Sometimes, we're just plain stupid...or maybe it's Jeb Bush

[islandman]

From NYTimes online:

Shaming Young Mothers
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


Do you want to know about the sex life of Sandra, a 33-year-old brunette in Tampa?

Just read the Florida newspapers. Sandra is being forced by Florida state law to buy advertisements that give her full name (which I'm not repeating) and physical description: 5 feet 2 inches, 142 pounds, brown eyes. Then, as the law requires, she has to list and describe the five men she had sex with late last summer: Bill, Tommy, Allen, Eric and Joshua.

This new state law requires women — even 14- and 15-year-old girls, even rape victims — to disclose the name and address of the father of a baby offered for adoption, or else to publish these ads for four weeks. Perhaps not since a tribal council in Pakistan ordered a woman to be gang-raped in June has a government treated women with such contempt.

The new Florida law was meant to reduce the risk of a father's emerging years after an adoption and seeking custody. So the law stipulates that the mother must publish her name and description, along with the names and descriptions of men whom she cannot locate but with whom she had sex around the time of conception.

"It's extremely humiliating," said Melissa Colleran, a pregnant 18-year-old New Yorker now living in Florida and planning to give her baby up for adoption. Ms. Colleran doesn't know where the father is but is pretty sure he won't be happy at seeing his name in the newspaper.

"He won't like it at all," she said, "and it's going to fall back on me."

Jeanne Tate, an adoption lawyer in Tampa, represents a woman who has a 12-year-old son and is married to a man who is not the biological father. The mother wants her husband to adopt his stepson.

"To do that," Ms. Tate said, "she has to publish her sexual history from 12 years ago, where neighbors, friends, other school parents can all read about it."

The Florida law is appalling on its own. But it is also part of a dismaying pattern: Neo-puritans are threatening abortion rights, replacing teaching about contraception with preaching about abstinence, and destroying programs that save women's lives in developing countries. Just last month the Bush administration launched a commission to re-examine Title IX, which requires schools to give girls and boys equal opportunities in athletic programs.

President Bush is seeking $135 million for "abstinence only" sex education, which in practice often replaces teaching about contraception. A study reported in Family Planning Perspectives suggests that 23 percent of high school sex-ed programs now teach abstinence as the only way of avoiding pregnancy and venereal disease, up from 2 percent in 1988. The result will be unnecessary pregnancies and abortions.

These should not be partisan issues. Right-wing Republicans (notably evangelicals) almost certainly contribute far more money to help third-world women than do left-wing Democrats, and in retrospect conservatives basically got it right on the benefits of welfare reform for poor women. And neither the pro-choice nor pro-life camp wants more abortions — which adoption agencies in Florida say are already taking place, as scared teenage girls try to avoid publishing their sexual histories in the newspapers.

Charlotte Danciu, an adoption attorney in Boca Raton, represents a girl who at the age of 12 was raped by a 27-year-old man who disappeared. To give up her baby for adoption, the girl would have been obliged to publish ads with her name and a reference to the rape.

She filed suit, and a judge halted the publication requirement for rape victims in Palm Beach County, although it still applies to rape victims elsewhere in Florida. Everywhere the law applies to minors; teenage girls must publish the names of teenage boys they slept with.

How could a state enact a law that so mercilessly treats mothers as chattel?

Gov. Jeb Bush, who allowed the bill to become law without his signature, didn't return my call. Evelyn Lynn, a 72-year-old Republican who sponsored the bill, said she would accept an amendment next year to end the publishing requirement but is unapologetic. "I don't see it as punishing anyone," she said. "I see it as protecting children."

"When you do a major piece of legislation," she added, "you can't please everyone."

 

[lavender]

 

[Freya]

Love it.

They want to deny a woman the right to have an abortion. And at the same time they are making it more humiliating to keep the child.

Fucking assholes.

No what they are doing is forcing children to keep their babies rather than give them up for adoption. Abortion is dangerous and difficult enough with all the fruitcakes that lurk out front of clinics in the US....so now embarrassing a person who would like to give up a baby for adoption will just ensure that more young girls end up raising children they are neither financially able or mature enough to.

 

[islandman]

Yet another sign that this world is going to hell in a handbasket.

