What war on women? There's no war on women.

[Gypsy]

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/02/24/wtf-republicans-in-this-state-vow-to-not-issue-birth-certificates-to-single-mothers/

Right.

 

[kenny]

This won't affect any Republicans because they all, both male an female, remain virgins till marriage.

 

[AGBF]

Why not just have every unmarried woman name the Governor of Illinois (that's currently a Republican, Bruce Rauner) as her child's father? Then he will have to do a DNA test each time he wants to prove he is not the father. By the time he spends money on all those tests, it will seem reasonable to re-institute the original state assistance for unwed mothers.

AGBF

 

[KaeKae]

Uh-huh.
Nor is it a blight against the children, who these lawmakers claim they believe must be born. So, a single woman has the baby, but then the government, which made sure that baby was born, will not acknowledge it's existence.

How can this possibly be legal? And, when did a birth certificate equal an application for financial assistance?

 

[ame]

Why not just have every unmarried woman name the Governor of Illinois (that's currently a Republican, Bruce Rauner) as her child's father? Then he will have to do a DNA test each time he wants to prove he is not the father. By the time he spends money on all those tests, it will seem reasonable to re-institute the original state assistance for unwed mothers.

AGBF

 

[Calliecake]

Thank you Gypsy for making us aware of this. I'm one of the lucky ones that has this AHOLE for our Governor!

 

[ksinger]

Thank you Gypsy for making us aware of this. I'm one of the lucky ones that has this AHOLE for our Governor!

Ha! Get in line sister. The crazy train from Oklahoma might actually beat yours to the finish line. Queen Mary is issuing decrees at the speed of stupidity.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/06/13/oklahoma_governor_mary_fallin_signs_bill_to_create_an_abortion_free_society.html

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

This sounds unconstitutional to me, No child born in the USA will be denied a birth certificate. This is not a war against woman, this trying to keep Il solvent. It is near bankruptcy.

When , for example, housing benefits are given, the mother is asked for the name of the father so he can make a contribution to the support of the child.(s) Women are not co-operative in giving up the names of the father(s). This law,in this configuration will never pass. Many laws are proposed that never pass. This law is against fathers who do not support their children.

Illinois has excellent benefits for women and children. They beat New York hands down. This is and has been a generous state.

Il is so generous it in care of those less fortunate, and what they give in pensions, they now find themselves in this sorry state.
We are broke. No one has been responsible, But this is not a war on women.


Annette

 

[redwood66]

Well this is a different way of going about dealing with deadbeat dads. I understand the reason for it but not giving a birth certificate will hurt the child in the future, school, dr.s, travel, etc. But it is a hamfisted attempt to stem the flow of $ for assistance without having a dad to seek out for repayment. It is not a war on women though.

A friend of my sister's was contacted by the state of Alaska to submit to a paternity test for a child he never knew existed that came from a liaison in his younger years. It seems the mother had been collecting benefits for years and the state threatened her with cutting them off if she did not name the father. It is his child and he has to repay tens of thousands to the state even though he was unaware of the child's existence.

 

[AGBF]

Well this is a different way of going about dealing with deadbeat dads. I understand the reason for it but not giving a birth certificate will hurt the child in the future, school, dr.s, travel, etc. But it is a hamfisted attempt to stem the flow of $ for assistance without having a dad to seek out for repayment. It is not a war on women though.

I agree with you that it was an attempt to make fathers pay. However, I disagree with you that it did not end up being-once again-a weapon being used in the ongoing war against women.

Instead of targeting the fathers, this bill targets the privacy rights of women. It also (completely unlawfully) denies the constitutional rights of children who are (by definition) legally born in the United States.

So it's really a twofer. It's a weapon being used against both women and children and not at all against men.

It seems familiar.

Deb

 

[redwood66]

Hi Deb

I respectfully disagree with you regarding the privacy issue once the mother applies for benefits from the state. If the mother wants to collect benefits, the father should be named in order for the state to collect some or all of those monies in repayment. This law does not seem to differentiate those single mothers who will not be seeking assistance. Some women may choose to have a child without a father in the home and if they can take care of that child on their own then who am I, or the state, to say that she cannot?

 

[AGBF]

Hi Deb

I respectfully disagree with you regarding the privacy issue once the mother applies for benefits from the state. If the mother wants to collect benefits, the father should be named in order for the state to collect some or all of those monies in repayment. This law does not seem to differentiate those single mothers who will not be seeking assistance. Some women may choose to have a child without a father in the home and if they can take care of that child on their own then who am I, or the state, to say that she cannot?

I am not sure that we disagree at all, redwood. I used to be a welfare worker for a municipality. (I am a social worker.) I was required by state law (actually I took what was in those days AFDC applications and that was a federal program although it was administered through the states) to find out who the putative father was of any child in the family.

What bothers me about this law is that it starts at the point of the issuance of a birth certificate. No one is applying for financial assistance. A right to a birth certificate should be the child's and not be predicated on what the child's mother chooses to divulge about her private circumstances. The child's mother should have a right to privacy if she is not asking the State to take the father's place in supporting her child.

Deb

 

[redwood66]

Then we are in agreement.

