I have a problem with any elected official that begins defense of an argument by saying to a female colleague "If I had sex with you..."

Whoa!!! Careful there Mr. Kleinheider!

You're attempting to be rational!

kudos, actually. The novelty of debating a proposal on its merits may have some appeal.

God, I love the Southern accent. I almost forgot that "men" has two syllables.

Should men who are not the father of a child (biologically or via legal adoption) should be forced to pay child support for that child simply because a woman claimed wrongly (whether mistakenly or intentionally) that he is the father?

Of course not.

Pass Campfield's bill, or some version of it which allows men to stop paying child support if it is proven they are not the biological father of the child.

What CC said. Don't go there, 's all.

The answer to your question is, "Yes." However, there are other concerns here: 1) privacy rights, 2) jurisdiction/authority (i.e., which court?), 3) CC's point above (icky, totally uncalled for by "The Rep"), and 4) the welfare of the child.

"Wear a condom and you won't have to worry about being a parent" only applies to women, I reckon.

Campfield is lucky that Jeanne is too nice to stomp his butt. Tough enough, yes, but too nice.

A fair and just bill.

This remains the only piece of legislation proffered by Campfield which has a great deal of merit. Unfortunately, the fact that he is the sponsor of it means it's DOA because, through his own self-serving, screwball efforts, he's about as popular as a smallpox outbreak on Capitol Hill. (Actually, a smallpox outbreak might be marginally more popular up there, on the theory that, as bad as that might be, he might catch a case of it.)

ACK's point is very well taken, but this is basic politics: the messenger is inevitably part of the message. And blaming the messenger in this case is perfectly proper, because he seem to want all of the glory of being a unrepentant bombthrower ("Look at me, I'm on Drudge! Check me out! I'm on CNN!") and none of the negative consequences.

There are a couple of questions that you, though, have not answered. 1. Is a contribution of genetic material the sole and final dictate of whether a man is a father? 2. If this happens very infrequently, then why is it necessary to treat all women in Tennessee like lying bitches? Are there instances where the law assumes that all men are con-artists and you have to prove that you're not by submitting to a test or is this a case of treating women and men differently under the law? 3. What happens in cases of mistake? Chimeras are also very rare, but they happen, so a man could have different DNA in his sperm than he does in his mouth, without his knowledge. So, what if we tell him he's not the kid's father, but he really is? Will that open the State up to lawsuits? 4. Why is it so difficult for men for whom biological fatherhood is the end-all be-all of fatherhood to insist up front on DNA testing? I still think this is so cowardly. You don't really trust the woman you're fucking, but you won't be straight with her about not trusting her. Instead, you want the State to be the bad guy, because you don't have the courage to do it. That's such a crock.

Frankly, men of Tennessee, you just need to man up and stop expecting the State of Tennessee to do what you're too chicken-shit to do.

Please. This is about making the actual father responsible for the child.

No it's not. This is about making sure that a man doesn't have to support a child that's not biologically his. Did you not read the bill?

1. Is a contribution of genetic material the sole and final dictate of whether a man is a father?

YES. End of this debate.

What Roger said, as always, is worth considering too. I would only add this. From the state's point of view the only question is Father: Yes or No?

From the child's point of view, "Who is the Dad?" is the more important question. All too often there is no dad, even when fatherhood is clearly established. Sadly, the state can't do anything about that.

Yes, B, I know what the bill says. One follows the other.

Nothing makes me giggle more than Republican led "Big Government meets Big Brother" initiatives.

Who's going to pay for all this DNA testing? The state? That'll help the budget!

Are we going to put this cost back off on the "parents"? Then that constitutes an unfunded mandate that will strain individuals, and eventually the government. Anyone have any idea how many babies are born in Memphis by parents who receive some kind of government assistance for healthcare?

I haven't read the bill, but from what I've read about the bill I don't understand why can't this be a voluntary system that establishes a process for a parent to contest the paternity of a child, rather than creating the uterus police.

If people have a question about the paternity of a child, then they could seek an answer that was legally binding (though I thought this was already the case for the purpose of child support).

In short, Rep.. Campfield needs to spend more time worrying about the sewage that he's dumping rather than who's "humping" whom.

1. Is a contribution of genetic material the sole and final dictate of whether a man is a father?

YES. End of this debate.

Men still adopt, don't they?

Okay, so isn't the obvious solution to this to modify the law so that a woman can't just put a man on the birth certificate, but that the man has to consent to being placed on it?

Then, it's on the man to decide whether and what kind of proof of paternity he needs. That would be his shot--when he finds out there's a kid in need of a name on a birth certificate and that he's a candidate.

Doesn't requiring consent to be on the birth certificate make much more sense than all this "women are lying bitches" legislation?

If you have been present when a child learns the man held out to be its father was in a victim of paternity you'd know it was nothing short of feminist child abuse.
Thanks Stacey Campfield for helping put and end to this insanity.

Goldie,
Are there many instances of legal adoptive parents who then contest signing adoption papers? Seems kind of stange if there are.

Of course people hate this bill. It makes complete sense.

That's not the point, Bob (although the custody situation is always messy when adoptive parents divorce). You're saying that the genetic material is the sole and final dictate of whether or not someone is a father. But in the eyes of the law, an adoptive father of a minor child is the true father responsible for that child's well-being, regardless of who donated the genetic material.

Shorter Republican apologists: Getting the government off your back and putting it between your sheets.

Ha, Andy wins the internet today.

>Okay, so isn’t the obvious solution to this to modify the law so that a woman can’t just put a man on the birth certificate, but that the man has to consent to being placed on it?

This is already the case. No man's name goes on a birth certificate without his consent. And in the case of an unmarried couple, the man has to explicitly waive his right to a DNA test as part of the proceedings to establish child support.

Hasn't the Supreme Court already ruled that men must still continue to pay child support for children conceived during a marriage even if the child is proven not to be his own? I seem to remember a case from earlier in the decade that dealt with this issue.

I don't understand why the legislation is needed.

Every child has a right to know who his or her biological parents are because that may have a profound impact on the child's future health. Not to mention the health of his or her children.

Along those lines, what about the rights of the grandchildren?

Then there is the issue of child support and why everyone has a right not to have to pay for deadbeat dads. Talk about taxation without representation.

The debate should be bout public policy not about the question of who has the more important right.

Aunt B,

No problem.

I hoped my view was a bit more nuanced.

You need to re read the bill

Don't worry I am use to your gross mis characterizations of my legislation.

If we take Rep. Campfield's arguments at face value, wouldn't Aunt B.'s comment at 4:09 pm (obtain father's consent for the BC) be a perfectly reasonable alternative?

Bob,

The right of a child to full medical information (not to mention the ability to ask about organ donation or other assisance) would seem to trump the rights of adults.

But my larger point is that this is a perfect eample of what happens when we substitute debates about conflicting 'rights' for debtes about the merits of conflicting public policy ends and means.

I am not diminishing the concept of Rights but all Rights have limits imposed by other Rights. Even the Right to Free Speech has key restrictions. We allow restrictions on who can participate in Democracy on an arbitrary point of age.

You cannot prove that the rights of adoptive parents are greater than the rights of children who might have future genetic-based medical conditions and I cannot prove the converse.

That is the practical limit of all this debate on Rights. At some point we need to shape policy and tend the garden in this best of all possible worlds.

Pay women plenty of money (instead of only 75% of a man's pay). They can then support their own children. No one would care about the father.

"I don’t understand why the legislation is needed."

Who could possibly care about a man getting tricked into supporting some skank's kids?

I'm late to this debate, but here is my 2cents worth:

If a non-biological, non-adoptive man becomes divorced from his wife, who is the biological or adoptive mother of a child then he should not have to pay child support - UNLESS - he knew beforehand that he was not the biological father and continued to be a dad to the child voluntarily.

Apparently someone must have missed all the Maury Pauvich "Who's my Baby's Daddy" episodes. It shouldn't matter what the situation is if a man has proved via DNA evidence that he is NOT the father he should not have to pay child support. I doubt the courts would grant someone visitation against the mother's wishes to a man that is not the father.

And he should not have to pay for it. Regardless of the woman's intentions, if she can't figure out who the real father is maybe she should go see Maury.

As a former single-parent, I speak from experience. Child support court is a joke. Some get way more than they deserve and others just get the shaft, and that goes for both sides. I'm sure they could feel better about getting screwed if it was actually their kid.
They should pass this bill and take a look at some of the actual fathers' who shirk their responsiblities.

