Not entirely true. There are under 10 states with a true presumption of 50/50 equal shared parenting (legal and physical) as the default when both parents are fit . Many states have outright Vetoed to have the legislation fail.

A big f-you to Rick Scott for vetoing SB668 in Florida. Indiana's bill died in committee never coming to a vote.

Yes, it's true that both parents have to want 50/50 (example: my ex husband noped out of the area his daughter lives in and moved 4 hours away so 50/50 is not possible).

Why would a state not want parents to be equals? Title-IVD money. States get refunds from the federal government for child support they collect via support enforcement and wage garnishment. 50/50 by default means no child support is due to any parents if the parents have similar incomes. If they are not the same, then there is a wage equalization support order granted. However, this support payment can be far less than if the state keeps the standard "Dad as a visitor/every other weekend" overnight distribution. Restrict the typical breadwinners access to their kids = less overnights = more child support = more federal refund money. The state wants their money.

The idea that men aren't really covered under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is what I bet Andrew is alluding to, although his point is lost when he starts tangentially talking about transgender rights.