long explanations of both decisions available, to say they made them for religious reasons is incredibly reductive.

@BritWifeInUSA Thanks for educating posters on how things actually work in the US!

I mean - you understand this decision doesn't criminalize abortion? It simply says that it's not constitutionally protected on the grounds that were argued in RvW, which relate to privacy.

You might not like that it leaves no federal abortion law but that is not really the job of the courts.

YY to BritWife.

How about a march to protest British arms sales to Saudi Arabia, where a bona fide despot can and does do as he pleases with his unfortunate subjects.

@MangyInseam I don’t think most posters know how federal and state laws work, let alone the branches of government.

its

@AchatAVendre - sorry to bust your bubble, but the US is way ahead of the UK when it comes to enforcing child support orders.

Wages can be garnished.

Failure to pay can result in a judgement of contempt of court.

The county state's attorney will prosecute delinquent parents to pay back any welfare payments the state has had to pay a resident parent because of the lack of support from the non-payer.

Professional accreditation bodies will send a questionnaire to an ex spouse asking whether child support has ever been late or not paid at all if someone wishes to be accredited to practice their profession in another state.

It's nothing to do with "the Christian religion". (Good luck trying to sue an entire religion, anyway...) Abortion isn't outlined in the original constitution, so it's up to individual states to decide what is legal, on a state by state basis.

I believe a great many men and women from the UK did fight in Afghanistan.

I think it's cute that you think women can just travel to another state. 89 per cent of the counties in the US do not have an abortion provider. Most of the states banning abortion are near to one another so a woman would have to have the wherewithal to travel through multiple states to get to one with a provider.