"Leggo my Eggo," read one of the more clever signs at the abortion rights march on Washington that I attended in 1989. It was a pointed message to Congress and state legislatures that American women demand reproductive freedom. A government that controls who bears children, even more so than one that limits expression, is repressive and authoritarian.
Women may have been at the forefront of the privacy rights fight in recent times, but both sexes have an equal interest in keeping these protections sturdy. Historically, when governments have usurped control over the procreation of their citizenry they have done so against women and men, and have asserted all sorts of social interests along the way - not just protection for the unborn.
In the 1970s, Sanjay Ghandi, the son of then-Indian Prime Minister Indira Ghandi, claimed the need to control the country's booming population when he instituted a massive program of forced sterilization of men. And during the first third of the 20th century, the United States fostered eugenic programs to keep "undesirables," including the insane, mentally disabled, poor and criminal, from procreating. At least 30 states had eugenics laws on the books.
The widespread use of sterilization on various populations is behind us now, though there was a flirtation in this country in the early 1990s with chemically castrating sex offenders. In general, society has come to understand how damaging to freedom and human dignity forced sterilization can be. But the desire to control the reproduction of the "unfit" has not been completely abandoned. Now, judges rather than legislators tend to be the culprits, particularly when faced with stunning irresponsibility.
Which brings us to the case of Sean Talty.
Talty is a 31-year-old Ohio man who has seven children, two by his current wife, and has been ordered by a judge not to father any more children. In 2002, as a condition of the five years of probation he received for not supporting three of his children, Talty was ordered to make "reasonable efforts" not to procreate. At the time, he was $43,000 in child support arrears.
You would think a man who, according to court records, makes about $400 per week before taxes would have something more to worry about than the fruitfulness of his loins. But Talty has a point. His case represents not just a slippery slope but a teetering avalanche.
In upholding the no-procreation order, a state appellate court in Ohio explained simply that: "(Talty's) ability to father children demonstrably exceeds his willingness and diligence in their support."
So, so true. In principle, I'm with the court. It would be a better world if only those who were responsible enough, and could afford to have children, had them.
But that is the ideal. The reality is that 12-million children are living in poverty in this country. Are we going to stop all their parents from having any more?
As much as Talty's continued spreading of seed is irresponsible, the courts must stay out of it. Society has a variety of choices relative to Talty. It can put him in jail for not meeting his legal obligations, garnish his wages or even, in Grinch-like fashion, refuse to provide a social safety net for his children. But society should not have the ability to order him to put the babymaking machine away. Otherwise there is no foreseeable end point. If one deadbeat dad can be restricted in this way, why not all? And why not similarly constrain anyone who is homeless or unemployed?
Talty's case, which is now headed to the Ohio Supreme Court, is also troubling because it is part of a mini trend. It comes on the heels of a case out of Wisconsin, involving David Oakley, a deadbeat dad who had fathered nine children. He too was told not to procreate again while on probation. When his appeal came before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, all four male justices upheld the condition while the three female justices decried it. "The majority has essentially authorized a judicially-imposed "credit check' on the right to bear and beget children," wrote Justice Ann Walsh Bradley in dissent. The women on the court had sharper instincts. They understood the danger this posed to reproductive freedom.
Disturbingly, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Oakley's appeal in 2002 and so the provision stood and was relied upon by the Talty court.
There will always be seemingly good public policy reasons to keep certain kinds of people from having kids, and there will always be people in positions of power who want to exert this control. But that impulse must be resisted. In light of history and our current appreciation for basic human rights, the decision to have a child or not, must stay in the personal realm, beyond the ability of any branch of government to reach.