 

[mritsme]

totally stupid and inapropriate when my daughters are teenagers (well for one they beeter wait tell they are married) but if something did happen to get pregnant i would not in anyway want to do that that is invasion of privacy i think it could be lawsuits

 

[RhumbRunner13]

So....

....you all support, without question, the right for your brothers child (your nephew or niece) or your sons child (your grandchild) to disappear into nothingness?

Really, you would support your grandchild being reared by strangers?

Rhumb

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Lavy....

Love it.

They want to deny a woman the right to have an abortion. And at the same time they are making it more humiliating to keep the child.

Fucking assholes.

...I'll bet you have never once protested the concept of dragging a male in for paternity testing because it might be "humiliating" to him!

Rhumb

 

[Freya]

Re: So....

....you all support, without question, the right for your brothers child (your nephew or niece) or your sons child (your grandchild) to disappear into nothingness?

Really, you would support your grandchild being reared by strangers?

Rhumb

Yes. I got pregnant at 16, had a child at 17, and let me fuckin tell you, that there isn't one child of that age that is emotionally ready or mature enough to raise a kid of their own. But in your theory what? The grandparents should raise it instead? Never mind that they have already raised their kids and are now ready to start living their lives. Let's let them do it anyways.

 

[Freya]

Re: Lavy....

...I'll bet you have never once protested the concept of dragging a male in for paternity testing because it might be "humiliating" to him!

Rhumb

They don't advertise the men's names do they?

 

[Guest]

Abstinence-only sex education, what utter bollocks. Most of the people in the world do not share Bush's Christian agenda. Yep, the world's going to hell in a handcart (or something) all right.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Re: Re: So....

Yes. I got pregnant at 16, had a child at 17, and let me fuckin tell you, that there isn't one child of that age that is emotionally ready or mature enough to raise a kid of their own. But in your theory what? The grandparents should raise it instead? Never mind that they have already raised their kids and are now ready to start living their lives. Let's let them do it anyways.

No, I don't think grandparents should be burdened with rearing their childrens children. I think women should be held to the same level of parental resposibility as men!

You all seem to be arguing that women are either too stupid or too irresponsible to remember with whom they have had sex!

Not every female has to "publish" her sex life, only those who put a child up for adoption and "claim" not to have any idea who the father is!

Shouldn't a woman be able to recall who she had sex with?

Rhumb

 

[toffeegyrl]

No, I don't think grandparents should be burdened with rearing their childrens children. I think women should be held to the same level of parental resposibility as men!

Grandparents shouldn't necessarily be 'burdened'. However, if the parent knows she can't take care of the child (and let's be honest here, we know just who is targeted by this "law" -- single mothers, mostly young women -- why not give the baby up for adoption, anonymously?
As for the men's parental responsibility, tell it to the state agencies who spend their days hunting down deadbeat dads, or the women who can't get child support, or the man who will look his son or daugher square in the face and proclaim "It ain't mine." Parental responsibility in this case, already is on the mother -- she's the only one having to claim the child.

You all seem to be arguing that women are either too stupid or too irresponsible to remember with whom they have had sex!

Hardly the case. We are arguing that it is irrelevant with whom the woman had sex. Whether or not she knew her partner how many partners she had, or when she slept with them , is irrelevant. What isrelevant is the woman's right to privacy in her own sex life. Along with reproductive rights come responsibility, but responsiblity does not negate the basic right to privacy.
Speaking of responsibility, why is a sexual history not required of the fathers? Why not publish their frequency of having sex? Staying power? Sperm count? Dick size? None of these are any more relevant than a woman's number of sexual partners.

Not every female has to "publish" her sex life, only those who put a child up for adoption and "claim" not to have any idea who the father is!

So are you arguing that a woman who has multiple partners has less of a right to privacy than a woman who only has one? Where, then, should the rights end? If a woman has 2 partners? Four? Where's the line? Shall we just bring back the Scarlet A?

I'll bet you have never once protested the concept of dragging a male in for paternity testing because it might be "humiliating" to him!

Apples and oranges. Getting a court summons to get tested for DNA is nowhere near having your name, weight, sexual history, and various other none-of-your-damned-business details about your life spread in a circulated newspaper for all to see simply because you have 1. the misfortune of getting pregnant and 2.having multiple partners, and 3. because ol' Bushy don't think it's right.


Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating that we throw out any semblance of responsibility for the raising and care of unplanned children. But let's place the responsiblity where it's due -- on bothparties. I'm sick of seeing the 'babydaddy' cycle and slaps on the wrists. But public humiliation will only drive these already desperate women to more desperate measures.

 

[Ms_Lilith]

This is sick.

If I had gotten pregnant when i was raped, I would have wanted to give the child up for adoption. Which means I would have had to describe myself, and tell who the guy was. And then he would have come after me. And all his friends would have come after me.

How many women live in terror of the fathers of their children? How many women live in fear of their rapists?
And now the law is asking them to put their safety on the line.

This is sick.

 

[islandman]

I believe we need new leadership.......someone with new vision and new ideas.

Sadly, we seemed doomed to compound mistakes we have already made.


such is life, perhaps, but i don't have to like it.

 

[Ms_Lilith]

I believe we need new leadership.......someone with new vision and new ideas.

Sadly, we seemed doomed to compound mistakes we have already made.


such is life, perhaps, but i don't have to like it.

I just thought of something... this is like the witch trials... except the witches aren't being put on trial.. their victims are...


SICK...a nd it makes me sad.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

"Grandparents shouldn't necessarily be 'burdened'. However, if the parent knows she can't take care of the child (and let's be honest here, we know just who is targeted by this "law" -- single mothers, mostly young women -- why not give the baby up for adoption, anonymously?
As for the men's parental responsibility, tell it to the state agencies who spend their days hunting down deadbeat dads, or the women who can't get child support, or the man who will look his son or daugher square in the face and proclaim "It ain't mine." Parental responsibility in this case, already is on the mother -- she's the only one having to claim the child.

You seem to be saying that because there are SOME irresponsible men that the state has to persue, that ALL men are irresponsible and therefore should have no claim to their children. I think the target of the law is to stop situations where adoptive parents are put into the terrible position of possibly having a child removed from them by a father who just found out his child was given up without his knowledge.

"Hardly the case. We are arguing that it is irrelevant with whom the woman had sex."

You consider fathers irrelevant in our society? I think we have hit the depths of female chauvinism, it must be time for the pendulum to swing the other way.

"What isrelevant is the woman's right to privacy in her own sex life. Along with reproductive rights come responsibility....

Her right to privacy ends when that right could bring harm to other people. Women due not have a blanket, limitless right to privacy any more than any other citizen. Her "responsibility" is to say, "The father could be Tom, Dave, Harry, John or the Philadelphia Philharmonic", the father has the responsibility to care for and support the child or accept the adoption.

"So are you arguing that a woman who has multiple partners has less of a right to privacy than a woman who only has one? Where, then, should the rights end? If a woman has 2 partners? Four? Where's the line? Shall we just bring back the Scarlet A?"

I think I covered that fairly well above, but she must know who the father is, might be or make a reasonable effort to notify the "John Doe" of HIS child. Somehow I think that if a woman becomes pregnant and has no idea what the name of the potential father might be, society already KNOWS what kind of woman she is and there sould be no increased embarrassment in placing the notice.

"Apples and oranges. Getting a court summons to get tested for DNA is nowhere near having your name, weight, sexual history..."

Those summonses are published in the exact same papers as hers would be! I guess you are saying that if you were leafing through the local "Legal Notices" and saw your husband's, father's or brother's name there, they would have no need for embarrassment? Wouldn't a decent man present himself with the lady to make sure of his proper position if told of a problem? Wouldn't he be "branded" an "asshole" if he had to be summoned for a paternity test?

"Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating that we throw out any semblance of responsibility for the raising and care of unplanned children. But let's place the responsiblity where it's due -- on bothparties."

I agree with you in total! When a male does not want to be part of a childs life he is forced by law to provide support to that child, it is his legal responsibility. When a female puts a child up for adoption she should provide proof of the father's concurrence or information necessary to gain it, that is her legal responsibility.

Rhumb

 

[Unclebill]

It is just too funny

watching the Liberals scream when their very own ideology bites them in the ass and that's precisely what has happened here.

Their idiotic preoccupation with redefining rights so that everybody has a right to everything has come full circle on them once again.

That the woman has to bear the child and knowing she doesn't have the means or desire to raise a child by herself, wants to adopt the child into a better environment is to be thwarted because others (under the Liberal ideology) have the right to dictate her choice in the matter.

In keeping with their ideology, the father (or sperm donor) now has the right tp dictate to the woman what she may or may not do. And now they're all bent out of shape about it.

They never grasp the concept of the unintended consequence when they're out to do their good albeit at the point of a gun.

It's too bad they don't really believe in the ideas of freedom and rights they lip serve so vociferously.

But watching them writhe on their own petard is humorous.

The inevitable result of building your ideology on a foundation of contradictions.

 

[Lost Cause]

(Stands up an applauds) Right on Uncle Bill!

Taking responsibility for your personal actions? What a concept! The thread article sounds a little bias toward the conservatives, so I couldn't know how much was truth, or propaganda. It'll be interesting to see if the ACLU gets ahold of it. By the way, Florida is not ruled by the Republicans either, so you have Dems voting to make it law. Are you registered to vote? If you don't like it, change it!
www.lp.org

 

[Freya]

Ok this will sound dumb but take into account I'm from another country.

They publish court summons in the paper? All court summons? If so, I retract my previous statement about not having the father's name published when they get served for a paternity test.

I understand the rationale behind this law..it would be so painful for an adoptive parent to suddenly have to relinquish the child they have raised because a father suddenly pops up out of the blue.

The one story on there that struck home with me was the one referring to the mother of the 12 yr old child, who was to be adopted by her husband. Let me give you my scenario and it might help put my opinion into perspective. My child is 15 now. I know exactly who her father is, I knew when I got pregnant and considering they are almost twins, I can guarantee it now. He has never accepted responsibility for her....in fact, he has claimed that there are many others who could be it instead. Now I was most certainly not an innocent child at the time (I was 16), but I do know who I slept with and when. So when she was smaller, I used to collect family assistance...I always claimed I didn't know who the father was, mostly because I knew he was a useless asshole and didn't have a dime, but also because I was not at all interested in making my life, and hers, hell by claiming him publically. And trust me, he would have. So lets say that now I meet a guy who wants to adopt her....because I never claimed him publically, and because he would scream bloody fuckin murder about her not being his, I'd have to publish names of people I slept with 16 years ago, in the paper. Granted, when I was younger, I brought on a certain amount of disrespect myself, due to my actions.....but should I really have that kind of disrespect brought onto me now, this many years later? The fact that I have totally changed my life, and am no longer even a semblance of that girl, does that not entitle me to some sort of respect and privacy?

All people are entitled to privacy...and I say this including the men whose names are published when summonsed into court for paternity tests. That practice is blatantly unfair and really, just disgusts me. The fact that someone's reputation can be completely tarnished by a claim made, well, I just can't imagine that!

 

[SINthysist]

leftist lavy sez"

"Love it.

They want to deny a woman the right to have an abortion. And at the same time they are making it more humiliating to keep the child.

Fucking assholes."




I might add Liberal Fucking assholes. Bet it's cool with the Florida Supreme Court!

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Ok this will sound dumb but take into account I'm from another country.

They publish court summons in the paper? All court summons? If so, I retract my previous statement about not having the father's name published when they get served for a paternity test.

I understand the rationale behind this law..it would be so painful for an adoptive parent to suddenly have to relinquish the child they have raised because a father suddenly pops up out of the blue.

The one story on there that struck home with me was the one referring to the mother of the 12 yr old child, who was to be adopted by her husband. Let me give you my scenario and it might help put my opinion into perspective. My child is 15 now. I know exactly who her father is, I knew when I got pregnant and considering they are almost twins, I can guarantee it now. He has never accepted responsibility for her....in fact, he has claimed that there are many others who could be it instead. Now I was most certainly not an innocent child at the time (I was 16), but I do know who I slept with and when. So when she was smaller, I used to collect family assistance...I always claimed I didn't know who the father was, mostly because I knew he was a useless asshole and didn't have a dime, but also because I was not at all interested in making my life, and hers, hell by claiming him publically. And trust me, he would have. So lets say that now I meet a guy who wants to adopt her....because I never claimed him publically, and because he would scream bloody fuckin murder about her not being his, I'd have to publish names of people I slept with 16 years ago, in the paper. Granted, when I was younger, I brought on a certain amount of disrespect myself, due to my actions.....but should I really have that kind of disrespect brought onto me now, this many years later? The fact that I have totally changed my life, and am no longer even a semblance of that girl, does that not entitle me to some sort of respect and privacy?

All people are entitled to privacy...and I say this including the men whose names are published when summonsed into court for paternity tests. That practice is blatantly unfair and really, just disgusts me. The fact that someone's reputation can be completely tarnished by a claim made, well, I just can't imagine that!

Freya, your situation is a very good example of how this law would work, and very touching, by the way.....thanks for being a good Mom!

IF you wanted to go through an adoption with an intended husband, you would NOT have to publish ANYTHING! You would need to notify the bio-father or the Court to get a release of paternity rights. Yes, the asshole could suddenly try to demand rights to make your life miserable. Generally, a court order demanding back support and an order mandating current support changes his mind and gets your release. Expanding beyond your situation, if "you" said "It could be Tom or possibly John.", you would NOT have to publish ANYTHING! You or the court would notify Tom and John ONLY and request testing. The only time publication would be required would be when a woman begins adoption proceeding and claims NO knowledge of paternity.

The rape argument is also a canard. It was an oversight in writing the law and has already been set aside in the case of the 12 year old. It has not been set aside in other juristictions because judges must have a case before them to rule against a law, they can not do so otherwise. The law is being challenged in the supreme court (FL) and reviewed by the legislature.

Rhumb

 

[Calamity Jane]

I think I covered that fairly well above, but she must know who the father is, might be or make a reasonable effort to notify the "John Doe" of HIS child. Somehow I think that if a woman becomes pregnant and has no idea what the name of the potential father might be, society already KNOWS what kind of woman she is and there sould be no increased embarrassment in placing the notice.

Society already knows what kind of person she is? What if she was raped?

I have no problem with the potential fathers being notified, I think they should be. But why not through the adoption agencies? A listing of potential fathers could be given, and letters sent out. I see no need for public notices. Frankly, it's a private decision, and should be kept that way. I wouldn't want a listing of every man I slept with in my younger days published in the newspaper. Like someone else said, I'm not that person anymore.

Another question... how big of a stretch is it to take this to the next level, and each woman who is contemplating abortion has to publish potential fathers in the paper, and wait until she has permission from each and every one of them before she can have the procedure done?

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Society already knows what kind of person she is? What if she was raped?

I have no problem with the potential fathers being notified, I think they should be. But why not through the adoption agencies? A listing of potential fathers could be given, and letters sent out. I see no need for public notices. Frankly, it's a private decision, and should be kept that way. I wouldn't want a listing of every man I slept with in my younger days published in the newspaper. Like someone else said, I'm not that person anymore.

Another question... how big of a stretch is it to take this to the next level, and each woman who is contemplating abortion has to publish potential fathers in the paper, and wait until she has permission from each and every one of them before she can have the procedure done?

You raise a good question, PCG. The rape case is covered in my post above and if that mistake is not corrected I will be out there with you protesting! No reasonable person would ever consider requiring a crime victim of any type publishing their personal information, much less attempting to notify a rapist of paternity. I actually can't believe that otherwise intelligent people would actually fall for this ridiculous story!

I suppose you could argue the abortion question you raised, but this law does NOT have any effect on abortion law. You could argue that "Income Tax" laws will lead to the government confiscating 100% of your earnings and giving you a monthly "allowance". There is no quid pro quo in either situation.

Rhumb

 

[Ms_Lilith]

Rhumb, maybe I'm too dense to figure this out for myself...

but are you FOR this law?

Oh, and are you male?

 

[Weird Harold]

I don't understand whythe law requires so much detail.

What's wrong with a simple "notice of intent to adopt" -- something like:

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT
Any person having a legal interest in the adoption of <child's full name>, child of <mother's full name> by <adoptive parent's full name> is hereby notified that a final hearing will be <time and place of final hearing>

Include a phone number of the court clerk and instructions for providing proof of a "legal interest." and the sperm donor has his chance to stake a claim.