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. So what? 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? Right?
Mar 16, 2009 2:22 PM
P.J. Tobia chronicles the demise of a bill which would have allowed transsexuals to change their sex on their drivers license without having to offer up an invasion of privacy everytime they show ID:
But last week, the sponsors of the bill—Reps. Jeanne Richardson and Mike Kernell among them—withdrew the law change after the health committee tacked on an amendment proposed by Rep. Jason Mumpower. The amendment required that any change of sex on a birth certificate be reflected on the document, essentially creating a new category of sex. “A birth certificate can be amended with the designation MTF,” Mumpower tells Pith, “designating male to female, or FTM designating female to male.” Mumpower says that it’s a security issue, though he doesn't say exactly how. “During one of these operations, someone’s appearance is changed…so if someone were to present a birth certificate with a changed name and an altered appearance, the fact of gender needs to be represented.”
Apr 18, 2008 10:44 AM