This whole debate could be stopped by one thing. Do what you promised to do when you got married, if you are not married obstinance is the answer. If you are not having sex with someone you are not married to you have a 100% chance of not getting pregnant, or of getting someone pregnant. I have 5 children I think they are my offspring, but there is an old saying "Mamma's Baby, Daddy's maby. Who knows for sure. Especially now that no one has any morals anymore.

Britney. You need some educating on condoms, look up there effectiveness, its far from 100%. the only birth controle that is 100% is abstinance. Cross your legs and don't bend over.

I am a duped paternity fraud victim. The perpetrator and the courts are violating our constitutional rights. I don't see how any of you can find justice in making all the innocent victims pay (child, non-biological man, immediate family, extended families). There are so many bad implications to continuing this lie that you really need to research the facts to find that there is no substitute for the truth. Relationships are not built on trust not lies and if they are then they collapse. Why would you build a relationship with a child based on lies? People that think finding out that the child that you once thought was biologically yours is couldn’t be more hurtful. I had a vasectomy and she knew the child was not mine and now I cannot have children. The child grew wise and figured out that I was not his biological father and I tried for 2 years to get counseling for us and she has full custody and denied it. I asked for a DNA test at the time of the divorce and wished to adopt, because I knew this was going to happen. Now there is no relationship with the child and she gets the money just like she wanted. Stop allowing lies, deception, fraud, perjury to be acceptable in our laws. This is good for no one but the perpetrator. It is up to the woman to tell the truth, if they have slept with someone else and not for the man to mistrust or disbelieve her. I don’t think most women would and should find it acceptable for men to distrust them, but if these are the kind of laws we wish to continue to allow innocent victims to be punished for, then how can there be trust. This goes way beyond money. This is sticking a knife into your heart with the way the domestic court system not only takes a child away from a fit parent, but then gets abused by the perpetrator and the laws that continue to allow this to happen. Please have a heart and a conscience and don’t base this on money, base it on right and wrong and you will have your answer. I have yet to see a woman pay for a man's child from an adulterous affair: After they get divorced and he has custody of another woman’s child.

US Citizens Against Paternity Fraud recognizes Tennessee Rep. Stacy Campfield and Sen. Dewayne Bunch for supporting House Bill HB805 during the 2009 session.

Google "paternity fraud" for more information about the four ways that men become a victims of paternity fraud. Please warn our teenage sons and military men.

Carnell Smith PfV - Founder
US Citizens Against Paternity Fraud

I like the idea. Thanks Fresh Coupons

In a situation as life-altering and financially significant as responsibility for a child, men deserve legal protection against possible abuse of their good faith.

We've all been victims of misplaced trust at some time or another ... and why, just last week ... well, never mind. In some circumstances, we have no recourse, legal or otherwise, and just have to suck it up as lessons learned. But the law does protect us in other instances, even when we have been ignorant and foolish in our trust and decisions -- see current examples in the news.

In this situation involving belief in paternity, with the ensuing years of child support, there should be legal protection for males even if they initially waive it in some way, because of good faith in the mother, and allow their names on a birth certificate, etc.

I just want to keep the readers posted as to who actually voted against this bill.

Representatives voting no were: Armstrong, Barker, Bone, Borchert, Camper, Cobb C, Coleman, DeBerry L, Fitzhugh, Gilmore, Hackworth, Harmon, Jones S, Maddox, Moore, Naifeh, Odom, Pruitt, Richardson, Shaw, Shepard, Sontany, Stewart, Turner L, Turner M -- 25.
Representatives present and not voting were: Dean, McDonald, Towns -- 3.

Sorry, Mark, you got in there ahead of me. I was addressing Campfield, obviously.

In a manner that makes it even more confusing. So, your law would only allow men who discover that they are not the biological father to get out of paying child support if the biological father could be located and convinced to pay child support? Who's going to compel the biological father to have a DNA test?

Now that we've talked about it and actually read the bill, I remove my objection to it, because it is hilariously stupid and I cannot wait to see the lawsuits that come out of it.

Bring it on, I say!

Every child has a right to know who his or her biological parents are because that may have a profound impact on the child

all isues are covered in the bill