Pregnancy
It establishes the physical result, not consent, identity, or culpability.
Reproductive Justice Unit · A proposal for Rhode Island
Consent to intimacy is not consent to pregnancy.
Alan Gordon proposes that Rhode Island apply ordinary bodily-integrity and battery principles when a man causes pregnancy without a woman’s express consent—and place legal responsibility on the conduct that created the crisis.
“True reproductive justice holds the father accountable in law while protecting all innocent parties.”
Protect the woman. Protect the child.
Hold the father accountable—and teach the man to become capable of fatherhood.
Pregnancy changes her body. The law should not make his responsibility disappear.
The question that comes first
The debate usually begins after pregnancy. This proposal looks at what happened before it.
When a pregnancy is unwanted, attention turns almost entirely to the woman: what she will do, how she will manage the medical consequences, and whether she can support a child. The conduct of the man who caused the pregnancy often vanishes from view.
Alan’s proposal asks a prior question: Did she expressly consent to being made pregnant by that man? If not, did he knowingly disregard a foreseeable risk and cause the pregnancy anyway?
A woman retains control over what happens to her body. A man remains responsible for what his actions cause. A child is not made responsible for either adult’s decisions.
A defined allegation—not automatic guilt
What the government would have to prove.
The proposal does not make pregnancy, paternity, or a complaint conclusive. Every required element must be established with lawful evidence under the applicable criminal standard.
- 01
Pregnancy occurred
The physical result must exist. Pregnancy itself is not proof of wrongdoing.
- 02
No express consent to pregnancy
The issue is consent to pregnancy—not merely consent to sexual activity. Communication and surrounding facts matter.
- 03
The defendant caused it
Paternity or other lawful evidence must establish causation as to the particular defendant.
- 04
The required mental state
Authorities must prove the voluntary conduct and culpable state of mind required by applicable law; a genuine unavoidable accident is not enough.
Due process stays in place
None of these facts proves guilt by itself.
An accusation
A complaint may begin an investigation. It is not a conviction.
Paternity
Biological causation does not prove the required state of mind.
A later outcome
Miscarriage, birth, medical treatment, or a later change of mind does not decide what was consented to at the relevant time.
Facts, not slogans
What an investigation would examine.
There is no single shortcut. The evidence must show what was communicated, what each person knew, what conduct occurred, and whether that conduct caused the pregnancy.
Evidence that may matter
- Contemporaneous messages and conversations about pregnancy.
- Evidence that pregnancy was expressly refused or actively being prevented.
- Admissions, deception about protection, or interference with contraception.
- A stated agreement about withdrawal or other conduct, and evidence that it was knowingly broken.
- Lawful paternity and medical evidence establishing causation and result.
Facts that may defeat the theory
- Express consent to pregnancy at the relevant time.
- A genuinely reasonable belief that pregnancy was impossible.
- An unavoidable accident without the required culpable mental state.
- Failure to establish who caused the pregnancy.
- Reasonable doubt about consent, conduct, causation, or state of mind.
Contraception is relevant evidence, not a verdict. Its use can show that pregnancy was being avoided. The proposal argues that accepting a method’s known failure rate is not the same as consenting to the result that method was intended to prevent.
The legal argument—and its present limit
Apply the same concern for bodily integrity that the law applies elsewhere.
Rhode Island decisions define battery as an act intended to cause, and causing, offensive contact, unconsented touching, or trauma. They also explain that an intent to injure is not always required when a person willfully sets a force in motion that ordinarily causes injury; the contact itself must still be intentional.
The proposal argues that intentional reproductive conduct, lack of express consent to pregnancy, foreseeability, causation, and a resulting pregnancy should be examined under those principles rather than placed outside them automatically.
No Rhode Island appellate court has decided this precise question. This is a proposed application of existing principles, not a claim that the theory is already settled law. A responsible Attorney General would test the argument against the statute and precedent, bring only cases supported by admissible evidence, and seek legislative clarification if existing law does not reach the conduct.
For appropriate first offenders
Accountability through formation.
For a qualifying first offender, the proposal favors a lawful, rigorous diversion option rather than incarceration alone. The purpose is to build the discipline and practical capacity needed for responsible adulthood and fatherhood.
Qualified nonprofit and faith-based organizations could participate under public standards. No participant would be required to profess a religion. Completion would operate only through lawful diversion, filing, deferred-disposition, dismissal, or sentencing authority.
A path back to responsibility
Five stages, with the child’s support in view.
Responsibility toward a child never creates an entitlement to a relationship with the mother. Her safety and freedom remain separate.
- 1
Assessment
Work history, skills, education, finances, housing, parenting experience, and behavioral needs.
- 2
Intensive formation
Structured living or comparably intensive training combining work, instruction, service, and discipline.
- 3
Productive employment
Transition into an ordinary job or apprenticeship, with independence as the objective.
- 4
Family responsibility
Where legal parental duties exist, demonstrate the practical ability to contribute to the child’s support.
- 5
Completion
Court recognition under whatever lawful diversion or sentencing mechanism applies.
Questions the complete paper answers
Test the proposal against the hard cases.
The full paper addresses 45 objections. Open a few of the central ones below.
“Are you inventing a new crime?”
The proposal argues for consistent application of existing battery principles, not a special offense called “pregnancy.” Whether current Rhode Island law reaches a particular case remains a legal question for prosecutors and courts; legislation may be needed to clarify the rule.
“What if the chance of pregnancy was small?”
Recklessness does not require certainty. Foreseeability, the seriousness of the consequence, knowledge of the risk, and disregard of that risk all matter. The prosecution would still have to prove the mental state required by law.
“What if contraception was used?”
Use of contraception can be evidence that pregnancy was being avoided. It does not by itself prove the man’s guilt, and knowledge that a preventive method can fail is not necessarily consent to the outcome it was used to prevent.
“What if she changes her mind later?”
A later change cannot retroactively erase consent that actually existed. The inquiry concerns what was communicated and understood at the relevant time.
“What if he was told pregnancy was impossible?”
A genuinely reasonable belief that pregnancy could not occur may negate the required mental state. A belief that pregnancy was merely unlikely presents a different factual question.
“Does this treat the child as an injury?”
No. The child is innocent. The legal question concerns the physical condition imposed on the woman and the conduct that caused it; recognizing a wrong does not diminish the worth of the child.
“Does diversion become a labor camp?”
No. Any program must be voluntary where the law requires, operate under lawful court authority, meet constitutional standards, and focus on vocational education, structured service, discipline, and rehabilitation—not extraction of labor.
What Alan would do as Attorney General
Bring the question into the open—and do the legal work.
- Convene Rhode Island prosecutors, defense counsel, scholars, physicians, advocates for women, and fathers’ and children’s representatives.
- Publish a careful analysis of the statute, controlling cases, constitutional limits, and the evidence needed for any lawful case.
- Develop clear screening and due-process safeguards before any pilot or charging policy is considered.
- Seek narrow legislation if the existing law does not provide a legally sufficient path.
- Design a lawful diversion model that protects women and children and produces men capable of work, support, and fatherhood.
The authoritative source
Read the complete 19-page proposal.
This webpage is a reader’s guide. The document below contains the full argument, definitions, safeguards, diversion framework, and all 45 objections and responses developed for this initiative.
True Reproductive Justice19 pages · PDF
Primary legal and medical materials
Read the authorities behind the discussion.
Rhode Island General Laws§ 11-5-3, simple assault or battery ↗
Rhode Island Supreme CourtFenwick v. Oberman, 847 A.2d 852 ↗
Rhode Island Supreme CourtPicard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, 654 A.2d 690 ↗
Rhode Island Supreme CourtGreat American v. End Zone, 45 A.3d 571 ↗
Centers for Disease Control and PreventionPregnancy complications ↗
Office on Women’s HealthPregnancy’s bodily changes ↗
A proposal worth debating on its merits
The idea is more important than the election.
Read the paper. Test the reasoning. Send a legal objection, a practical improvement, or an offer to help build a responsible Rhode Island model.