- Aug 8, 2005
AGBF|1465614996|4042878 said: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.
Calliecake|1465933223|4043961 said:Thank you Gypsy for making us aware of this. I'm one of the lucky ones that has this AHOLE for our Governor!
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.redwood66|1465936195|4043980 said: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 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.redwood66|1465937674|4043994 said: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?
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.redwood66|1465939138|4044013 said: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?
smitcompton|1466012187|4044362 said: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.
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.smitcompton|1466012187|4044362 said: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.
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.smitcompton|1466012187|4044362 said: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.
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.smitcompton|1466012187|4044362 said:Illinois is so generous. I hate gov't to be attacked by everyone who wants to call everything a civil right.