As was reported by Tom Humphrey over the weekend, Rep. Stacey Campfield has once again ignited some fireworks in a state legislative committee on Wednesday of last week.
Just like last year's famous standoff with Rep. Rob Briley, at issue was Campfield's bill, HB 805, dubbed the "Baby Daddy Bill" which would allow a mechanism for paternity be disestablished in the event that a conclusive DNA test proves a previously assumed parent is not the biological father.
Rep. Jeanne Richardson raises some concerns about the bill and whether legislation is necessary. Richardson seems to be saying that the bill makes her uncomfortable because it presupposes some mass distrust of women and that there simply aren't that many cases women deliberately attempting to defraud the men in their lives about offspring to justify codification in law.
Aunt B. somewhat similarly delves into the psychology that could be behind this legislation engaging in speculation about Campfield's past interactions with women.
My question about all this is: so what?
Let's say Rep. Stacey Campfield is as demented as Aunt B. projects that he is. Let's say further that we concede that a very large majority of women are not attempting to defraud men who they have slept with and that most cases of inaccurate paternity are honest mistakes by virtuous women. Lets also concede that most all these cases are very rare exceptions from the norm.
The question at hand is: should a man be forced to pay for a child not of his line once that fact has been determined? If the answer is no then should not the law afford these men the protect they deserve regardless of the rarity of these instances and morally upstanding nature the women involved?
If the legislation would do nothing objectively "wrong" then what does the motivation for filing such legislation have to do with anything? The legislation is either just or unjust, right or wrong?