babble: Intimate Details Disclosure

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » walking the talk » feminism » Intimate Details Disclosure

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: Intimate Details Disclosure

Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 12 August 2002 08:35 PM

Last October, a Florida law was enacted that required pregnant women considering adoption, including underaged women, to post newspaper notices with information on their sexual history, including date and place of conception, to identify the father. This has now been challenged by six women. In July, a County Circuit Judge ruled that this law is only unconstitutional in cases of rape.

See the article at this location:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2DB12081

From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 12 August 2002 10:13 PM

From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 12 August 2002 10:43 PM

"Flabbergasted" doesn't BEGIN to describe my reaction to that asinine law.

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 13 August 2002 12:02 AM

Back to the middle ages.

From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

dale cooper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2946

posted 13 August 2002 01:32 AM

... and in the southern US of all places....

From: Another place | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 13 August 2002 02:55 AM

What I find most frightening about this is that it could be decided by Bush to force it in all the states, then Canada won't be far behind or that someone in Canada's government will like the idea and enact it here. The system already insists on giving a woman's address to her abuser when they force the issues of child support into court and the policy is that no protection for the woman is needed until the abuser actually does something to her. Just coming to her door doesn't count. How many guys named this way will try to get back at the women?

From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 13 August 2002 03:19 AM

I'm rather confused. I just don't understand what the point is... unless it is to encourage women to opt for abortion instead of adoption. You'd think the right to lifers, who have been touting adoption as an alternative would be up in arms about this. (he says with tongue in cheek)

The article seems to leave out some stuff. Is the obstensive point of the law to give the errent fathers the chance to claim the child before he/she is given up for adoption?

From: London | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 August 2002 12:54 PM

If that IS the point, Tommy, then how long do you figure it will be before women who want abortions will also have to do that, so that the bio-father will have a say in whether she goes through with it?

Jesus. This is just so wrong on so many levels.

Why not just put her in stocks in front of city hall with a big sign that says "SLUT" hanging over her head? I guess the good news about this is that there will be less closed adoptions because women will no longer be willing to give their children up for adoption as long as they have to do something demeaning like that.

How much do you want to bet that receiving welfare benefits, having abortions, and giving a child up for adoption will ALL require the same thing eventually.

Great idea, Brother-Of-Shrub. You wanker.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 August 2002 12:55 PM

P.S. I'll bet they'll scrap this law as soon as the names of rich and powerful men who knock up their secretaries, babysitters, and interns start showing up in the paper.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 August 2002 01:17 PM

This is very close indeed to the plot of Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter -- even your last joke fits, Michelle.

Surely this will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and surely they will have to overturn it. Surely.

Anyone still in any doubt about the existence of the patriarchy? This, for the information of the defensive doubters who take feminism as a personal attack on their wee selves, is the face of the patriarchy. And it is just as vomitworthy now as it was in Salem, Mass., in the C19, not to mention the C17.

From: gone | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826

posted 13 August 2002 01:19 PM

That state just gets weirder and weirder.

Why would they need to publish it in a paper?

Why wouldn't she just have to legally notify the father when she signs to have her child adopted?

WTF?

And you're right, how, oh, HOW is this supposed to encourage adoption over abortion? What's next? Red frocks coming in the mail for all women who are unmarried and fertile?

From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 13 August 2002 01:20 PM

What's good for the goose ostensibly being good for the gander, perhaps the next step in Florida will be for men to have to publish the names and descriptions of all of their sex partners before they are eligible for assistance so that the women who they have impregnated can locate them. That way, the state could ascertain that the men haven't shirked their fatherly responsibilities and forced the state to support their offspring. The men could then be forced to marry the mother...oh, unless there's more than one, in which case the state might have to reconsider its position on bigamy.

From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 August 2002 01:27 PM

Yeah, but can't you just see that, andrean? There are some guys who will be only too happy to do so, and maybe add on an extra few names just to add to the perception of their prowess. A more public extension of the locker-room talk - "Yeah, I f--ked her and her and her AND her sister!"

Right the hell on, skdadl, everything you said. This is completely obnoxious. And it's been going on for a year already? Geez. Totally classist thing too - because probably most women who give their children up for adoption are either teenagers or impoverished women. It's probably not going to affect too many female lawyers and judges and engineers since they would have enough money to keep the child or, if they don't want the child, have an abortion.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 13 August 2002 01:29 PM

quote:
Yeah, but can't you just see that, andrean? There are some guys who will be only too happy to do so, and maybe add on an extra few names just to add to the perception of their prowess. A more public extension of the locker-room talk - "Yeah, I f--ked her and her and her AND her sister!"

They wouldn't care to brag about it if it meant money out of their pockets each month.

Edited to add:

quote:
Surely this will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and surely they will have to overturn it. Surely.

Shurely to Gawd. I can't see even the current Supremes letting this stand. I could be wrong, though.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 February 2003 08:59 PM

Hey, this is the old thread with our original reactions to the Florida sex disclosure law. Neat.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: