A bill to make "stealthing" (removing a condom during sex) illegal in California.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/14/condom-stealthing-california-ban

The law has a lot in common with the Texas abortion ban, in that it doesn't create a new criminal offense but a civil offense so it would be up to individuals who felt they were wronged to sue the offender in court to recover damages. It seems like when it comes to men's bodies feminists don't think men should have the right to make their own decisions. Of course that whole argument was always bullshit (just an example of how feminist hijacked the abortion debate merely to stereotype men as rapists violating women). The real question has always been about whether the action an individual takes impacts other people or not. Clearly secretly taking off a condom during sex impacts others. But then just as clearly so does having an abortion or choosing to have a child.

So both laws seek to make illegal decisions that on the face of the "my body my choice" concept would be up to the individual, and in both cases they make the law a civil case (lawsuit) not criminal (arrested and put on trial / jailed). I'm guessing in both cases this was to get around fundamental rights of the person sued.

After these similarities the California law seems more sensible (read: likely to be found constitutional) because it's not (so far as I know) pretending that just anyone can sue for damages but only the woman specifically effected. As I said before the Texas law may fail because it didn't limit the person suing for abortion to being the father of the foetus. Again there's no pre-determined amount of damages associated with the California law. You just make a lawsuit for damages in the normal way. The law is simply recognizing specifically that "stealthing" is something that can cause people harm. If the Texas law limited itself to the same it would probably be just as constitutional as the California law. Indeed they'd be very similar -- which shows the feminists have no interest in consistency.

What damages?

women and others who have been victims of stealthing describe the incidents as degrading, hurtful and wounding to their self-respect. The removal of the condom represents a willingness to discard their preferences

And when a woman chooses abortion against the man's wishes is this not an identical situation? The only difference is that the issue is far far more weighty.

Now I'm assuming for the sake of argument here that the sex in the stealthing case doesn't lead to an unwanted pregnancy (which would be complicated by the woman herself presumably refusing to use birth control) or an STD. This California law allows women to sue for damages even if neither of these things happen. It says the mere idea that she didn't get her way during sex is damaging to her. Don't get confused this is not a criminal law. It's not saying that removing a condom is a crime in itself. It relies on a lawsuit which means it's saying it only matters if the removal of the condom leads to bad results. This law says a woman having her choices associated with sex disrespected can constitute real hurt to her.

Well if that's true how much more so the emotional pain of a man who was looking forward to being a father and has it snatched from him by the unilateral decision of his partner? Or the pain of a man who has sex with the expectation of no parental responsibility and then is forced to be a parent against his will because of the choice of his partner (and this decision unlike the others has a very VERY high financial damage associated with it).

So once again I'm concluding that had the anti-abortion folks wanted their law to pass constitutional muster they need only have made it a father's rights style law, restricting the right to sue to the father, and allowing damages to be calculated by the court in the usual way for any civil lawsuit, instead of being specified ahead of time. If you add in the need for a verbal agreement before sex by the woman that she wouldn't abort such a foetus resulting from their time together and it's pretty much the same as the new stealthing law that feminists are pushing (and has now passed awaiting governor signature) in California.

In short the anti-abortion lobby could have made a perfectly reasonable law banning abortion (in some situations) based on recognizing men's rights -- or at least as "reasonable" as the anti-stealthing law is.