I am a bit weary of the "war on women" phrase these days. Perhaps the percentage of women not naming fathers AND applying for assistance is very high in this state? Thus this hamfisted attempt at this law? Perhaps there are many that are already receiving assistance before birth?

Sorry so many edits.

 

[AGBF]

Perhaps the percentage of women not naming fathers AND applying for assistance is very high in this state? Thus this hamfisted attempt at this law? Perhaps there are many that are already receiving assistance before birth?

Perhaps to the former, but even if that were the case, it would not give the state the right to gather personal data on other women (not on assistance) (obviously). Or perhaps it is just the usual patriarchal system at work, the same one that continues to try to regulate whether a woman can have an abortion, despite the very clear boundaries set by The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

But more importantly, receiving assistance has nothing to do with birth certificates. A woman being on assistance "before birth", does not mean she has to give up any of her civil rights, including the right to privacy. It just means that she must be truthful when she fills out an application for financial assistance.

i am sorry you are weary of the fight over women's rights. So am I. But I have to keep up this war until the men get their feet off our backs.

Deb

 

[redwood66]

I am glad we can have this discussion cordially. I do feel weary over the whole political-ness of everything in the past year and have become jaded by all sides with their "I'm right!" shouting.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Perhaps, instead of championing every possible right that one female ought to have, how about the childs right to know who its father is on that birth certificate. Why is it that Gov't has turned into the enemy, and you want to thwart it at every turn.

As another example: Your friend is in an auto accident caused by another driver. He is very injured and has no money to pay for his bills. He files a lawsuit, and goes on Medical assistance. The state asks him if he has any outstanding lawsuits, which he answers in the affirmative, which they record. His right to privacy is not absolute. His suit is settled and the first one in line is the state to recoup his medical costs. Its seems perfectly reasonable to me. So why can't the father be named.

The birth certificate will not be denied. But if mom wants help, this is what she must do. Privacy or her children not receiving benefits.

Illinois is so generous. I hate gov't to be attacked by everyone who wants to call everything a civil right.


Annette

 

[AGBF]

Perhaps, instead of championing every possible right that one female ought to have, how about the childs right to know who its father is on that birth certificate. Why is it that Gov't has turned into the enemy, and you want to thwart it at every turn.

First of all you are starting with the assumption that a child has a right to know who his father is. One could argue whether a child has a right to know who his father is; as far as I know God did not ordain such as right. In fact, in the Jewish religion (the first religion to practice monotheism) the child is a Jew if the mother is a Jew. Why? Because everyone knows who the mother is. No one can be sure who the father is.

Second of all, you appear to be denigrating the notion that someone should "champion every possible right that one female ought to have".
Why would you do that? If a female "ought to have" a right, I would think that your position should be that you would wish to fight for her to have that right.

Third of all, you ask, "why is the government the enemy that (I) want to thwart at every turn". That is inaccurate. As I said to redwood, the government has a right to ask for certain things and not for others. It has the right to ask for reimbursement (under the current law) if it supports a child in place of that child's father. (In many other societies, the State does more supporting, but here the law is the law.) As I told redwood, as a social worker for a municipality, I enforced the law when I took welfare applications and gave out welfare checks until the State took over. (Municipalies, in those days, gave temporary aid.) What I do not condone is the State violating the privacy rights of people. My objection to the State overreaching its rights hardly puts me in the position of "turning the government into the enemy" and "wanting to thwart it at every turn"!!! I just do not want the government to take away people's Constitutional rights.

Isn't that EXACTLY what the defenders of the Second Amendment cry every time anyone even says a WORD about gun control? Have you asked the NRA why it has made the government an enemy and why it wants to thwart it at every turn?

I guess you don't have to, since the NRA owns the government and the government is doing its bidding.

As another example: Your friend is in an auto accident caused by another driver. He is very injured and has no money to pay for his bills. He files a lawsuit, and goes on Medical assistance. The state asks him if he has any outstanding lawsuits, which he answers in the affirmative, which they record. His right to privacy is not absolute. His suit is settled and the first one in line is the state to recoup his medical costs. Its seems perfectly reasonable to me. So why can't the father be named.

When there is a lawsuit or when the State pursues a father who owes money, he can be named. No one should have to name him on a birth certificate if he doesn't owe anyone anything, however.

The birth certificate will not be denied. But if mom wants help, this is what she must do. Privacy or her children not receiving benefits.

Actually, under the proposed law, the birth certificate would be denied. You say "if the mom wants help", it is what she must do. Well...no. The proposed law says it is what she must do. I say the law is unconstitutional. It affects women who are not ASKING for any help. And it denies all women the constitutionally recognized right to privacy.

Illinois is so generous. I hate gov't to be attacked by everyone who wants to call everything a civil right.

Sorry, Annette. But I am actually pretty careful with language. I don't think you can accuse me of "wanting to call everything a civil right". There are several breakfast cereals on my shelf right now that I refused to call "civil rights" just this morning.

 

[amc80]

What happens if a woman uses an anonymous sperm donor?

 

[AGBF]

What happens if a woman uses an anonymous sperm donor?

Under the proposed law, she doesn't get a birth certificate for her child.