DruBlood
Home
Dramatis Personae
Archives
Contact
Feed the Bleed
Amazon wish list
Cole’s birthday - 10/24
Monk’s birthday - 12/2
Dru’s birthday - 1/5
Search
Archives
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
Special thanks
adam host
julie template queen
kd general lusciousness
pea guru
Powered byMovable Type 1.5
« Burning Door recounts the anti-inaugural protests | Main | And, speaking of domestic violence »
Watch for the Protest on this one
January 26, 2005
P6 doesn't have a beef with this one:
Rep. Ben Bridges (R-Cleveland) on Tuesday introduced the Baby's Right to Know Act, which would require hospitals to ask the question. Bridges said his goal is to give children access to their full medical history by identifying the biological father and getting his name on the birth certificate. It would not legally require the new mother to name the man.
However, a man who impregnates a woman and intends to never support the child emotionally or financially WOULD. I'm assuming the purpose of this bill has a lot to do with enforcing support payments.
This sucks for the irresponsible sperm donor who doesn't care to pay for his child's upbringing, but it also sucks for the woman who maybe has escaped an abusive situation and wishes to raise her child without interference from the abusive "father." Remember kids, the state WANTS fathers to be responsible for payment of support, because it keeps mamas off of welfare rolls. I presume the state cares more about keeping the mama off of the welfare rolls than it does keeping the mama and child safe from a potentially abusive situation, but maybe that's just Me Being Bitter.
I'd be willing to bet that this bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Decent people (like P6) and people who have no experience with abusive relationships might not see the point of a mother refusing to identify the birth father. There is a point. And even though this bill doesn't require that he be named by law, it seems like a dangerously slippery slope to me.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt.riceweevil.com/tb/2172
Comments
that's what comes to mind for me-- the story that Ariel has told about the first time she legally named her daughter's father, and the maelstrom of family court that landed her in.
plus just the name of the act is icky, to me.
I have a daughter, sophomore in college. She is important to me.
Her mother and I, unmarried for various psychological reasons, were on public assistance when she was born. She doesn't have my last name...not because I didn't want her to but because when I asked the hospital to make sure I was registered as father they said don't worry about it and then didn't do it. After a while the name thing became a non-issue...I find her not having my last name didn't stop me from imprinting on her.
My relationship with her makes it almost impossible for me to understand why someone would NOT support their child. And frankly, the harder a person tries to avoid it the more I feel their an asshole that NEEDS hammering.
But I did say I don't THINK I have a problem with it. I still have a gut-level distrust of the use the government makes of just about any personal information it gets its grubby little hands on. Yet...
I don't know.