I didn’t mean to imply that MRAs wouldn’t object to this bill; instead, I think the bill’s implications have been kept in the dark by its sponsors.

I’ve therefore edited the post to add the sentence “My guess is that they’re just not aware of it” to the section on MRAs.

Brutas, you’re quite right, I shouldn’t have put quote marks in the passage you quoted. (The quotes around the earlier mentions were deliberate, and intended to indicate irony). I’ll try to do better in future.

Give it some time. I’m sure generally intellectually consistent C4M-advocates will oppose it, such as Daran or Cathy Young.

However, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Sometimes “Choice For Men” gives me the impression of simply being useful idiocy for the Pro-Life side, and sometimes intentionally so.

more liberal states should propose “Coercion Prevention Acts” of their own — acts which would make it illegal for women to be “terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, or harassed” to compel her to make any reproductive decision (not just about abortion or not-abortion, but also sterilization and not-sterilization)

As I’ve griped before, the use of quotes around “Coercion Prevention Acts” when it’s not being quoted distracts me and causes me to wonder if you’re being ironic.

Also, the difference between coercion (the imposition of one’s will on another) and feeling forced (out of financial necessity) to abort aren’t really the same concept of “force.” Still, your observations do reveal (again, as it’s generally been pretty well established already) that quality of life after birth is of little or no apparent interest to pro-life advocates, which is a shame.